[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
It failed to feed out of the box. A gunsmith worked on it, but I have ZERO faith in the weapon and gave it to my drunk brother.
[/quote]
There’s some brotherly love right there! LOL![/quote]
He’s a reservation special. I’d rather his weapons not work.
One time I was driving in his truck and a huge “flap” of paint came off the hood of his rez-rocket (what we call crappy cars) and stuck on the windshield (like a foot square piece). He look me straight in the eye and told me he was letting Mother Earth sand the car for him.
[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
Sad to hear that about Sig. Guess we’ll need to spring for Kimbers!
How about a Kimber Solo, Bill? I think it’s DAO though.
[/quote]
It seems to be DA/SA, as they claim “Then there is the single action striker-fired trigger pull - even and smooth.” But as to whether it can be carried cocked-and-locked or the first pull is always DA, I don’t know. I really liked this when first seeing something about it, but at that time the gun wasn’t actually out. Maybe it is now? [/quote]
One owner of it says it is SAO.
I’d seen before that there had been earlier production of it that was awful and Kimber stopped producing the gun for an extended time, to re-engineer it. At least many of the new-production guns have happy and satisfied owners.
So what does a person do in a case like that? Sell the unfixable, utterly-unreliable gun to a sucker (I’d find that unethical and personally could not do it, unless explaining to the person my exact experience, in which case it could well fail to ever sell) or eat the rather large financial loss?
There are other reports of recent-purchase guns being lemons:
Hypothetically though perhaps they could have been first-run guns regardless of the recent sale date.
This one may or may not have been early production, but even if so, Kimber customer service appears to have been worthless in this case, as the gun was returned still not working. Either way would be bad, whether it was early production and Kimber with the acknowledged engineering problems of those guns and Kimber did not make it right, or whether it was the newer production and this design does not work reliably either:
Another aspect comes in when, as is the case with the quality level of most guns, that one has to run through the gun a large number of the exact personal defense rounds that one will be using. First, obviously this is a large added expense. Second, while it can catch lemons, actually it does much less than one might think towards proving reliability!
What has actually been learned statistically from a number of tries (Call that number n) without failure, if no other information exists beyond a stipulation that risk of failure is acknowledged to not be absolutely zero – is that the probability of failure within the next n tries is 50%.
And that is assuming no changes in the system: it’s neglecting springs weakening, parts coming loose, parts coming that much closer to breaking, etc.
So for example, if having fired from new 200 rounds of expensive personal defense ammo without a failure and having no other information (such as track record of that model of HK, or what have you) then the only warranted level of confidence is 50% chance of failure within the next 200 rounds, or 2.5% chance of failure within the next 10 rounds.
Bleh.
Worse, people tend to base their confidence on results less demanding than the above. For example, having two failures within the first 50 rounds and then having a string of 200 shots without failure, they’ll consider the gun proven. Yet there might have been no actual performance difference involved, but only chance as to where the failures fell. So the gun’s failure rate may be best estimated, from the available data, as 2 per 250 rounds, or 0.08 failures per 10 rounds. Eight percent chance of failure in the course of needing to shoot 10 rounds.
So what did those 200 successful shots in a row prove? Not so much as the owner hoped.
(It would be a better plan to break the gun in with a planned amount of cheap ammo, so that some initial wear occurs, and then conduct the test starting at a pre-planned point, after which all failures will be counted as real failures rather than excused.)
Because of the above, it’s quite desirable to have other information besides what is obtained in such a test, namely, for the model of gun to have such an excellent track record that probability of failure is properly estimated as very low right from the moment of opening the box.
With many models of gun, not intending to particularly pick on this one, unfortunately that’s hardly the case.
Johnnytang’s suggestion of the Makarov is getting me rethinking. If Teddy Jacobson (Actions by T) is still in business, an undoubtedly-reliable and nice-shooting pocket-size gun could be had for a quite low price. Actually that would be true even if Teddy has retired, but if he hasn’t then all the more advantage to the Makarov.
