Tag Archives: reviews

Meet Kat: an AK project gun

Posted by

Kat1 is a GP WASR-10/63. Essentially, this is a stamped-receiver AKM, with a side rail for optics mounting pre-installed. The WASR designation marks it as a Century Arms import of a Romanian AK; some WASRs were built for the American civilian market back during the bad old days of the assault weapons ban, but this one is not. Kat’s receiver bears a triangle-and-arrow mark that marks her as a demilled Romanian military rifle. Century Arms imported her and built a rifle around the parts kit. Unlike the old AWB-compliant rifles, she had a pistol grip and a bayonet lug2.

Kat was originally parvusimperator’s rifle; he sold it to me at a steep discount as part of a wedding gift package. Since he is Captain Tacticool, it varies a bit from the original, 1950s-style configuration. Here’s what he’s done to it:

  • Added a NATO-length polymer stock. (NATO-length is slightly longer than the default AK stock, more closely approximating your M16 length of pull.)
  • Added a railed gas tube forward.
  • Switched out the forward handguard and the grip for Hogue rubberized ones.
  • Added an AK-74-style muzzle brake.
  • Added a large charging handle knob.
  • Added an improved safety lever.

I had the rifle out at the range the other day for some sighting in, and with a few magazines through Kat, I’ve decided what I’m going to keep and what I’m going to drop. Before I get into that, though, I should explain what Kat is for. At a shooting range an hour or so from Many Words World HQ, there’s a monthly two-gun shoot: that is, a combined practical rifle and pistol event. Kat will serve as my Scary Black Rifle for that endeavor. The precise setup, however, is a topic for the next post.

NATO-length stock – Drop
The main reason why this stock won’t do has to do with my choice of optic, which, as I said, is a topic for the next post. The NATO-length stock has two faults: it’s too long for proper/comfortable eye relief with my side-rail-mounted optic, and the comb is too low for a good cheek weld for same.

Railed gas tube – Keep for convenience
I don’t plan on going the cowitnessed red dot route, which is the main use for the gas tube rail, but I don’t have any particular reason to ditch it. Rails are useful. It might come in handy sometime.

Hogue furniture – Keep
I can’t speak highly enough of Hogue’s AK stuff. Grippy without being painful, comfortable to hold, well-molded to the human hand. I couldn’t do better if I tried.

Muzzle brake – Keep
I wasn’t planning on sticking with the AK-74-style brake, since it’s renowned for its size and weight. Tapco used to make a superb muzzle device for AKM-style rifles, which scores at the top of every muzzle device shootout I’ve seen, but they aren’t available anymore. The AK-74 brake may be amusingly large, but that’s part of its charm, and it does look very proper on the front of the gun. It also scores very well in most shootouts, and certainly reduces felt recoil and muzzle climb to very manageable levels: not very far off of an AR-15 without a brake.

This one may change down the line, but I’m holding onto it for now.

Charging handle knob – Keep for convenience
I probably would have chosen a slightly smaller charging handle extension: parvusimperator, in typical fashion, went for what I think is the biggest one he can find. It’s held on with a set screw, looks like, and parvusimperator tells me that he used the dreaded red Loctite, so in the interest of avoiding the tremendous bother finding my heat gun would be, I’ll just leave it as-is for now.

Safety lever – Keep!
The single best mod on the gun. I can easily flip the safety on and off with my index finger. Definitely holding onto it.

So parvusimperator did a pretty good job, though it pains me to say: Kat already has some of the features I want in a competition rifle. She is controllable, much better off as regards ergonomics, and attractive in that Scary Black AK way. Next post, though, we’ll explore what I’m doing to make her mine.

1. It’s multilingual wordplay. A common way of forming a diminutive, cutesy version of a name in Russian is to add an ‘oshka’ or ‘eshka’. For instance, the word for ‘male cat’, ‘kot’, turns into the general word for domestic cats of any sort by adding ‘oshka’: ‘koshka’. Pinning it onto the end of Kalashnikov yields ‘little AK’, Kalashnikoshka, which also ends in the word for cat. Hence, Kat.
2. It was ground off, at some point, but it was almost certainly imported with one. Parvusimperator speculates that, since he obtained it in New York (no friend to firearms rights), the bayonet lug was removed for compliance there.

Battle Royale: P320 vs. PPQ vs. VP9

Posted by

You’ve been waiting for it, and here it is. Parvusimperator’s take on the new crop of striker fired handguns. Well, newish. I’ve waited to see if any bugs fell out (they haven’t). I would get Fishbreath’s opinion too, but he doesn’t have a range with a good rental selection near him. Also, he’s quite fond of hammer fired weapons, because he’s old school like that.

So, let’s get down to it. We’ll look at each pistol, and then do some comparisons.

Walther PPQ
Pros: The best factory trigger on a striker fired pistol. The best. Marginally smaller than the VP9, quite a bit smaller than the P320 full size (this was what I had to rent). Very good ergonomics allowing a nice, high grip. Navy option available, with a cool factory threaded barrel and some extra bits to let you shoot it underwater (not that you care). Ambidextrous slide release.
Cons: Walther has atrocious market penetration. Frankly they have given exactly zero fucks about the American market, so Walther vendors are few and far between. This means that spare parts, accessories, and magazines are the hardest to come by of the three. One upside here is that you won’t get associated with obnoxious Walther fanbois, because there aren’t any fanboys at all, obnoxious or otherwise. Also counting against the PPQ is that it seemed to be somewhat flippy. This is admittedly subjective, but it seemed like it took longer for it to come out of recoil, negating some of the awesomeness of that trigger. More like shooting a .40 S&W, even though this was a 9mm.

HK VP9
Pros: Amazing ergonomics. HK’s grip is one of the best anywhere, with interchangeable side panels and backstraps. Will fit your hand really well; let’s you have a nice high grip. I could gush for hours about the grip. The trigger was very good. I actually prefered it to that of the PPQ and that of the P320 as far as Things I Would Carry. It’s got some take up and a noticeable break, and didn’t feel overly light or heavy. Very smooth. I felt like it had enough take up to feel comfortable carrying and light enough weight (and crisp enough reset) to shoot fast in competition. Again, ambi slide catches. Also, I liked the paddle magazine release, personally. Your mileage may vary.
Cons: The price. HK is the most expensive of the three. Also, you’ll be called an HK fanboy, so be prepared. You suck, and they hate you or something. HK has been really good to LE and Military contractholders. Civilian market, not so much. Their service has gotten way better than it was in the 90s though. You may hate the paddle releases. Accessory availability is meh, spare parts and magazines are available but expensive.

