Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

It is time to explain The Aglockalypse.

 

ixYdE1e.jpg

This is the handgun that killed handgun design in the West.  Nobody has had any new ideas worth mentioning on the mechanical design of service handguns since this design came out.  Almost every major arms manufacturer in the West makes what is materially a Glock clone; albeit with a few small embellishments and their own logo stamped on the side.

 

What Makes a Glock a Glock?

 

Almost every mechanical contrivance in small arms design was invented about one hundred years ago by some Austro-Hungarian noble you've never heard of or by John Moses Browning.  It's about 50/50.  Most of small arms design these days consists of applying new materials and manufacturing techniques to old ideas (which may have been unworkable at the time), or by taking a lot of old ideas from different sources and mixing them together in some way that's complimentary.  The Glock pistol design is no exception; the ideas were not novel, but putting them all together proved an absolutely world-beating combination.

 

1)  Polymer Frame

 

1024px-Vp70z.jpg

An H&K VP-70, the first production polymer-framed pistol.

 

Polymer-framed pistols were not an original idea, but at the debut of the Glock 17 they were still a fairly new idea.  Glock proved the concept to be mature, and it provided the Glock with a huge advantage over the competition.

Traditional metal-framed pistols are made by taking a hunk of metal, either a casting, billet or forging, and cutting away everything that isn't pistol-shaped:

5BfbGnT.jpg

 

This translates to a lot of machine time and a lot of expensive alloys that end up as shavings on the floor.  The frame of the Glock was much faster and cheaper to make.  Some metal inserts were put into an injection mold (which admittedly is an expensive device, but you pay for it once), and then hot, liquid plastic was squirted into this cavity to form the frame.  The entire process takes less than a minute.  Cost-wise there is no way for a metal-framed pistol to compete with a polymer-framed one, apples to apples.  For very large contracts the math tilts even further in favor of injection molding, since one-time capital costs are a large percentage of injection molding costs while ongoing costs are smaller, while ongoing costs for machining stay largely the same.  Gaston Glock was very aggressive about pursuing large contracts (notably the NYPD, which was an early coup), which helped him best use this advantage.
 

2)  The Glock locking system

 

bjbfLgA.gif

 

Glocks use a linkless Browning tilting-barrel short recoil system and lock the slide to the barrel via a large rectangular lug machined into the barrel that fits into the ejection port.  Glocks were the second major pistol design to combine these two concepts, the first being the SiG P220 series.JgBD7mJ.jpg

Ejection port of a Webley automatic pistol, showing the square breech section of the barrel locked to the slide via the ejection port.  The barrel translates diagonally.

 

XO2pznC.gif

Cross section of a Browning hi-power.  This was the first mass-produced pistol to use the linkless short recoil system.  The barrel locks to the slide via a series of rings in the barrel that tilt into corresponding grooves in the slide.

 

800px-SIG220-Morges_two_sides.jpg

SiG P220

This operating system is robust and reliable, and fairly easy to manufacture.  It has a few theoretical flaws, such as the barrel being slightly off-angle during the extraction of the spent case, the pivot sitting below the barrel and thereby raising the bore axis, and the necessary clearances for the movement of the barrel degrading accuracy.  In practice these objections are immaterial.  Glocks are absurdly reliable, have a low enough bore axis and only a unusually skilled shooters would notice the mechanical contributions of the precision of the pistol over their own wobbling aim.

 

3)  The Glock Fire Control System

 

7njZDXg.jpg

 

The Glock fire control group is an elegant combination of several ideas.  Again, most of the ideas in the Glock fire control group had antecedents, but their combination and execution in the Glock was very clever.  The trigger transfer bar is a complex shape, but it is stamped from sheet metal and so quite cheap to produce.  It also combines several functions into a single piece, including enough safeties that Glocks are reasonably safe to carry even though they lack an external safety.

 

The complete lack of a machined metal hammer, and the clever trigger dingus-lever were also cost savings over traditional pistol design.

 

There are several other incidental design features of the Glock pistol, but these three are in my opinion the ones that allowed it to gobble up market share because they economized manufacture.  They are also the three features that the overwhelming majority of Western pistols designed since the Early '80s copy unashamedly.

 

Victims of the Aglockalypse

 

When Gaston Glock first entered his creation in the Austrian Army pistol competition, nobody in arms design had heard of the guy.  Longstanding Austrian arms company Steyr was quite confident that their own GB pistol would win the competition.

 

Steyr_GB_%28parabellum_pl%29.jpg

This is basically the pistol equivalent of the couple making out in the back of a convertible at night in a horror movie.  It is remembered only as the first in a long list of casualties.

 

Instead, not only was the Steyr GB to lose the competition, but it would fade from the marketplace without making much of an impression anywhere.  This is a shame, in my opinion, because the Steyr GB has a few good ideas that deserve a second look, such as the two-position-feed magazines (seen otherwise only in rifles, SMGs and Russian pistol designs), and the truckbed-liner crinkle finish.  The design also has some good features for economy of production and excellent mechanical precision, but really, on the whole, it's completely inferior to the Glock.  These pistols have a really poor reputation for being unreliable and wearing out quickly, and while Steyr fans will claim this is in large part due to inferior license-produced versions from the United States, nobody argues that even the Steyr-made GBs have anything on the nearly bomb-proof Glock.  Also, they're enormous.

 

As far as the Glock was concerned, the Steyr GB was just the first blood.  It wasn't enough to best a local competitor; the Glock would obsolete an entire generation of automatic pistol designs.

 

In neighboring Germany, Heckler and Koch's flagship pistol offering was the P7.  The P7 has many admirable features.  Like the Steyr GB it has a fixed barrel and excellent mechanical precision.  It is also very slim and has an extremely low bore axis.  It also has the most hideously complicated fire control system ever seen in a pistol that isn't a revolver:

 

hwWjpJo.jpg

 

A pistol like the P7 could simply never be made cost-competitive with the Glock, much less by a company like HK which usually errs on the side of high performance rather than low cost.