The 380 ACP vs 9mm difference may not necesarily be as much as often thought, particularly if restricting the 9mm to standard pressure, as is the case with the Diamondback.
The Double Tap 380 ACP from a Makarov-length barrel (3.8") should be, from published data anyway, as powerful as standard pressure 9mm from a 3" barrel such as the Diamondback has. About 255 or 260 ft lb either way. That is based on numbers posted in a previous version but edited out now as being tedious.
We’re used to the idea of 380 ACP always being weaker, but when limiting the 9mm to standard pressure and only 3", then it’s not necessarily so! Standard pressure and 3" barrel length isn’t such a good situation for 9mm, and it seems the Double Tap is remarkably decent for 380 ACP. Though still well short of course of 9mm not suffering the above handicaps.
I wanna play. Top left Glock 19 9mm (EDC gun), top right Gen 4 Glock 22 .40(house/BOB gun) and dead center my new safe Queen Sig Sauer P226 Elite Scorpion. Not pictured Glock 30 .45 ACP, Baretta Nano 9mm, Bersa thunder .380 and 2 Ruger Mark III .22’s, along with other misc long guns, including my AR (LMT CQB 16 .223/5.56)
Finally feel I have all the necessary pistols, the Sig was the first pistol I bought because I wanted it.
Going to start working on more long guns this year, first of which being some kind of .308 bolt action. Right now the front runner for a working gun is the Savage 11/111 Hog Hunter.
Nice collection! If I had to pick one bolt action rifle, I think it would the Ruger Gunsite Scout. I just like the looks of it vs. more traditional hunting rifles.
Nice collection! If I had to pick one bolt action rifle, I think it would the Ruger Gunsite Scout. I just like the looks of it vs. more traditional hunting rifles.
[/quote]
Thank you. That rifle is on the long list of rifles I WILL own. First things first is a replacement hunting rifle. I want something I can use to shoot dinner then build a deck with. Much like my Glocks, I’m looking for necessary guns once that’s out of the way then comes want guns ie the Scout.
Got to see a Scout at the range the other weekend and let me just say, pictures do nothing for that gun it’s even more beautiful in person. The owner offered to let me shoot it but I knew that one shot and I’d break the bank to own it.
On Kimber customer service it must be a little spotty. One of my coworkers had the pro carry with a rail. The gun had a lot of problems. He called customer service and they had him send it back. It came back with a new slide and barrel. We knew that because his original gun had the external extractor and when it came back it had an internal extractor. I think he paid shipping one way and that was it.
On the breaking in of the gun I have heard of running 400 or more rounds through it before cleaning but a gunsmith told me you should not have to do it. He also told me more damage gets done on tear down and reassembly than usually happens during shooting. Not necessarily related but I thought it was valuable information.
On the makarov I have seen one that was not reliable. I saw a frustrated owner that could not run a magazine without a failure to feed. Possibly a bad magazine but l concluded that was the gun I hoped the bad guys were carrying.
On the subject of the .380 you might checkout the ppk/ppks walther. I have the interarms version. Nice trigger more accurate than I can shoot it. They have a heavy recoil spring so they seem to like full house and +p loads. It is small and takes a little getting used to but works well. Might get cool guy points for being a Bond gun. Easy to conceal, if that is the intended purpose.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pat, that is surely one of, if not these most powerful handguns available, but alas it is still a handgun cartridge and thus doesn’t even measure up, ballistics wise, to say, the common, ordinary 30.06.[/quote]
That calls for a competition!
Nice collection! If I had to pick one bolt action rifle, I think it would the Ruger Gunsite Scout. I just like the looks of it vs. more traditional hunting rifles.
[/quote]
Not bolt action but as a product of the '80s, I want a Ruger Mini-14 in A-Team trim. So what if they could never hit anyone? They didn’t need to!
I hear the newer ones are actually decently accurate and reliable.
Yeah it’s ridiculous in every possible way, but what the hell. I like a gun with some stopping power. This one will stop a charging rhino on PCP.