SiG P320
Pros: You may really like the modularity. The trigger lacks that safety blade thing, which is nice. It’s also really short, with very little take up and a very short reset. So it’s really easy to shoot fast, but felt a bit like having a P226 that I hadn’t decocked–I’m not sure if I’d want to carry it like that. Weird. It also feels heavier than the other two. But it’s probably a sweet gamer trigger. SiG has the least shitty aftermarket presence by far of the three, which is big points here. The sights are standard across all their P-series pistols, so those are available now for you. Again, slide release is ambidextrous. And, the P320 gets 17 in the mag, not 15. You might think this is cheating in the comparison, but the mag for the P320 is about the same size as that of the VP9 or the PPQ. And two more bullets is always nice.
Cons: I do not like the modularity. For one thing, every other gun comes with all the stuff you need to monkey around with the grip and figure out which is best for you out of the box. Even HK. With the SiG, you get the medium grip frame, and you have to go buy the others. Good luck finding ones to try in a gun shop before you buy. That’s just cheap and dumb. Further, I have some concerns about the durability of the wee inner module (the actual ‘firearm’, legally speaking). I don’t know how well it will hold up, especially if you’re doing lots of swapping. I probably don’t have anything to worry about here, but there it is. The controls are in their usual SiG place, and seem large. The slide release is super far back, even though there’s no decocker. They really should include the low-profile one so your thumb isn’t hitting it all the time. Once again, some gubbins to buy. Oh, and you’ll be called a SiG fanboy. They’re like HK fanboys, but rarer, because nobody cool uses SiGs anymore. Be sure to get the capitalization right like I’m doing, or expect a flogging.

Finally, I really, really don’t like the modularity. Yes, I’m going to dwell on it because people won’t shut up about it. Look, I don’t live in some communist hell-hole where the number of guns I can own is limited. I live in America. I like guns. I want to buy more guns. That guy behind the counter at my gun store? He wants to sell me more guns. Get with the program, SiG. I’ve never wanted to caliber-convert a 9mm to a .40 or vice versa. 9mm is cheap. .40 is slightly less so, but if I was a .40 guy, I’d want to get used to managing the recoil of the .40, and I’d want my sights to work with the ballistics of .40. Maybe a .22 conversion kit is worth it, if you want a cheap trainer with negligible recoil. But hey, when you’ve bought the new frame, new slide, and new barrel to turn your P320 full size into a compact or your 9mm into a .40, you’ve basically bought a new gun in terms of money spent. So…just buy a new gun, and have more guns. More is better. Duh. If you bought a new gun, you’d have more mags too. Or mags in the new caliber.

Okay, all that out of the way, it’s comparison time!
How do they shoot: Trigger?
PPQ is the best here. That trigger was like nothing at all. Might be almost too light, if we’re talking carry or duty use. Maybe. Hard for me to make that judgement. But it’s great for shooting. It’s like a double action pull with next to no weight. Personally, I rank the VP9 as second since it felt lighter than the P320, and I’ve grown to like some takeup. The P320 pull is heavy and short, which seems an odd combination. I’d like more takeup.

How do they shoot: Accuracy?
VP9 takes top honors here. Maybe this is that HK build quality I keep hearing about. Maybe it’s fitted tighter or there are some match parts or something. P320 comes in second, with a longer sight radius and heavier slide, edging out the PPQ with its great trigger.

How do they shoot: Recoil?
Subjectively, I thought the VP9 was the nicest shooting of the three. It was softer recoiling than the P320, and significantly less flippy than the PPQ. The P320 seems quite heavy for a plastic gun, but the grip is the usual SiG-low. It seemed jumpy, but wasn’t flippy. For purely subjective definitions of ‘jumpy’ and ‘flippy’ of course, since I don’t have a great way to measure recoil. Again, your shooting preferences will dictate your choice. Personally, I like the higher grip of the VP9. You might like the traditional SiG-style grip on the P320, which is a little lower. The PPQ was noticeably harsher and flipper. Not bad, but they’ve managed to make a 9mm feel .40-like in a handgun that isn’t a mousegun. Quite a trick.

How do the Ergonomics Compare?
The VP9 has the best ergos by far with all the side panels. It lets you get the right fit for your hand, even if you shoot better with something asymmetric. The little “cocking tabs” are nice for those with less grip strength. Or just to make you work less at it. The PPQ has a similar sort of shape as the VP9, but has only adjustable backstraps, like most pistols. Still, it fills the hand well and gives you a high grip naturally. The SiG will not let you get as high on it. It fitted my hand reasonably well, but I might have liked to play with the different frame sizes. I prefer a higher grip, or else it would have scored better here. Note also that the SiG only comes with the standard grip-frame module. If you want another size, you’ve gotta go buy it.

Were the guns grippy enough?
No. Nothing was grippy enough. That said, I like guns with barbed grips, or barring that, 20 lpi checkering. Maybe I should have these stippled.

Also, note that all three of these guns only come with two magazines, which is the bare acceptable minimum these days. I would have been much happier if they came with three magazines in the box. Not a dealbreaker, but you should be aware. All of them have crappy magazine prices. No wonderfully cheap Glock or M&P mags here.

Alright, now we come to the main event. Which should you buy? Well, being as this is America, you should buy all three. But that’s not a very helpful answer. Neither is ‘They’re all quite good, you can’t go wrong with any of them.’

Realistically, you should rent all three, and go home with whichever one you shoot best, preferably with some timed/scored drills. This may or may not be possible for you, based on what the ranges near you have available for rent, and how they’re configured.
You should also probably wait a little while and see what my friends Mr. Foxtrot, Mr. Bravo, and Mr. India come up with when they go to choose, since that design will get a big leg up in the aftermarket presence. But that means waiting. Again, rent them and draw your own conclusions.

Of course after all that, you’re still not satisfied. You want to know two things: Which one is best, and is it better than a Glock?

Fine.

Of the three, I’d take the VP9. I shot it best, I like it’s trigger for anything I might choose to do with it (including carry and competition), the ergonomics are great, and it shoots well. Plus, there’s plenty of cachet from being an HK owner. I’m a cool, badass CTU agent. Or…maybe I suck? I don’t know, I lost track of my metaphors in the aura of Teutonic greatness. But, shut up this pistol is great. You wouldn’t understand, you non-HK-owning peon. Go sit with the filth and buy your scum class tickets.

So is it better than my Glock 17? That depends. In terms of what you get out of the box, no contest. HK wins all the way. Better trigger, better ergonomics, better sights. Glock has an extra magazine, but that doesn’t quite make up the difference. The VP9 is the better pistol.

However, who the hell leaves a Glock stock? There’s a ton of aftermarket support for Glocks. Any sights you could possibly imagine, you can get. You can get bigger or smaller controls for the mag release and the slide release to fit your preference. You can get aftermarket triggers and fire control parts to make the trigger into anything you like, from a heavier duty trigger to a tuned competition trigger. You get a lot more sight options from experimenters and small outfits with Glock. Hell, you can build a Glock entirely from parts that aren’t made by Glock. So it’s simply a question of how much you like to tinker. If you want to tinker, get the Glock. It will reward experimentation. If you want to buy a pistol, add the sights of your choice, and be done, get the HK.

But really, this is America. The correct answer is to buy the Glock and the HK.

Parvusimperator Reviews the HK VP9

Posted by

Last week, I hit the range in a black mood. And I hit it not with one of my usual Glocks, but with a range rental. See, I was thinking of you, dear reader, and I picked something I thought I was sure to hate: the HK VP9.

HK tends to be like Apple, they’ve got a bunch of obnoxious fanboys that everyone else wants to beat with a tire iron. And their USPs have all the ergonomics of a 2×4, and their double action triggers suck ass. Oh, and between American import laws, German export laws, and management that historically hasn’t given two shits about the civilian market, you can’t get a lot of the cool toys that you see on the cover of a Clancy novel. Ugh.