 

Walther, the other big German small arms manufacturer, was busy making the P5:

 

Waltherp5.jpg

 

No, the picture isn't reversed.  The ejection port is indeed on the left side of the P5, which is because the P5 is nothing more than a slightly re-worked P38 of World War Two vintage.  The frame is aluminum, the barrel is shorter and the fire control group has some detail improvements, but it's otherwise the same, right down to the dubious rotating-block locking system.  It didn't even have a double-column magazine.  Just another outdated design for the Glock to drop-kick into the dustbin of history.

 

Longtime Belgian designer FNH was pushing the Browning BDA, a pistol so boring that I can barely write about it while remaining awake.

 

1024px-Bda9.JPG

 

This is basically a Browning hi-power with a double action trigger somehow shoehorned in.  Given how the Browning hi-power trigger works, this is not exactly a straightforward conversion, and this would invite curiousity were it not for the fact that this pistol carries with it a highly stiffling aura of impenetrable boringness.  I seriously cannot bring myself to care.

 

Across the Atlantic, in gun-happy America the Glock would face stiff competition from hardened, skillful American firms that had more to offer than face-lifted wartime designs and botique gas-delayed guns.  The rugged American outlook on law enforcement provided a stiffly competitive market for quality peace officers' weapons.  

 

Haha, I kid.  They were just as complacent and mediocre as everyone else.

 

1024px-Ruger-P94-p1030138.jpg

 

Sturm Ruger Co, one of only two publicly traded firearms manufacturers in the US, released their P-series of pistols in the mid eighties.  It seems a little uncharitable to list these chunky pistols as victims of Glock superiority, since they sold in decent numbers and aren't terrible.  But victims they were; the design was simply outdated.

The strangest feature of the P-series pistols is that the older designs in the family use a swinging link to cam the barrel in and out of engagement with the slide.  While the swinging cam arrangement works well enough, and several fine weapons use it (e.g. 1911, Tokarev), with modern materials and manufacturing tolerances the linkless system is simply better because it doesn't produce the grinding movement caused by the short radius of the link swinging radius, and because it has fewer parts.

 

The P series was also reasonably cost-competitive because most of the parts are cast before machining to final dimensions.  Sturm Ruger has exceptional expertise in firearms castings, which has long given them the edge in pricing.  Castings can be made very closely to the final shapes required, which saves a lot of machining time.  However, this gives many of their designs a bloated, water-retaining look.

 

9xDxqtO.jpg

 

The other publicly traded firm, Smith and Wesson, was doing reasonably well with a whole family of automatic pistols that I absolutely do not care about.  They have names that end in "9", have generally Browning-ish insides, and the single stacks look pretty and elegant.  There are also some double stack variants, and some are in stainless.  Something something unbuttoned pastel shirts, designer Italian pants and cocaine.  Oh look, there goes my mind, wandering again because these pistols are BORING, MEDIOCRE AND I HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO CARE ABOUT.

 

bVBhB3O.jpg

 

OH LOOK IT'S ANOTHER PRE-GLOCK SINGLE STACK METAL FRAMED PISTOL.  This time it's from Colt.  It is a well-documented fact that Colt's senior management spent the entire 1980's doing nothing but licking their own genitals like cats.  I don't even know what this pistol is called.  Do you know what it's called?  Do you care?  Do you think Colt's management cared?  Of course not.  So let's make up a name.  We'll call it... the Colt Elantra.

 

rtRqtrG.jpg

 

This Colt pistol is more interesting, and has an operatic history.  Unfortunately, that opera is Wagner's Ring Cycle.  Nobody did anything that made sense, and by the end there was a fat lady singing and then everything burned to the ground.

 

The pistol was originally designed by Reed Knight and Eugene Stoner, who were by that time already living legends for designing the combat robots that crushed the communist menace decisively at the Battle of Arrakis.  The design was mechanically fascinating, featuring an unusual rotating barrel, roller-bearing supported striker fire control group, polymer frame with screw-on grips, and an unusual, but very appealing slide stop design.

 

Alas, Colt completely screwed up the design by making it too big, making the trigger pull too long and too heavy, and by making it not work.  Even without the stiff competition from Glock, the design would have been an ignominious failure.

 

All of the above designs, though in some cases initially successful, would face dwindling market share against the cheaper-to produce Glocks.  Their respective firms sat down and quickly came to the conclusion that they were not as clever as Gaston Glock, but that was OK since he had done the clever for them.

 

Saint Gaston Converts the Industry to Glocktholicism

 

1024px-Smith_and_Wesson_Sigma_SW9VE.JPG

 

The first of the Glock clones to hit the market, the S&W Sigma is so similar to the Glock that some of the parts will interchange:

 

This resulted in some drama, hasty design changes and a settlement payment for an undisclosed amount.

 

Next came the Walther P99:

 

1012px-Walther_P99_9x19mm.png

 

This pistol introduced the interchangeable backstrap, which was generally considered a good idea.  It also introduced several option trigger modules, including a DA/SA version with a decocker button on top of the slide.  This is bid'ah, and heresy against the Glockspel.  The great genius of the Glock is that it's simpler and cheaper to produce than competing designs.  One cannot successfully outcompete the Glock by taking a Glock and adding a bunch of extra shit to it.  Then you just have a more expensive Glock, which, ipso facto, will not outcompete an Orthodox Glock.

 

RkAXLIf.jpg

 

HK was, until recently, one of the last holdouts of Albigensianism hammer-fired handguns, being unable for some time to bring themselves to make an unabashed Glock clone.  However, their USP series is, compared to their previous offerings, quite Glocky.  They have switched to the Browning short-recoil, linkless tilting barrel design with a barrel that locks to the slide through the ejection port.