The one the left is the ‘carry’ version… :)[/quote]
If this is your first gun, I strongly recommend against a .500 Mag. The ammo is crazy expensive to shoot, the recoil will make you wish you were somewhere else, and just all around isn’t a fun gun for long. Most people buy it just to look at it.
I had a friend who bought a super redhawk in .454 Casull as his first gun. Shot it once. I think it’s sold now. The .500 Mag is more powerful.
Of all the guns I own, I shoot .22LR the most. You can shoot all day for $10 and STILL make it to the gym.
If you want to go big, you can always go .700 Nitro Express. It’s about 3-4x as powerful as the .500 S&W Mag.
Yeah it’s ridiculous in every possible way, but what the hell. I like a gun with some stopping power. This one will stop a charging rhino on PCP.
The one the left is the ‘carry’ version… :)[/quote]
If this is your first gun, I strongly recommend against a .500 Mag. The ammo is crazy expensive to shoot, the recoil will make you wish you were somewhere else, and just all around isn’t a fun gun for long. Most people buy it just to look at it.
I had a friend who bought a super redhawk in .454 Casull as his first gun. Shot it once. I think it’s sold now. The .500 Mag is more powerful.
Of all the guns I own, I shoot .22LR the most. You can shoot all day for $10 and STILL make it to the gym.
If you want to go big, you can always go .700 Nitro Express. It’s about 3-4x as powerful as the .500 S&W Mag.[/quote]
Nah, my first choice is the .357. I like everything about it. plenty of fire power, easy to own and maintain, crazy accurate. That’s what I am planning on getting.
I wouldn’t buy it (the 500) unless I shot it first to see how it is. I just like it’s absurdity. In a ‘big gun’ contest, you will always win.
The price tags on them all say “Man Up!” That speaks to me.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pat, that is surely one of, if not these most powerful handguns available, but alas it is still a handgun cartridge and thus doesn’t even measure up, ballistics wise, to say, the common, ordinary 30.06.[/quote]
That calls for a competition![/quote]
There really isn’t any competition among handguns unless you let Thompson Contenders into the game. And TC’s will be sporting rifle calibers.
A moderately loaded 30.06 with a 180 gr. bullet is going to produce 2900+ ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. An aggressively loaded .50 Mag cartridge even with a big, fat 400 gr. bullet is only going to make about 2500.
[/quote]
Well, technically speaking if you want something more powerful than a hand gun, then you get a rifle. Nothing against rifles, I just like hand guns.
For comparison if wanting one-handed power, the Mossberg 500 Chainsaw shot one-handed (which is amazingly surprisingly easy to do) with Federal Power Shok 12-gauge buckshot provides 1700 ft lb of energy and a recoil energy of 26.6 ft lb, which is like a 45-70 Gov’t in a 7 lb rifle. However it feels like a push rather than a snappy crack.
The S&W 500 Magnum provides varying energies, but for example the more powerful choice from Winchester is 400 grains at 1800 fps with 2877 ft lb of energy. The corresponding recoil energy - the energy delivered to your hand - is 55.3 ft lb, which is greater than a 50 BMG from a 30 lb rifle!! (Reportedly 43.2 ft lb.)
I’m estimating 20 grains powder for the shotgun and 45 grains powder for the S&W, which may not be quite right.
And I expect (have not tried it) that the feel of the S&W is about 100.00% towards the sharp “crack” direction rather than the “push” direction!
Well, technically speaking if you want something more powerful than a hand gun, then you get a rifle. [/quote]
Correct. I have (and others have) posted this before, but handguns are what you use to fight your way to your rifle. They are horribly ineffective at stopping a threat instantly. Unless you get a CNS hit, they poke holes in people until they bleed to death, even a heart shot.
Pretty much portability and concealability are their advantages.
In a fight between a guy with a lowly Ruger 10/22 with a 25 round mag and decent ammo and guy with the pistol of his choice, I’d pick the guy with the rifle.