On the other hand, Jack Bauer carried a USP Compact for most of 24, and he’s pretty badass. On a more serious level, a bunch of my internet friends have spoken very highly of the VP9, and they as a group have a lot more trigger time than me. But maybe they’re fanboys. Maybe it’s a bunch of blather about “Teutonic Precision” or somesuch. No problem. I’d drop a Jackson on a rental, and then I’d get to tell them off and get an awesome hate-fueled tirade for you lot out of it.

Things didn’t work out that way.

First thing I noticed with the VP9 was the grip. This was not a USP grip. This was not a Glock grip. No, it wasn’t even an M&P grip. It was better than all of the above. It’s really, really comfortable. Like that wonderfully contoured PPQ grip. But where the PPQ has the interchangeable backstraps, like the Glock and the M&P, the VP9 also has interchangeable side panels, so you can control thickness independently of length. For my first outing, I left everything at medium, which seemed to fit my hand ok. I’d have to spend some time with a target to see which is best. Also, the texture is nicely grippy, which I like. But it’s not super grippy, so you might also like it if you’re not a fan of 20 LPI checkering, say. Even without messing with the panels, it fit my hand well and allowed a nice, high grip.

Sizewize, the VP9 is a bit bigger than a Glock 19, but not by much. Slide is roughly the same size, but the frame is taller. It’s like someone put a Glock 19 slide on a Glock 17 frame. I know no one who has done this, but there you have it. If you’re looking to conceal the VP9, you should be aware of this. My EDC is a Glock 17 with RMR though, so I think it’s fine. The magazines only hold 15 rounds of 9mm though, which is odd. Looking at the size, I think they should be able to get more in there, but I’m no engineer. Maybe there’s a reliability question I don’t know about coming into play here. Some guys with a lot of hours on Glocks suggest downloading those magazines by a round or two in crappy environments, so maybe that’s it. Then again, some other guys with a lot of hours on Glocks have no such complaints. Such are the hazards of appeals to authority. I don’t have gajillions of rounds through Glocks, and I’ve never had any problems. Take that as you will.

Moving on, we come to the trigger. And unlike seemingly every other HK pistol on the planet, it seems like they had shooters in mind when they designed this one, because it’s great. Light, crisp, super consistent, and with a great reset. Let’s make some comparisons.

Is it better than an M&P trigger? Don’t make me laugh. The M&P trigger is made of mashed potatoes and grit. It’s godawful. Next.

Is it better than a Glock trigger? Yes. At least, the stock trigger. The stock Glock trigger is heavier and rougher than that of the VP9. Both will smooth out with age. You can make the Glock trigger into almost anything you want with aftermarket parts. The VP9 reset is every bit as solid as that of the Glock, which is high praise. Riding the reset on a striker-fired automatic is a great way to get shorter split times.

Is it better than a PPQ trigger? No. Well, not for shooting. The VP9 trigger is heavier, and has a perceptible “wall” before the break. The PPQ is basically a light rolling break all the way through. The PPQ is easier to shoot better, but I’d probably feel more comfortable with a VP9 for carry, or certainly for duty use. The VP9 also seems to have less travel overall, and I might actually like that part better, even with a little more weight.

How does the VP9 shoot? Great. So very great. Consistent trigger, a grip that works with you, and generally mild recoil characteristics make this pistol very accurate. Maybe this was that Teutonic Build Quality everyone’s always on about. I pushed the target back, and back, and back from my initial start at the usual seven yards and had a really great night, even with the target way out at the stops at 50 feet. This gun is really easy to shoot well and really easy to like. I’ll be damned if it wasn’t growing on me.

Okay, so what about the mag changes? If you don’t know, since the USP series, HK has been using little paddles on either side of the back of the trigger guard to drop the mag, rather than the usual John Moses Browning endorsed button on the side of the grip. On the one hand, it’s fighting years of muscle memory. On the other, it’s totally ambidextrous, and I’ll be damned if it isn’t faster. I also like that the VP9 really ejects magazines with authority, unlike my Glocks.

Let’s talk some of the other design features of the VP9. It has forward cocking serrations, which let you do press checks like a cool guy. It has a loaded chamber indicator, which is an extra function of the extractor, just in case you’re too much of a pussy to do press checks. There’s a bit at the back to tell you whether or not the striker is cocked. I’m not sure of the utility of this, but it’s nice in dry fire.

There are also the little “wings” on the side of the slide to assist in cocking. I kinda like those for reasons that I’m not really clear on. They do make it easier to get a good grip on the slide and rack it. Probably very helpful if you are smaller in size. Or if you had some kind of weird malfunction. I didn’t experience any, but if I had one, I’ll take any bit of extra mechanical advantage I can get on a jammed up gun.

Now, the sights. Due to some German export nonsense, the VP9 ships with sights that have that day-glo shit on them. They’ll glow in the dark, if they were charged up beforehand. Which is pretty useless if you were gonna carry it concealed and then need it at night. On the other hand, they’re infinitely better than the stock Glock vestigial sight-like-objects, and better still than the traditional white three dot sights that come stock on other things, since the HK ones might glow in the dark maybe sometimes. They were perfectly serviceable on the rental at the range, but really should be swapped out for something more to your liking. If you’re not sure what to get, there’s a VP9 LE model, which gets proper tritium night sights put on by HK USA in Georgia and also comes with an extra mag. The markup on the LE version is reasonable for what you get, if you like those sights.

So where do we stand? The VP9 is probably the most complete polymer framed handgun out of the box, which I think is exactly the goal HK was going for. All it needs are sights. Even though it’s more expensive than the competition, I’d wholeheartedly recommend it. It’s an easy gun to like. If you like striker fired pistols, this is probably best of breed out of the box. Just be aware that you don’t quite have the accessories of something like Glock or M&P. On the other hand HK will at least take care of you; they have a history of making guns for some really small markets.

A VP9 LE even followed me home.

Fishbreath Plays: SimplePlanes

Posted by

I’m a fan of sandboxes.

Many of my favorite games are sandboxes, or have a sandbox element: StarMade is altogether a sandbox, Rule the Waves gives you plenty of latitude to build your own navy and your own history, Falcon 4 lets you play with someone else’s castle or kick it down as you please, and Command Ops, though less open than the rest of this list, still gives you the chance to do largely as you please inside whatever scenarios you can find or make.

So, when I saw that SimplePlanes, an aeronautics sandbox by Jundroo, who made one of my favorite physics puzzle games on Android, was now on Steam, I had to give it a whirl. We’ll get the bad out of the way first: it’s a port of a mobile game, and so the interface is not as powerful as, say, Kerbal Space Program’s (which is the natural comparison), and the parts list isn’t quite as lengthy as I’d like. That said, the flight modeling is excellent for a wee building game like this, and as with any building game, there are some superb examples out there. For another downside, there isn’t a lot to do; as far as I can tell, there isn’t a way to add new maps or new challenges, which is a shame. Either one would add a ton of longevity to the game. Finally, the combat bits could be expanded upon a little—damage is very binary right now, and hitting a plane with anything will usually pop it.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about the good. I’m going to do this by discussing some of the things I have built; namely, the aircraft carried by the zeppelin Inconstant, from Skypirates: the Kestrel, Falcon, Vulture, Albatross, and Gorcrow. All are based off of real-world designs. The Kestrel is a riff on the XP-55 Ascender, the Falcon is based on any number of (generally French) twin-boom pusher designs of the immediate prewar and postwar periods, the Vulture is a recreation of the Sh-Tandem, a Russian ground-attack design, the Albatross is a Blohm & Voss-inspired asymmetric design, and the Gorcrow is more or less every medium bomber between 1930 and 1945. (Note that I made a few modifications to fit my zeppelin-borne aircraft requirements and restrictions, which you’ll find at the end of this post.)