 

By 2014, however, HK had entered into full Glockmmunion, and introduced the VP9; a striker-fired, polymer framed pistol:

 

gvSirlj.jpg

 

FNH of Belgium initially responded with the FN Forty-Nine, which is like a Glock but with a DAO trigger:

 

1l6ewnh.gif

 

However, they swiftly recanted of their error and introduced the FNP, FNX and finally the FNS, an all-but-Orthodox Glock clone:

 

lkbdfSq.jpg

 

Steyr introduced the M9 series of pistols, which were actually designed by a former Glock employee!  These are basically Glocks, but slanted, with weird sights and that say "Steyr" on the side instead of "Glock."

Steyr_M-A1_M40-A1_mit_1_Magazin_und_Bloc

 

 

In 2007, Ruger was converted and introduced the SR-9:

QaufBFp.jpg

 

In 2005, S&W made a slightly more refined clone called the M&P:

MCdFI8D.jpg

 

There are several versions now, including some for blasphemers that have external safeties.

 

Colt has yet to introduce a Glock clone; their strategy regarding this portion of the handgun market remains enigmatic.

 

BdUOJT2.jpg

 

 

Survivors

 

For various reasons, a few metal-framed designs have survived and remain commercially competitive.  But there is reason to think that their days are numbered.

 

1KJQkAx.jpg

 

The Beretta M92 series is mechanically rather similar to the Walther P-39, except it has a double stack magazine.  The widespread adoption of this essentially sound, but uninspired design, by many militaries not the least of which is the US Army, has bought the design staying power.  However, the recent announcement that Beretta, too, has discovered how to stencil their own name on to the side of a Glock shows that they haven't come up with anything better either.

 

6RV6Os7.jpg

 

The CZ-75 design continues on as well, in no small part because producing a CZ-75 clone is a right of passage in Turkey that all adolescents must pass in order to be recognized as men.

 

aIQXj1D.jpg

 

Turkish CZ-75 clones are so common at firearms trade shows that they are often used for paperweights and juggling.  When there is heavy snow it is common to keep a bucket of Turkish CZ-75 clones handy to pour onto icy patches to get better traction for a stuck vehicle.

 

But the latest offering from CZ proper, the CZ P-09 is beginning to look a lot like Glock-mas:

YNwcDNC.jpg

 

Polymer frame, barrel that locks into the ejection port...  It keeps the distinctive CZ-75 slide-inside-frame and fire control group, but it's more like a Glock than a CZ-75 is.  The trendline is unmistakable.

 

There are a few other hold-outs, but by and large the firearms industry has found Glock's recipe to be compelling.  To be cost-competitive, new designs copy these innovations to a greater, rather than a lesser degree.  This has meant a stultifying lack of creativity amongst pistol manufacturers, as more and more of them decide that their best bet is to copy a thirty five year old design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saint Colli, while you have made an excellent tribute to our Messiah Gaston Glock, I believe you forgot some designs.

 

Design that was also arguably killed. (Colt SSP)

 

8788216_2.jpg?v=8CC7F0708FA0920

 

Other companies falling in line and joining the religion of the striker fired master race.

 

SIG P320

 

Ayoob-P320-Lead.jpg

 

Another shitty gun that should be excommunicated for the crime of being incredibly shitty, the HS2000 (Springfield XDm)

 

XDM94545BHC_1200x782.png

 

 

I hope this addition pleases you Saint Colli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saint Colli, while you have made an excellent tribute to our Messiah Gaston Glock, I believe you forgot some designs.

 

Design that was also arguably killed. (Colt SSP)

 

8788216_2.jpg?v=8CC7F0708FA0920

 

Other companies falling in line and joining the religion of the striker fired master race.

 

SIG P320

 

Ayoob-P320-Lead.jpg

 

Another shitty gun that should be excommunicated for the crime of being incredibly shitty, the HS2000 (Springfield XDm)

 

XDM94545BHC_1200x782.png

 

 

I hope this addition pleases you Saint Colli.

 

Oooh!  Good choices, and yes, there are many victims and clones that I did not mention.

 

You've got to wonder WTF was going on with Colt at that time.  Basically all of their automatic pistol design introductions were flops.  Rather than grit their teeth and unfuck them, they let themselves get chased out of the automatic pistol market... just in time to miss the explosion in pistol sales thanks to changes in CCW laws across most of the USA.

 

The XD has an interesting departure from the Glock where the slide actually rides on this big, machined steel insert that's pinned into the frame.  But otherwise, yeah, it's a Glock with a bunch of unnecessary crap added to it.

 

The 320 goes one better; it has a stamped insert that (it looks like from pictures) acts as the slide rails and also holds the fire control group and acts as the serialized component.  Otherwise it's fairly Glocky.

 

The idea of using a metal insert as the serialized component that has the slide rails on it is clever, and would give a manufacturer a small edge over the Glock in the US marketplace.  It's harder to injection mold a polymer frame with metal inserts in it than it is to just injection mold a solid polymer frame.

 

Furthermore, if the polymer frame is the serialized component of the gun, the ATF requires that the serial number be on a metal plaque molded into the frame.  Most firearms manufacturers don't have their own injection molding equipment, and most injection molding companies don't have a firearms manufacturing license.  So the ATF has to grant a variance in these cases.

 

By making the slide rails/FCG/serialized box a separate, pinned-in piece, SIG bypasses the FFL variance paperwork and the difficulty of molding the metal inserts into the frame.

 

It's not an enormous advantage, but at this point anyone doing anything that's actually cleverer than Glock is noteworthy.

 

How about Strike One, a Glock for those, who is sick of Glocks?

 

 

The insides of the Strike One are surprisingly un-Glocky:

 

naeNUaR.jpg

They made a big deal about the differences in the operating mechanism in one of their early presentations:

 

It's a little similar to how the P-38/M92 lockup works; there's an extra little piece that locks the barrel to the slide.  Instead of pivoting around the pitch axis like the P-38's locking piece it slides up and down.  Mechanically it's fine, although I don't think it has enormous practical advantages over the Glock design.  The big problem with their locking design is that it has a bunch of tiny corners that need to be machined inside the slide.  To make these tiny corners they use electrical discharge machinging (EDM), which is insanely precise and also insanely expensive.

 

So it's not a very good design from a cost-control standpoint.  Surprisingly, they've kept the price to about 1.5 Glock 17s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the final stages of the Aglockalypse has come. SOCOM is basically 100% Glock now (even the Rangers and SEALS). Given this, and the pressure from Milley, Glock is likely to be selected by MHS. Glock was selected by the FBI (again).

 

In ten years, no one will remember that any other handguns existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the final stages of the Aglockalypse has come. SOCOM is basically 100% Glock now (even the Rangers and SEALS). Given this, and the pressure from Milley, Glock is likely to be selected by MHS. Glock was selected by the FBI (again).

 

In ten years, no one will remember that any other handguns existed.

Where it gets really weird is when glock accidentally releases a new model that is simply a square, plastic cut-out of a gun. And nobody notices any change in unit effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the final stages of the Aglockalypse has come. SOCOM is basically 100% Glock now (even the Rangers and SEALS). Given this, and the pressure from Milley, Glock is likely to be selected by MHS. Glock was selected by the FBI (again).

 

In ten years, no one will remember that any other handguns existed.

 

I remember an unclassified writing from a Delta Force member that, like MARSOC, They were also using Glocks (either the 17 or 22 oddly enough) and STI 2011s, but stopped buying 2011s because they required a shit ton more maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CZ, noted purveyors of not-Glocks with hammers and other things won a victory over themselves:

 

16z_CZP10_R-500x372.png

 

It's a glock, with milling on the top of the slide to decrease felt recoil, and a focus on making the trigger feel good and be broken in.

 

Also, it has friend backstrap.

 

Most notable:

 

" Take-down of the P-10 will be familiar to most fans of striker-fired guns, and even more pleasing will be holster compatibility with some of the most common guns on the market. "

 

The sights look reasonably nicer than Glock standard too, and at a reasonable price. I think in a way that makes it one of the truer glocks that actually tries to be different in that it tries to improve without the addition of fiddly things.

 

I like CZ's lack of pretense about the whole thing. It's a Glock after common aftermarket mods. There ya go.

 

 

 

It looks like Remington's had a response as well in the RP9. They omitted the key features of a striker, actually reliably working with NATO ball ammo, and the only reason I know about it is my habit of looking up pistols that end up on deep sale. I also think that its ambi slide release only actually works from one side because it's weak stamped metal. In a firearms market where exciting new developments are slight elaborations upon the Glock, a Slovenian CZ99 descendent that's best described as "a lot like a P226 that's a bit more efficiently made" and the few daring souls still willing to make guns that aren't actually good, this is technically an exciting release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

The P-10 has reportedly had a bunch of teething issues, although once these are resolved I expect it to be a quite solid market offering.

 

Trigger is nothing special tho.

 

I'm not surprised one bit. The Glock trigger seems to be perfectly acceptable, and absolutely fine once broken in. The main thing CZ talks about is basically breaking theirs in beforehand. If you've fired one, is that roughly how it feels?

 

What teething issues incidentally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, xthetenth said:

 

I'm not surprised one bit. The Glock trigger seems to be perfectly acceptable, and absolutely fine once broken in. The main thing CZ talks about is basically breaking theirs in beforehand. If you've fired one, is that roughly how it feels?

 

What teething issues incidentally?

 

There are a bunch of different ones. You can get a sense by googling "cz p10c issues". I have faith in CZ as a company that they'll fix them, but I'd hold off if you're thinking of buying one.

 

The trigger just feels like a lighter Glock trigger, which is not very impressive to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much every P-10C I've used (or bought) has worked perfectly fine for me, It's like the one G19 wannabe that actually feels noticeably better than a G19 in quite a few areas to me.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is cool, how do you like it, and what do you think it does better?

 

I'm committed to getting a G19 because it is the default choice considerably easier to get accessories and support for, and by the time I've bought more mags, a happy stick, a red dot, a milled slide, a comp and a light, support for those and a holster to fit it all (especially custom safariland kydex from valhalla) is a major trait of a gun as a part of the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, xthetenth said:

That is cool, how do you like it, and what do you think it does better?

 

I'm committed to getting a G19 because it is the default choice considerably easier to get accessories and support for, and by the time I've bought more mags, a happy stick, a red dot, a milled slide, a comp and a light, support for those and a holster to fit it all (especially custom safariland kydex from valhalla) is a major trait of a gun as a part of the system.

 

My advice is always: Buy Glock, and if you don't like it you can sell it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Plus, I'm trying to get it together before a 2-gun match at the start of February so things like waiting on custom holsters and stuff isn't happening. Instead, I got a holster that was in stock, mags that were on sale, and so on and so forth.

 

In the land of the universally competent pistol, the broad ecosystem is king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, xthetenth said:

That is cool, how do you like it, and what do you think it does better?

 

I'm committed to getting a G19 because it is the default choice considerably easier to get accessories and support for, and by the time I've bought more mags, a happy stick, a red dot, a milled slide, a comp and a light, support for those and a holster to fit it all (especially custom safariland kydex from valhalla) is a major trait of a gun as a part of the system.

 

Note that for the record, I'm not not one of the hypocritical fanboys of other polymer framed, striker fired handguns that think their copy of a Glock is just so much better for.....exactly no reason other than *brand dicksucking here*, hell, I own 2 Glocks and had 2 prior to now, and tried many of their imitators, the Walther PPQ M2 was probably my favorite but even then, I ultimately went back to a G17 (traded in a G22 to get one before that since I didn't need it.) and you'll notice I usually go for full size guns and not the "compact" G19 size frames and clones because, as this will be important for why I like the P-10C better, I have big fucking hands and this often affects my gun choices. (I can do the Hollywood/video game bullshit dual wield Desert Eagle comfortably for example.....my accuracy isn't the best, but I can do it.)