The Kestrel is one of my favorites, owing to its handling characteristics. The twin coaxial engines, with a total of 1,500 horsepower for only 6,000 pounds full load, push it to speeds in excess of 400 miles per hour. It fields an excellent anti-aircraft punch, and has superb maneuverability at high speeds. Its weakness comes mainly in its low-speed handling: its vertical stabilizers are small, to limit the drag they add, but this creates a prominent tendency to yaw instability at landing speed. As such, it’s a design that’s likely very prone to landing mishaps, and requires a steady hand on the stick and active feet on the pedals to put onto the skyhook. Though the design is unusual, it flies very well, responding smoothly with little adverse yaw or other undesirable handling characteristics. At the edges of its envelope, it can sometimes get the pilot into trouble; unrecoverable flat spins are a possibility.

In design, the Falcon is much more conservative: it treads on no unusual aeronautical ground. The twin-boom design provides some added damage resistance; losing the back of one boom isn’t immediately fatal. It’s powered by a 1,250-horsepower engine, about the largest single engine we can expect to find in the world of Skypirates, and has a maximum takeoff weight of about 9,000 pounds. (The version posted is overweight, and needs to be slimmed down.) With rather a lower power-to-weight ratio, it only reaches about 320 miles per hour, significantly slower than the Kestrel. Although its gun armament is less heavy than the Kestrel’s, it makes up for that loss in firepower by mounting several racks for air-to-air and air-to-ground rockets. Its flight characteristics befits its character: rugged and dependable, with very few surprises, although it does have a tendency to stall the lower wing in tight, low-speed turns.

The Vulture is probably the one whose looks most closely match its intended purpose. A light bomber and ground-attack plane, the Vulture is the usual aircraft of choice when Inconstant needs to make a show of force. Its unusual design gives it a great deal of lift for its footprint, and permit all of its hardpoints to be placed along the same axis as its center of mass: dropping weapons doesn’t change its balance at all, making it a forgiving platform when carrying large weapons. The centerline mount supports an aerial torpedo, but only when the plane is air-launched—aerial torpedoes are too long otherwise. (Note that Inconstant doesn’t carry Vultures equipped with landing gear.) To my surprise, the Vulture’s handling is docile in the extreme, even when fully loaded, and turns downright peppy when empty, even though it only sports a 1,000-horsepower engine. I ran into no surprises anywhere in the envelope.

The Gorcrow, powered by a pair of 700-horsepower engines, is a conventional medium bomber, with all that implies. Its handling is ponderous, but it can sling a heavy load of bombs or rockets, or three aerial torpedoes, making it Inconstant‘s heaviest hitter by far. Three gun positions, one at the back of each engine nacelle, and one atop the fuselage, round out its weapon fit. Again, an unsurprising performer—not spritely, and predictable in its handling. Unlike the other aircraft on the list so far, its bringback weight is somewhat less than its full fuel empty weight. Inconstant being fairly light on avgas stores, her Gorcrows are generally only launched when absolutely necessary, to avoid having to dump fuel overboard before landing. The in-universe version has a glazed nose, but I haven’t figured that out yet.

The Albatross, powered by two 800-horsepower engines, is a long-range transport aircraft, and also one of my favorites for its sheer unlikeliness. Although Herrs Blohm und Voss built similar aircraft for the Luftwaffe during the Second World War, I was a little concerned that the flight engine wouldn’t handle it well, given the presumably-complicated aerodynamics at play. To my surprise, it worked fine, and isn’t even particularly touchy. Anyway, the 1,600 combined horsepower pushes her to a good turn of speed when empty, nearly as fast as the Falcon, and pegs her total cargo capacity at just over four tons. The asymmetry does mean she has some slight balance concerns, but in-universe, it’s easily trimmable. Low-speed handling is good, thanks to the fat wings. Even with the asymmetric nature of the pitching and yawing forces, owing to the offset position of the empennage, it has surprising maneuverability when empty. Same remark about the glazed nose.

Now, I didn’t even get into the built-in challenges, or into serious modding. I was just messing around, and in the course of learning how to build airplanes, building these, and coming up with my flight reports, I got more than my $10 of fun. I also got at least $10 of storytelling value out of it: I now have quirks and flight characteristics in mind better for each of these planes than I did before, and I can work that into stories.

If you’re looking for a plane construction sandbox, look no further.

Fishbreath’s Zeppelin-Borne Aircraft Construction Rules for SimplePlanes

  1. Airframes should range between about 3 tons and 12.5 tons full load.
  2. Aircraft must be shorter than 70 feet and have a wingspan less than 110 feet.
  3. No single engine may develop more than 1250 horsepower.
  4. Aircraft must have a bringback-weight stall speed of 110mph or less. (The other 20-30mph to get down to zeppelin speed is assumed to come from flaps.)

Parvusimperator Reviews the Walther PPQ

Posted by

Spectre premiers this week. What better time to talk about Walther’s fine modern pistol, the PPQ? In general, Mr. Bond arms himself with the Walther PPK, after a long and rather famous discussion between Ian Fleming and one Geoffrey Boothroyd.1 Yes, dear readers, there was a time when .32 ACP was considered to have plenty of stopping power. But that was then. I’m not very fond of the PPK, and don’t think it has any place other than possibly in my date’s thigh holster, if she’s wearing an evening gown. For a time, the Pierce Brosnan Bond used the P99, which is a right proper double stack service pistol in 9mm Parabellum.

The P99 is an interesting looking design, and is a double action semiautomatic pistol. It’s the direct predecessor of the PPQ, as it has a very similar shape, and shares magazines. Of course, being a double action design, the trigger isn’t good, and Walther made a couple of efforts to improve this. Interestingly, it’s striker fired, but Walther gave it that familiar double action feel.

Walther has a fine history of target weapons, in addition to service pistols. I first set about trying to learn pistol marksmanship seriously in a basement range, armed with an Olympic-grade Walther CPM-1. It’s still the nicest pistol trigger I’ve had the pleasure of firing. So Walther clearly knows how to make a quality trigger. One other historical note is that Walther had one of the earliest double action service pistols in the P38.

The PPQ is based on the latest models of the P99, the P99QA. It has the same sculpted grip, the same slide design, the same giant trigger. However, the PPQ has a somewhat different striker mechanism. It is no longer double action like a P99. Unlike a Glock, which has a partially cocked striker, the PPQ features a fully cocked striker. Since you don’t have to work against the striker spring, the trigger can be made very nice. Trigger travel distance is 0.4 in (9mm, conveniently enough), and has a sharp 0.1 inch reset. This is the shortest reset of any striker fired pistol around, and it’s very easy to feel. Trigger pull is very light, and there’s no ‘wall’ that you feel in a Glock trigger. So it’s pretty close to a rolling break. You can find that break point if you’re going slow, but it’s super easy to go right past it. This is the best trigger available on a striker fired pistol. But for the pretravel, it feels very 1911-like. And that’s probably the highest compliment I can pay.