 

That being said, let's get onto why the P-10C.

 

First off, going to have to disagree with Sturgeon on the trigger, anyone who's paid attention to my posts here knows I have annoyingly high standards of triggers and sights and, normally when it comes to triggers on striker fired guns, assuming we're not referring to after market mods, the P-10C is pretty much the first trigger on a striker fired Glock style tongue safety trigger that I find noticeably better, from the pull weight to the reset to travel distance, It's just a very clean trigger for a striker fired gun, and, for reference, for other striker fired polymer guns to compare to a Glock, I've tried heavily or owned:

 

Walther PPQ M2 (I'd rate the trigger as slightly better but not massively, at least not by the margin the P-10C is.)

S&W M&P (Haven't got to use many of the newer 2.0 models which have a different trigger setup, but the 1.0 triggers are horrid and this was almost the single biggest turning point on why I never bought one over a Glock.)

SIG P320 (Owned one before it was cool, overall worse trigger bar none, that wasn't the only reason I traded it in though.)

H&K VP9 (Yet another case of H&K fanboys overhyping the shit out of anything with 2 red letters on it, touted as the greatest thing to happen to striker fired guns ever, is not noticeably better than a Glock in any way aside from some arguable minor ergonomic changes despite costing more.)

FN USA FNS (about the same, nothing special but not a bad alternative by any means, haven't tried the newer 509. On an unrelated note, I'd still recommend a Glock because FNH/FN USA charge fucking murder for new magazines and other gear.)

STEEEEER M9-A1 (The *other* Austrian Striker fired polymer framed handgun, these are really nice actually and a steal for the price, better sights and great ergos for sure, as for the trigger I feel they're about even.)

Canik....anything (LOL, seriously, trigger issues are only the beginning, don't buy anything from them, their shit is horrid and all their good reviews were from already anti Glock fanboys who were paid off in gun mags basically.)

 

There's probably more I'm forgetting or simply don't want to bother talking about, but you get the Idea.

 

Second is the front cocking serrations, this doesn't need me to go into much, It's a roughly G19 length slide and I have gorilla hands so that's really useful to me, It's also a very simple thing to do.

 

The grip angle and the grip shape, along with the space in general I have for my hand from below the slide to the very bottom of the grip just fits me quite a bit better for my freakishly large hands, the P-10C also has a slightly roomier trigger guard which is good for when it's fucking cold out and I'm wearing gloves.

 

Lastly, they have an MSRP of only $500, making them an absolute steal, street price is lower obviously, but, you won't have a chance to get one if you see it for long because they're going fast right now.

 

Originally, I would've recommended the Steyr M9-A1 or L9-A1 series as "the Polymer framed, Striker fired pistol with no manual safety you should get if you absolutely hate Glock for no real reason at all.", the P-10C moved the other Austrian offering down to 2nd however (the M9-A1 series has better sights however, though pretty much all stock sights on pistols and rifles alike are dogshit and should be the first thing you change.). they're also going to be offering a 12 shot .40 S&W version at some point indicated by the owners manual to try and grab at the balls of the G23 market, so look forward to that. you said you're interested in 2 gun, in USPSA/IPSC, Open Major division has a 10mm minimum caliber requirement so guns for this bracket are pretty much always chambered in .40 S&W as said cartridge is literally just a 10mm Auto casing cut down by 3mm and set to a lower approved pressure rating.

 

.....Though to be fair, if you ever get really serious into IPSC, chances are you won't be using a striker fired, polymer framed gun.

 

 

15 hours ago, xthetenth said:

Yep. Plus, I'm trying to get it together before a 2-gun match at the start of February so things like waiting on custom holsters and stuff isn't happening. Instead, I got a holster that was in stock, mags that were on sale, and so on and so forth.

 

In the land of the universally competent pistol, the broad ecosystem is king.

 

You know, I know it's a really arrogant thing to say but, assume they actually participate in the event and don't just host it, I legit think I can beat Ian and Karl in a 2 gun match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Khand-e said:

 

You know, I know it's a really arrogant thing to say but, assume they actually participate in the event and don't just host it, I legit think I can beat Ian and Karl in a 2 gun match.

 

Do it. They're participating in that event (They're in squad one), and (disclaimer) I think their events are really cool and want them to succeed (end disclaimer). As a heads up, they are both running Classic division. If you'd like, I can ask what they'll be running again since I don't remember it off the top of my head. I'm going to be in their squad. Considering my firearms experience consists of a few hours on the twelfth, I'm probably going to do terribly.

 

Plus, believe me, Karl gets much worse than "I legit think I can beat them". I think the ones that really bug him are the armchair commandos that talk shit without being willing to put their skills on the line. Hell, he'll be the first one to admit he's not shooting as well with the time he puts into IRTV and not focusing on a single gun the way some of the other dudes can.

 

I'm probably not going to get into IPSC, the matches that Ian and Karl run are more what's got my interest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      At the end of January, 2018 and after many false starts, the Russian military formally announced the limited adoption of the AEK-971 and AEK-973 rifles.  These rifles feature an unusual counterbalanced breech mechanism which is intended to improve handling, especially during full auto fire.  While exotic outside of Russia, these counter-balanced rifles are not at all new.  In fact, the 2018 adoption of the AEK-971 represents the first success of a rifle concept that has been around for a some time.

      Earliest Origins


      Animated diagram of the AK-107/108
       
      Balanced action recoil systems (BARS) work by accelerating a mass in the opposite direction of the bolt carrier.  The countermass is of similar mass to the bolt carrier and synchronized to move in the opposite direction by a rack and pinion.  This cancels out some, but not all of the impulses associated with self-loading actions.  But more on that later.