The PPQ grip curves quite a bit. This looks a little strange at first, but it fits the hand really well. Again, it’s right up there with the 1911 in feeling very right. The 1911 does this with steel, wood, a single stack of .45 American Combat Pistol rounds, and a big slice of apple pie. The PPQ has to work with a double stack of 9mm rounds and a bunch of plastic. But those curves in the plastic mean the pistol fits your hand really well. Kinda like a certain fraulein I met on a trip to Europe not too long ago…

Moving on, the PPQ uses 15 round magazines. There’s also a factory extension available for +2 capacity. Since the model I got was a PPQ M2 Navy, Walther included one regular-baseplate 15 round magazine and one magazine with extender. The Navy model also comes with a factory threaded barrel. M2 denotes a switch from the lever release in the trigger guard to a traditional button style mag release in the handguard. The mag release catch is positioned well, and is easy to depress without being so raised that you’ll hit it accidentally. Much ink has been spilled on which mag release is better. I don’t really have a preference. I will say that the button is a little more familiar to me than the lever, and it’s more popular by far in America. Since it was in the case ready to go at the shop today, I didn’t agonize too much over the mag catch.

In my reviews of my Glock 17 and my M&P40, I mentioned market share. No getting around it, Walther doesn’t do a ton of marketing here in America, and as a result they don’t have a ton of market penetration. That said, the PPQ is popular enough that several of my favorite holster makers, including Dale Fricke, make holsters for it, and both 10-8 and Dawson make sights for it. Trijicon also makes their fine HDs for it. And my slide miller of choice, Mark Housel (L&M precision) will mill the slide for an RMR. So I should be set with whatever I need, though I don’t quite have the ubiquitous options that I had with Glock. I also have to suck up higher mag prices. Sizewise, the PPQ is about the same size as a Glock 19. Big enough to be very shootable, small enough to conceal easily. There’s also a long barrel version available.

How does she shoot? Great. Really, really great. That fabulous trigger really makes precise shots or fast shots easy. It makes up for less than perfect trigger control on the part of the user. My one objection is that the texture could be more aggressive, which seems to result in a flippy 9mm. Nothing that bearing down on the grip won’t cure, though. This is also a very early review. I may come to prefer the less texture; some professional shooters like a less grippy gun so they can correct a non-ideal grip from draw as they bring the gun up.

Bond should carry this gun, and not some lame pocket pistol. It’s that good. Accurate, fits nicely in the hand, conceals easily. It really works with the shooter to get great results.

1.) Fleming originally thought fit to equip Bond with a Beretta 418, a .25 ACP pocket pistol that you probably never heard of. It is a phenomenally wussy handgun, and I shall waste no more characters discussing it.

Fishbreath Plays: MechWarrior Online

Posted by

The Battletech Kickstarter kicked me back into playing some MechWarrior Online. I ought to note that, on the whole, I like it. I don’t think it quite hits the heights that previous MechWarrior games hit, but it’s a perfectly serviceable stompy robots game in terms of gameplay. That isn’t what this post is about, though.

No, this post is a rant.

Let’s talk about the grind. Oh, the grind. That necessary evil in free-to-play games, right? Yes, but this one is particularly egregious. Fans of the game may try and tell you it’s less grindy than World of Tanks, say, or World of Warships. They are lying to you. Let us be perfectly clear. There is precisely one type of player for whom MechWarrior Online is less grindy than the Wargaming.net games: high-level competitive players. World of [insert vehicle] does indeed require more out of you than MechWarrior Online does if you want to experience what counts as the endgame. I would posit that these players, though, make up such a tiny proportion of the playerbase that their opinions are basically meaningless. Let’s get down to brass tacks with a comparison.

I’m a fairly casual player in World of Warships, and a fairly casual player in MechWarrior Online. As such, my goal in the former is to have a couple of historical Second World War vessels, which occupy (generally) the top half of the tech trees. I need to get to about tiers 4-6. I average about a thousand experience per game, or more if I’m playing primarily for first-win-of-the-day. To go from tier 5 to tier 6 costs about 30,000 experience, which comes to about 30 games. (Going from tier 1 to tier 5 is about that difficult too, if I recall correctly.) It takes me about 60 games—certainly, no more than 75 on a bad streak, and no more than 100 on a horrid streak. So far, I’ve never had to grind for money; in the course of getting through my 60-100 games to hit the next tier, I’ve made enough to buy my way up.

In MechWarrior Online, as a fairly casual player, my goal is to build up a stable of mechs of various sizes and roles I can switch between as the mood strikes me. There are two obstacles here. First, earnings: I make about 80,000-100,000 c-bills per match in MechWarrior Online. A single light mech chassis costs about 2,000,000 c-bills. (A little less for 20-ton mechs, a little more for 35-ton mechs, a whole lot more for mechs which can mount ECM—note that ECM capability usually makes a given mech variant the most desirable of its chassis.) A medium mech costs about 3,750,000 c-bills. You’ll spend between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 for a heavy, and 7,500,000 to 10,000,000 for an assault.

You begin to see the magnitude of the problem. Buying a light, a medium, a heavy, and an assault chassis takes nearly 20 million c-bills and a shade under 200 games. Outfitting a mech can sometimes double that cost, especially if you don’t have a bunch of weapons and equipment sitting around your mech lab, if you’re a new player. We’re already up to about a 400-game grind to buy and outfit four individual mechs. That’s a big time sink.

It also isn’t the end of it. When you buy a mech, you unlock skill trees for that mech. Consider this: I earn about 800xp per match. If I don’t sink about 30,000 experience into each variant, that variant is between 10% and 50% worse in a variety of extremely important performance measures (speed, heat capacity, turn rate, and more) than someone else’s copy of that variant who has done the grind. That’s a 40-game grind in each mech after you’ve acquired it. I’ll grant you, that comes out to less than you need to acquire the mechs (a mere 160 games), but that isn’t the whole story.

You see, the mech skill trees come in three tiers. To unlock each tier, you need to finish the tier beneath it… on three separate variants of a given chassis. So, you don’t need 400 games and 40,000,000 c-bills to buy and outfit four mechs. You need 120,000,000 c-bills and 1200 games to grind out the requisite twelve variants to avoid being a gigantic drag on your team. More than 400 of those games will be played in mechs that are arbitrarily handicapped in an attempt to get you to buy premium time.

So no, Wargaming.net’s games are not more grindy than MechWarrior Online for the average player. Basically, if you don’t get summers off, you’re going to have to spend money if you want to fill out your mech stable, and a lot of money, at that. I leave gawking at the prices as a trivial exercise for the reader.

Thirty Minutes Over Toseong

Posted by

Come, let us reminisce.

It’s the mid-2000s, and war has broken out over the Korean Peninsula. I climb into my F-16C Block 52, get her powered up, and listen to the radio chatter as the inertial navigation system aligns. The time is just after noon, and the tower welcomes a few flights back. Good. The war only started this morning, but losses of planes and pilots both have been heavy.

The INS is aligned, and the Data Entry Display, the little green screen beneath and to the right of my HUD, informs me that my takeoff time is in five minutes. I radio the tower, and they clear me to taxi to runway 20R at our airbase, Seosan, a little ways southwest of Seoul. In between lining up another flight for landing on runway 20L, the tower gives my little two-ship clearance for takeoff.

We’re loaded light today, four AMRAAMs and two Sidewinders, so I take off at military power to save on fuel. We turn east-northeast and climb. We’re to our rendezvous point in about ten minutes. A few miles behind us, the ground-attack flight we’re escorting slots in. I check in with Chalice 4, the AWACS flight covering our sector of the front, and he advises me of bandits to my west, heading this way. I dither for a moment: should I push west and deal with the bad guys, or stick close to my flock?

On the assumption that close escort is and always has been dumb, I turn west. I match the bullseye position on my radar MFD page to the position AWACS gave me, and sure enough, I see two contacts headed my way. I hand one off to my wingman, bug the other, get target confirmation from AWACS, and send the first AMRAAM on its way. It hits, and my wingman’s does too. AWACS calls picture clear, and I turn my flight back toward our charges.

Of course, this is a full-scale war. There’s no way our sector will keep quiet for a full half-hour. Sure enough, AWACS reports contacts about 60 nautical miles distant, inbound from the north. We have identifications: one or two MiG-23s in the middle of a big group of Il-28s. Neither are particularly fearsome, but the MiGs should go first on principle—the Ilyushins are ancient jet bombers, dating from the late 1940s or 1950s, while the MiGs have some 1970s-vintage missiles that might pose a threat to us if they get close enough.

This is where things start to get a little hairy.

It isn’t that engaging the MiGs and Ilyushins doesn’t work—it works just great. The problem is that we still have ten minutes left on station. AWACS calls out a close threat—so close they give us a bearing and range, instead of a bullseye call—and my wingman goes low to deal with the MiG-19 that apparently managed to get in underneath us. Having pushed a little further north than I wanted while prosecuting the bombers, I turn south to extend, and take stock of my situation. I’ve fired all four of my AMRAAMs, and I have a pair of Sidewinders left on the rails. My wingman splashes the MiG-19 down low, and I call him for his status. “Winchester,” he says, “fuel state 2000.”

Well, that’s no good. He’s out of everything and has enough fuel to make it back to Seosan. I send him home, and call AWACS to let them know I’m effectively empty.

“Lobo 9-1, Chalice 4, your window of vulnerability is still open. Can you hold out?”

Well, crap. “Wilco,” I reply, on the assumption that an F-16 with no long-range missiles at angels 25 looks, on radar, to be very similar to an F-16 with long-range missiles at angels 25.

Then the RWR chirps in a way I’m too familiar with. The new threat is a MiG-29. I call AWACS again. “Nearest contact bullseye 050, 60 nautical miles.” I fiddle with the horizontal situation display MFD page, and verify that those are indeed the Fulcrums, sixty or seventy miles out. I ask if I can go home again, and they insist I try to hold out a little longer. There isn’t really much holding out to be done, though. I can’t take on a pair of Fulcrums on my own.

I can stick around a little longer, pretending to be armed, though. I have one eye on the clock, one eye on my RWR, and both ears listening to AWACS updates. It’s agonizing—the MiGs are closer to a missile shot every minute, and I don’t have the fuel to run away at afterburner for very long. Finally, the clock ticks past the edge of my station time. I call AWACS and tell them I’m out of Dodge, and I put the MiGs on my six and run for home.

So ends this tale of a rarity in gaming: a moment when I was not only happy to escape, but actually planning on running away.

The games I’ve enjoyed the most over the years have a common theme: they make war stories. Whether it’s the one time in PlanetSide where I used a Galaxy to scrape the enemy off of a hilltop position, or that time I was stuck on-station with MiGs bearing down on me, it’s the sort of immersion that resonates with me the best. That’s the best thing I can say in favor of Falcon 4 BMS.

Parvusimperator Reviews the SCAR-16S

Posted by

I picked up a SCAR 16S a few weeks ago. I got it because I wanted a factory carbine in 5.56mm that wasn’t an AR-15–I have a few AR-15s already, and I really enjoy putting together AR-15 project guns. And if I wanted something different, I was going to get something significantly different. Plus, the SCAR 16 was the coolest gun in the world when I was in high school. I wanted one so bad. Well, now I have one.1 What’s it like, and how does it stack up to a comparable AR-15?

The SCAR was designed by FN for SOCOM. It was to be the ultimate carbine for their requirements, replacing the Mk. 12 CQBR, the M4 and the Mk. 18 SPR. It was intended to be highly modular, and featured a quick-change barrel. The SCAR 16 shares 90% of its parts with its big sister, the SCAR 17, which is chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO. Currently, SOCOM is focused it’s resources on buying the SCAR 17, since it’s hard to find anything quite as good in 7.62 NATO, and they can get M4s for “free.”2 A variant of the SCAR, the FN Advanced Carbine, was entered in the individual carbine competition, but that competition was cancelled. The SCAR has proven reliable and popular with SOCOM, especially with the SEALs. However, it hasn’t been a big enough improvement over the M4 (which itself is improving) to warrant procurement by Big Army. Enough history, let’s get on to the civvie version!

Disclaimer: A SCAR is not an AR-15.

You might think this is totally obvious, but I think it bears repeating. People are used to AR-15s, and a lot of SCAR reviews out there call out the SCAR for not being 100% AR-15-like. Well of course it’s not. If you want an AR-15, go buy one of those. I love AR-15s. I think they’re great. I won’t stop you. But this is different in a lot of ways–some good, some bad.

The SCAR 16S is chambered in 5.56x45mm, and comes with a 16″ lightweight barrel. Works for me. It’s 1.5″ longer than the standard barrel length in the military version, but I have to deal with the NFA and they don’t. Also unlike the military version, it comes with the excellent FSC556 muzzle brake instead of a flash hider. Since it’s got a 16″ barrel, muzzle devices can be swapped by the owner if desired. Otherwise, it’s basically the same gun as the military version.

THE GOOD
The stock is pretty awesome. Since there’s no buffer tube,3 the stock can fold. It’s also telescoping, and has a nifty adjustable cheek riser. The SCAR can be fired while the stock is folded, which makes you feel cool. And also, kinda goofy. The stock has six positions of telescoping goodness, and the riser has two positions. I’ve heard stories that soldiers had issues with the stock breaking. I’m not sure how much of this is because soldiers can break anything, and how much is due to engineering problems that have been worked out but mine is pretty sturdy. I haven’t actually tried to smash it to bits or do anything stupid with it like break rocks, but I also haven’t babied it. I’m no soldier, so take that as you will.

I like the reciprocating charging handle. You can mount it on the left or the right side of the gun. Some people have scraped knuckles on their optic when using it, but this hasn’t happened to me. I have an Aimpoint Comp M4S mounted on my SCAR, and I tend to wear gloves at the range. If you don’t wear gloves and have a different optic, your results might be different. Some people have also complained that the charging handle has hit their hand while shooting. I’m not honestly sure how this can happen if you’re not trying to make it happen, but maybe that’s because I don’t hold my carbine like a complete moron. I’ve also not seen anyone post a picture anywhere of their hand position when the charging handle hit it. The reciprocating charging handle makes diagnosing whether your magazine is empty or if your weapon has jammed easy. Plus it makes locking the bolt back for administrative or remedial action simple. On the left side, you can pull the bolt back, and with your hand palm down, can trip the bolt catch to lock the bolt in position with your thumb. Simple, convenient, one-handed operation.