      Long before Soviet small arms engineers began experimenting with BARS, a number of production weapons featured synchronized masses moving in opposite directions.  Generally speaking, any stabilization that these actions provided was an incidental benefit.  Rather, these designs were either attempts to get around patents, or very early developments in the history of autoloading weapons when the design best practices had not been standardized yet.  These designs featured a forward-moving gas trap that, of necessity, needed its motion converted into rearward motion by either a lever or rack and pinion.
       

      The French St. Etienne Machine Gun
       

      The Danish Bang rifle
       
      At around the same time, inventors started toying with the idea of using synchronized counter-masses deliberately to cancel out recoil impulses.  The earliest patent for such a design comes from 1908 from obscure firearms designer Ludwig Mertens:


       
      More information on these early developments is in this article on the matter by Max Popenker.
       
      Soviet designers began investigating the BARS concept in earnest in the early 1970s.  This is worth noting; these early BARS rifles were actually trialed against the AK-74.
       

      The AL-7 rifle, a BARS rifle from the early 1970s
       
      The Soviet military chose the more mechanically orthodox AK-74 as a stopgap measure in order to get a small-caliber, high-velocity rifle to the front lines as quickly as possible.  Of course, the thing about stopgap weapons is that they always end up hanging around longer than intended, and forty four years later Russian troops are still equipped with the AK-74.

      A small number of submachine gun prototypes with a BARS-like system were trialed, but not mass-produced.  The gas operated action of a rifle can be balanced with a fairly small synchronizer rack and pinion, but the blowback action of a submachine gun requires a fairly large and massive synchronizer gear or lever.  This is because in a gas operated rifle a second gas piston can be attached to the countermass, thereby unloading the synchronizer gear.

      There are three BARS designs of note from Russia:

      AK-107/AK-108
       


      The AK-107 and AK-108 are BARS rifles in 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm respectively.  These rifles are products of the Kalashnikov design bureau and Izmash factory, now Kalashnikov Concern.  Internally they are very similar to an AK, only with the countermass and synchronizer unit situated above the bolt carrier group.


       

      Close up of synchronizer and dual return spring assemblies

      This is configuration is almost identical to the AL-7 design of the early 1970s.  Like the more conventional AK-100 series, the AK-107/AK-108 were offered for export during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but they failed to attract any customers.  The furniture is very similar to the AK-100 series, and indeed the only obvious external difference is the long tube protruding from the gas block and bridging the gap to the front sight.
       
      The AK-107 has re-emerged recently as the Saiga 107, a rifle clearly intended for competitive shooting events like 3-gun.
       

       
      AEK-971

      The rival Kovrov design bureau was only slightly behind the Kalashnikov design bureau in exploring the BARS concept.  Their earliest prototype featuring the system, the SA-006 (also transliterated as CA-006) also dates from the early 1970s.



      Chief designer Sergey Koksharov refined this design into the AEK-971.  The chief refinement of his design over the first-generation balanced action prototypes from the early 1970s is that the countermass sits inside the bolt carrier, rather than being stacked on top of it.  This is a more compact installation of the mechanism, but otherwise accomplishes the same thing.


       

      Moving parts group of the AEK-971

      The early AEK-971 had a triangular metal buttstock and a Kalashnikov-style safety lever on the right side of the rifle.



      In this guise the rifle competed unsuccessfully with Nikonov's AN-94 design in the Abakan competition.  Considering that a relative handful of AN-94s were ever produced, this was perhaps not a terrible loss for the Kovrov design bureau.

      After the end of the Soviet Union, the AEK-971 design was picked up by the Degtyarev factory, itself a division of the state-owned Rostec.



      The Degtyarev factory would unsuccessfully try to make sales of the weapon for the next twenty four years.  In the meantime, they made some small refinements to the rifle.  The Kalashnikov-style safety lever was deleted and replaced with a thumb safety on the left side of the receiver.


       
      Later on the Degtyarev factory caught HK fever, and a very HK-esque sliding metal stock was added in addition to a very HK-esque rear sight.  The thumb safety lever was also made ambidextrous.  The handguard was changed a few times.



      Still, reception to the rifle was lukewarm.  The 2018 announcement that the rifle would be procured in limited numbers alongside more conventional AK rifles is not exactly a coup.  The numbers bought are likely to be very low.  A 5.56mm AEK-972 and 7.62x39mm AEK-973 also exist.  The newest version of the rifle has been referred to as A-545.

      AKB and AKB-1


      AKB-1


      AKB


      AKB, closeup of the receiver

      The AKB and AKB-1 are a pair of painfully obscure designs designed by Viktor Kalashnikov, Mikhail Kalashnikov's son.  The later AKB-1 is the more conservative of the two, while the AKB is quite wild.

      Both rifles use a more or less conventional AK type bolt carrier, but the AKB uses the barrel as the countermass.  That's right; the entire barrel shoots forward while the bolt carrier moves back!  This unusual arrangement also allowed for an extremely high cyclic rate of fire; 2000RPM.  Later on a burst limiter and rate of fire limiter were added.  The rifle would fire at the full 2000 RPM for two round bursts, but a mere 1000 RPM for full auto.

      The AKB-1 was a far more conventional design, but it still had a BARS.  In this design the countermass was nested inside the main bolt carrier, similar to the AEK-971.

      Not a great deal of information is available about these rifles, but @Hrachya H wrote an article on them which can be read here.
       
       
    • By Collimatrix
      Tank design is often conceptualized as a balance between mobility, protection and firepower.  This is, at best, a messy and imprecise conceptualization.  It is messy because these three traits cannot be completely separated from each other.  An APC, for example, that provides basic protection against small arms fire and shell fragments is effectively more mobile than an open-topped vehicle because the APC can traverse areas swept by artillery fires that are closed off entirely to the open-topped vehicle.  It is an imprecise conceptualization because broad ideas like "mobility" are very complex in practice.  The M1 Abrams burns more fuel than the Leo 2, but the Leo 2 requires diesel fuel, while the omnivorous AGT-1500 will run happily on anything liquid and flammable.  Which has better strategic mobility?  Soviet rail gauge was slightly wider than Western European standard; 3.32 vs 3.15 meters.  But Soviet tanks in the Cold War were generally kept lighter and smaller, and had to be in order to be moved in large numbers on a rail and road network that was not as robust as that further west.  So if NATO and the Warsaw Pact had switched tanks in the late 1950s, they would both have downgraded the strategic mobility of their forces, as the Soviet tanks would be slightly too wide for unrestricted movement on rails in the free world, and the NATO tanks would have demanded more logistical support per tank than evil atheist commie formations were designed to provide.
       

       
      So instead of wading into a deep and subtle subject, I am going to write about something that is extremely simple and easy to describe in mathematical terms; the top speed of a tank moving in a straight line.  Because it is so simple and straightforward to understand, it is also nearly meaningless in terms of the combat performance of a tank.
       
      In short, the top speed of a tank is limited by three things; the gear ratio limit, the power limit and the suspension limit.  The tank's maximum speed will be whichever of these limits is the lowest on a given terrain.  The top speed of a tank is of limited significance, even from a tactical perspective, because the tank's ability to exploit its top speed is constrained by other factors.  A high top speed, however, looks great on sales brochures, and there are examples of tanks that were designed with pointlessly high top speeds in order to overawe people who needed impressing.
       

      When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're going to see some serious shit.
       
      The Gear Ratio Limit
       
      Every engine has a maximum speed at which it can turn.  Often, the engine is artificially governed to a maximum speed slightly less than what it is mechanically capable of in order to reduce wear.  Additionally, most piston engines develop their maximum power at slightly less than their maximum speed due to valve timing issues:
       

      A typical power/speed relationship for an Otto Cycle engine.  Otto Cycle engines are primitive devices that are only used when the Brayton Cycle Master Race is unavailable.
       
      Most tanks have predominantly or purely mechanical drivetrains, which exchange rotational speed for torque by easily measurable ratios.  The maximum rotational speed of the engine, multiplied by the gear ratio of the highest gear in the transmission multiplied by the gear ratio of the final drives multiplied by the circumference of the drive sprocket will equal the gear ratio limit of the tank.  The tank is unable to achieve higher speeds than the gear ratio limit because it physically cannot spin its tracks around any faster.
       
      Most spec sheets don't actually give out the transmission ratios in different gears, but such excessively detailed specification sheets are provided in Germany's Tiger Tanks by Hilary Doyle and Thomas Jentz.  The gear ratios, final drive ratios, and maximum engine RPM of the Tiger II are all provided, along with a handy table of the vehicle's maximum speed in each gear.  In eighth gear, the top speed is given as 41.5 KPH, but that is at an engine speed of 3000 RPM, and in reality the German tank engines were governed to less than that in order to conserve their service life.  At a more realistic 2500 RPM, the mighty Tiger II would have managed 34.6 KPH.
       
      In principle there are analogous limits for electrical and hydraulic drive components based on free speeds and stall torques, but they are a little more complicated to actually calculate.
       

      Part of the transmission from an M4 Sherman, picture from Jeeps_Guns_Tanks' great Sherman website
       
      The Power Limit
       
      So a Tiger II could totally go 34.6 KPH in combat, right?  Well, perhaps.  And by "perhaps," I mean "lolololololol, fuck no."  I defy you to find me a test report where anybody manages to get a Tiger II over 33 KPH.  While the meticulous engineers of Henschel did accurately transcribe the gear ratios of the transmission and final drive accurately, and did manage to use their tape measures correctly when measuring the drive sprockets, their rosy projections of the top speed did not account for the power limit.
       
      As a tank moves, power from the engine is wasted in various ways and so is unavailable to accelerate the tank.  As the tank goes faster and faster, the magnitude of these power-wasting phenomena grows, until there is no surplus power to accelerate the tank any more.  The system reaches equilibrium, and the tank maxes out at some top speed where it hits its power limit (unless, of course, the tank hits its gear ratio limit first).
       
      The actual power available to a tank is not the same as the gross power of the motor.  Some of the gross horsepower of the motor has to be directed to fans to cool the engine (except, of course, in the case of the Brayton Cycle Master Race, whose engines are almost completely self-cooling).  The transmission and final drives are not perfectly efficient either, and waste a significant amount of the power flowing through them as heat.  As a result of this, the actual power available at the sprocket is typically between 61% and 74% of the engine's quoted gross power.
       
      Once the power does hit the drive sprocket, it is wasted in overcoming the friction of the tank's tracks, in churning up the ground the tank is on, and in aerodynamic drag.  I have helpfully listed these in the order of decreasing importance.
       
      The drag coefficient of a cube (which is a sufficiently accurate physical representation of a Tiger II) is .8. This, multiplied by half the fluid density of air (1.2 kg/m^3) times the velocity (9.4 m/s) squared times a rough frontal area of 3.8 by 3 meters gives a force of 483 newtons of drag.  This multiplied by the velocity of the tiger II gives 4.5 kilowatts, or about six horsepower lost to drag.  With the governor installed, the HL 230 could put out about 580 horsepower, which would be four hundred something horses at the sprocket, so the aerodynamic drag would be 1.5% of the total available power.  Negligible.  Tanks are just too slow to lose much power to aerodynamic effects.
       
      Losses to the soil can be important, depending on the surface the tank is operating on.  On a nice, hard surface like a paved road there will be minimal losses between the tank's tracks and the surface.  Off-road, however, the tank's tracks will start to sink into soil or mud, and more power will be wasted in churning up the soil.  If the soil is loose or boggy enough, the tank will simply sink in and be immobilized.  Tanks that spread their weight out over a larger area will lose less power, and be able to traverse soft soils at higher speed.  This paper from the UK shows the relationship between mean maximum pressure (MMP), and the increase in rolling resistance on various soils and sands in excruciating detail.  In general, tanks with more track area, with more and bigger road wheels, and with longer track pitch will have lower MMP, and will sink into soft soils less and therefore lose less top speed.
       