The bolt catch is only on the left side of the gun, but the safety and mag release are ambidextrous out of the box. As mentioned before, the charging handle can be configured on the left or the right side, per the user’s preference. The safety is nicer than the AR-15, since the 45 degree position is fire, not the 90 degree one. The shorter throw is nicer to work with. I know, it sounds silly, but it still works better. It’s a bit nicer for the military, since full auto is at the 90 degree position rather than the 180 degree one. Triggerwise, there’s a “combat trigger” in there that’s designed to resist abuse and desert sand and always trip a primer. So it’s not bad, but it’s not good. It’s a trifle gritty and somewhat heavy. There are aftermarket triggers from Geissele and Timney that make things better, of course.

Unlike a lot of the higher-end AR-15s, the SCAR comes with a quality set of folding backup iron sights. The rear sight is adjustable for range and windage, and has two apertures. The front sight is mounted conveniently on the gas block. Minor annoyance: it blocks the front of the picatinny rail, so you can’t slide an accessory over it. Most things you’d want to mount on the top rail don’t need to slide on like that, but there it is.

I should also mention the quick-change barrel. I think the military may like this one more than me. It takes me a long time to shoot out a barrel, and I don’t often think of swapping them. However, I do like that I don’t need a vise to remove or replace a barrel, unlike when working with the AR-15. It’s a minor thing, but the design is cool, and it saves me having to figure a way to improvise a vise in my apartment.

THE BAD
First thing I’m going to call FN out on here is being cheap. The gun came to me in a cardboard box, with some cardboard padding. Lame. With an MSRP well north of two grand, the least they could do is throw in a halfway decent plastic case. Ideally, it’d be a lockable travel-ready case, but I’d settle for almost anything nicer than this lame cardboard thing. It’s not even a cool looking box.

They’re cheap again with the stupid A2-type pistol grip. No one likes these. They’ve got a nub in a stupid place. This is an expensive gun intended for civilians. Would it kill you to put a better grip on there? There are lots available, and while preferences vary, almost all of them are better than the basic A2. It’s something the premium-ARs tend to get right. First thing I changed was the lame grip. Fortunately, AR-type grips work on it, so I grabbed one and made the switch.

The SCAR is in some ways stuck in the early 2000s. Just like the stock M4, it comes with seven inches of handguard space. This is enough for your hand. There’s room for accessories, but it gets a little cramped. You also don’t have much choice in where you’re going to put your hand. AR-15 ergonomics have moved on so people can grip out further if they want, and so that there’s more space for hands and accessories. For the record, this is why so many military guys went to vertical foregrips. Once they loaded their M4s with all their kit, there wasn’t enough room left for their hands. Being a civilian, I don’t have this much crap to hang off my gun. I might like to get my support hand out a bit more though. There are extensions, but they add weight forward. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, and the SCAR is probably heavier than most AR-15 carbines out of the box. That said, I might give a handguard extension a try.

THE ENGINEERING
Clearly, the SCAR doesn’t use the same sort of operation as the AR-15. The SCAR is tappet driven: gas drives a small piston which smacks the bolt carrier assembly and drives it backwards. The bolt carrier assembly is reassuringly beefy, and most of the weight is above the bolt. Since there’s no gas flow required, the bolt itself is pretty thick and sturdy. It doesn’t have any obvious narrow points where stress issues might arise. Field stripping is easy, and requires no tools. Those of you who have seen pictures of the SCAR might note that the different shades of tan don’t match. This is by deliberate request of SOCOM, as it’s supposed to break up the outline of the rifle. I have no idea if this actually works.

SHOOTING THE SCAR 16S
It’s a light recoiling carbine. Duh. The FSC556 muzzle brake does a great job of helping you keep the rounds on target. Unsurprisingly, the recoil impulse is different from that of the AR-15, but it’s not unpleasant, like any other carbine. It handles well, and while shooting with the stock folded isn’t very practical, it puts a big grin on your face. I’ve found that even though I’m not using a thumb over barrel grip, the Magpul AFG is pretty comfortable on the handguard. The trigger snob in me would like a better trigger, but this one is serviceable. I’ve shot many worse triggers (mostly courtesy of Fishbreath).

VALUE COMPARISON
I’m not going to compare the SCAR to a quality entry level AR-15 like the M&P15 sport or the Colt LE6920. Those are much cheaper and still shoot 5.56mm, but don’t have any rails or quality furniture. No, such things aren’t necessary, but they’re nice. And I always think cross-market comparisons are stupid. If you’re thinking about a SCAR, you might be wondering how it compares to the premium AR-15 options. Even though we take away most of the price differential, the AR-15 has been out longer and is very popular, so it’s got a lot more development. There are a number of modular handguard options, which are lighter, but tend to get hot faster. Pretty classic tradeoff. The SCAR’s handguard is sturdier, since there’s no joint. But, you’re pretty much stuck with it. The AR has more ergo options, but the SCAR has a better manual of arms for troubleshooting. Overall, the AR-15 is a more mature platform, so if you only had to get one, I’d tell you to go that route. Probably. But the SCAR is way cooler, and if you already have an AR-15 (or several), or just like the SCAR, you can’t go wrong with one.

1.) Okay, I have a civvie semiauto-only one. Shut up, it’s still awesome.
2.) By “free”, I mean paid for by the parent service, not the SOCOM branch. E.g. paid for by the US Navy, but out of the big budget, not that of the SEALs.
3.) Remember that part where it’s NOT an AR-15?

Parvusimperator reviews The Bureau Gun

Posted by

It’s quite possibly the most tested 1911 ever. It’s certainly one of the most sought after ones. And, it’s even a bit of issued kit for the FBI’s legendary Hostage Rescue Team, 87 years after it was originally designed. It defies classification: it’s handmade by the Springfield Armory Custom Shop’s smiths, but comes with a very specific list of features. Want different ones? Then it’s not a Professional, and doesn’t get the cool serial number prefix. Or the knowledge that this pistol is built to pass one of the most ludicrous challenges ever presented to a modern handgun.

Background: The Challenge
When the HRT went looking for a sidearm, they put a ridiculous set of requirements in the RFP. They asked for a Pistol, Caliber .45, Model 1911. They wanted a 4.5 lb trigger pull (originally 5-6.5, later revised down). They wanted a warranty for 50,000 rounds. They demanded that the pistol be capable of firing three consecutive ten-shot groups from a Ransom rest no larger than 1.5 inches at 25 yards using the FBI’s .45 round of choice, Remington Golden Saber. The pistol then had to be fired for 20,000 rounds and undergo a reduction of not more than 15%. The pistol could not have a stoppage in 2,500 rounds. Only one manufacturer could make this happen–the Springfield Armory Custom Shop.

The Pistol
So what are the other features the FBI got in it’s pistol sans pareil? A classy matte black finish. A GI-type guide rod, none of that silly full length stuff. A skeletonized, commander-style hammer, made from hard, tool-steel. A skeletonized trigger. 20 lpi checkering on the front- and backstrap. A 5″ match grade barrel. An 18.5 lb. recoil spring. And the sort of supertight hand fitting that would make Les Baer proud. Also, the expected Novak three-dot tritium night sights.