      The largest loss of power usually comes from friction within the tracks themselves.  This is sometimes called rolling resistance, but this term is also used to mean other, subtly different things, so it pays to be precise.  Compared to wheeled vehicles, tracked vehicles have extremely high rolling resistance, and lose a lot of power just keeping the tracks turning.  Rolling resistance is generally expressed as a dimensionless coefficient, CR, which multiplied against vehicle weight gives the force of friction.  This chart from R.M. Ogorkiewicz' Technology of Tanks shows experimentally determined rolling resistance coefficients for various tracked vehicles:
       

       
      The rolling resistance coefficients given here show that a tracked vehicle going on ideal testing ground conditions is about as efficient as a car driving over loose gravel.  It also shows that the rolling resistance increases with vehicle speed.  A rough approximation of this increase in CR is given by the equation CR=A+BV, where A and B are constants and V is vehicle speed.  Ogorkiewicz explains:
       
       
      It should be noted that the lubricated needle bearing track joints of which he speaks were only ever used by the Germans in WWII because they were insanely complicated.  Band tracks have lower rolling resistance than metal link tracks, but they really aren't practical for vehicles much above thirty tonnes.  Other ways of reducing rolling resistance include using larger road wheels, omitting return rollers, and reducing track tension.  Obviously, there are practical limits to these approaches.
       
      To calculate power losses due to rolling resistance, multiply vehicle weight by CR by vehicle velocity to get power lost.  The velocity at which the power lost to rolling resistance equals the power available at the sprocket is the power limit on the speed of the tank.
       
      The Suspension Limit
       
      The suspension limit on speed is starting to get dangerously far away from the world of spherical, frictionless horses where everything is easy to calculate using simple algebra, so I will be brief.  In addition to the continents of the world not being completely comprised of paved surfaces that minimize rolling resistance, the continents of the world are also not perfectly flat.  This means that in order to travel at high speed off road, tanks require some sort of suspension or else they would shake their crews into jelly.  If the crew is being shaken too much to operate effectively, then it doesn't really matter if a tank has a high enough gear ratio limit or power limit to go faster.  This is also particularly obnoxious because suspension performance is difficult to quantify, as it involves resonance frequencies, damping coefficients, and a bunch of other complicated shit.
       
      Suffice it to say, then, that a very rough estimate of the ride-smoothing qualities of a tank's suspension can be made from the total travel of its road wheels:
       

       
      This chart from Technology of Tanks is helpful.  A more detailed discussion of the subject of tank suspension can be found here.
       
      The Real World Rudely Intrudes
       
      So, how useful is high top speed in a tank in messy, hard-to-mathematically-express reality?  The answer might surprise you!
       

      A Wehrmacht M.A.N. combustotron Ausf G
       
      We'll take some whacks at everyone's favorite whipping boy; the Panther.
       
      A US report on a captured Panther Ausf G gives its top speed on roads as an absolutely blistering 60 KPH on roads.  The Soviets could only get their captured Ausf D to do 50 KPH, but compared to a Sherman, which is generally only credited with 40 KPH on roads, that's alarmingly fast.
       
      So, would this mean that the Panther enjoyed a mobility advantage over the Sherman?  Would this mean that it was better able to make quick advances and daring flanking maneuvers during a battle?
       
      No.
       
      In field tests the British found the panther to have lower off-road speed than a Churchill VII (the panther had a slightly busted transmission though).  In the same American report that credits the Panther Ausf G with a 60 KPH top speed on roads, it was found that off road the panther was almost exactly as fast as an M4A376W, with individual Shermans slightly outpacing the big cat or lagging behind it slightly.  Another US report from January 1945 states that over courses with many turns and curves, the Sherman would pull out ahead because the Sherman lost less speed negotiating corners.  Clearly, the Panther's advantage in straight line speed did not translate into better mobility in any combat scenario that did not involve drag racing.
       
      So what was going on with the Panther?  How could it leave everything but light tanks in the dust on a straight highway, but be outpaced by the ponderous Churchill heavy tank in actual field tests?
       

      Panther Ausf A tanks captured by the Soviets
       
      A British report from 1946 on the Panther's transmission explains what's going on.  The Panther's transmission had seven forward gears, but off-road it really couldn't make it out of fifth.  In other words, the Panther had an extremely high gear ratio limit that allowed it exceptional speed on roads.  However, the Panther's mediocre power to weight ratio (nominally 13 hp/ton for the RPM limited HL 230) meant that once the tank was off road and fighting mud, it only had a mediocre power limit.  Indeed, it is a testament to the efficiency of the Panther's running gear that it could keep up with Shermans at all, since the Panther's power to weight ratio was about 20% lower than that particular variant of Sherman.
       
      There were other factors limiting the Panther's speed in practical circumstances.  The geared steering system used in the Panther had different steering radii based on what gear the Panther was in.  The higher the gear, the wider the turn.  In theory this was excellent, but in practice the designers chose too wide a turn radius for each gear, which meant that for any but the gentlest turns the Panther's drive would need to slow down and downshift in order to complete the turn, thus sacrificing any speed advantage his tank enjoyed.
       
      So why would a tank be designed in such a strange fashion?  The British thought that the Panther was originally designed to be much lighter, and that the transmission had never been re-designed in order to compensate.  Given the weight gain that the Panther experienced early in development, this explanation seems like it may be partially true.  However, when interrogated, Ernst Kniepkamp, a senior engineer in Germany's wartime tank development bureaucracy, stated that the additional gears were there simply to give the Panther a high speed on roads, because it looked good to senior generals.
       
      So, this is the danger in evaluating tanks based on extremely simplistic performance metrics that look good on paper.  They may be simple to digest and simple to calculate, but in the messy real world, they may mean simply nothing.
×