Picking up the pistol, the first thing one notices is the 20 lpi checkering. It is sharp. It does not let go. You grip the gun, and she grips you right back. Some might not like this. Some might say they don’t need a pistol that may as well have a barbed grip. Those people are not me. I like a very aggressive texture on my grips, but if you prefer your hands not be heavily callused, you may wish to use gloves. The beavertail grip safety works as intended, and I haven’t been able to get it to not engage with any sort of weird, half-assed grip that I’ve tried. The thumb safety goes on and off crisply, and is small. Small so you won’t bump it accidentally. Small so it won’t dig into your side when you carry the gun. I’m fine with this.

The trigger. Oh, the trigger. This was made for insufferable trigger snobs like me. This is why people say that the 1911 is ‘God’s gift to gunnies’. It is so wonderful. It has the tiniest bit of takeup, and then a crisp break. Insert metaphors about breaking a glass rod here. It’s fantastic–and this from a guy who’s spent many hours with the finely-tuned hair-trigger of an olympic-grade air pistol. Unlike that, this pistol does not have a hair trigger. It will not go off if you brush your finger on it. But it will go off with just a little bit of pressure, so don’t be thinking about shooting until you want to be shooting.

Fit and Finish
Tight. Really tight. Between a lockup tighter than a bank vault and that 18.5 pound recoil spring, the first time racking the slide will make you question your manhood. It’s okay. Grunt. Curse. Breathe. You’ll get it. And no, you’re not getting the Pro apart without the use of that bushing wrench. That’s why they gave you one. It’ll loosen up some with use. It’s okay. That’s the point. It’s supposed to be like that. Go run your new gun. Your hands will thank you, and you’ll enjoy it.

The Black-T finish on the gun is classy. It’s subtle. It’s not inherently gorgeous like the carbonic blue on my old Model 29, but it’s very nice. It doesn’t really have imperfections, just a smooth matte finish that is designed to take some abuse. So what are we waiting for, let’s go shoot it!

Shooting the Professional
A crisp 4 pound trigger on gun that weighs somewhat north of two pounds loaded? Yeah, this gun makes you look good. This gun makes you look like you know what you’re doing, even if you suck. It’s all steel construction means that it soaks up recoil from the big, beefy .45 rounds. And one of the few benefits of the single stack design is that it fits everybody’s hands. And that trigger makes you want to keep shooting. It does however expect and demand that you have good trigger control. Try to live up to the Professional rollmark on the slide. Breathe. Fundamentals. It will magnify any errors you have in your technique, and put them on display for all to see. And you’ll come to appreciate that 20 lpi checkering, since it means the gun goes absolutely nowhere, despite firing big .45 rounds downrange. Before long, you’ll wish the magazines held more.

The Professional comes with six magazines, made by Metalform. 1911s being what they are, there are many different magazine designs out there for them. They only hold seven rounds, because seven round 1911 magazines are more reliable than the alternatives in general. This is as good a time as any to bring up a few annoyances of modern 1911s. Many different magazine variations means you need to find the one(s) your gun likes. And you need to keep an eye on them, because they do wear out. Being steel framed, 1911s run best with lubrication.

At this price point, those are about all the annoyances that there are. The price sucks, but if ever you got what you paid for, this is it. It ran great from the moment it left the box. The Professional is a joy to shoot.

Parvusimperator reviews the Det. Harry Callahan Special

Posted by

As mentioned elsewhere, my first gun was a Glock 19 Gen4. When I went back to the gun store to pick it up after completing the necessary paperwork to appease the fascists, I saw the clerk checking out something that had been brought in and sold. An old Smith & Wesson revolver. A famous one. A Model 29, complete with original wooden box, original papers, and a basketweave, thumb-break, police-type holster. Probably had given some police officer loyal service for many a year. Whoever it was, he had good taste. I have a weakness for iconic weapons, and this one is near the top of that list. Plus it’s got some police history (and I like old police guns). Most importantly, it’s absolutely gorgeous. I held it, felt the weight, and spoke those famous words:

“I know what you’re thinking, punk. Did he fire six shots, or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you gotta ask yourself one question: ‘do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?

Then I put money down on it. Couldn’t resist. It would be mine. Evildoers beware!

I know I felt lucky to find this one. According to the serial, and some obsessive research, it was made around 1976 or so. It’s a three-screw frame, like most post-1960 Smith & Wessons. It was made long before S&W made their stupid pact with Satan–er, the Clinton Administration, so the frame doesn’t have a dumb lock that will break and render the gun unusable. Also, those frame locks are hideous. My Model 29 has a proper pinned an recessed barrel, which is another nice old feature that they did away with. It looks good, and its preferred by collectors. It was, of course, removed by Smith and Wesson as a cost cutting measure in 1982. Most importantly though, my Model 29 is absolutely gorgeous, primarily due to the legendary Carbonia bluing.

Carbonia bluing is the name for a process used by Smith and Wesson (and only Smith and Wesson) on their non-budget revolvers prior to 1978. It was a complicated and labor intensive process requiring careful heat control and polishing. It was based on an oil mixture from the American Gas Furnace Company, who sent Smith & Wesson the oil as a base, and S&W later added a whole bunch of other stuff to make it work. The story goes that there was only one guy at Smith & Wesson who knew the formula, and he kept it written in a notebook. When he died, his widow wanted $50,000 for it. By this point, Smith and Wesson had changed their bluing method to something less labor intensive, so they declined. She destroyed the notebook shortly afterwards. Now, American Gas Furnace Co. will happily provide you with an ingredient list if you ask, but the proportions aren’t on there. They don’t make the oil needed for the base anymore either. Several other ingredients are now discontinued, because they’re awfully carcinogenic. Oh, and one of them’s sperm whale oil–good luck getting that. And then you’d have to mess around until you got the process right. It might just be worth it though, because the Carbonia treatment gives a blue-black color that will have different color highlights as the light hits it. I might describe it as vaguely oil-like, but I’m no artist, so the technical term is lost on me.

Now that we’ve established the gun’s pedigree and gorgeous looks, you’re probably wondering how it handles. It’s heavy. It’s got a six inch barrel, wooden grips, and is all steel. It points reasonably well in the hand, but really needs two to be held comfortably. Once you fire the .44 magnum loads, however, you will appreciate every ounce of weight that it has. The trigger is a revolver trigger, but it’s an old, reasonably well used revolver trigger. So it’s been polished the slow and expensive way: by being fired a lot. Firing double action is heavy, of course, because you have to cock that hammer and rotate the cylinder. It is a textbook rolling break, and once you’ve fired it a few times you can stage it and get some wonderful results. Single action is a perfect glass-rod break. In fact, it might almost be too perfect. It’s very light, and there’s no takeup, so pressure will make it go with little warning that it is about to go. In any case, the trigger is wonderful in either mode.

Interestingly, I’ve left this gun completely stock. It has the sights that came on it: the front blade has a red plastic insert for high visibility, and the rear sight is adjustable with a white U-notch. Not that I could really do much about the sights without sending them off to a smith. The grips are the wooden ones that came with it. I could get something else, but somehow, that just doesn’t seem right. Maybe a set of vintage Pachmayr grips–I’ve heard those are better than the new ones. Still, somehow I don’t really want to mess with it–this is the Dirty Harry gun. It’s iconic the way it is.

No, it’s not the most powerful handgun in the world anymore. I don’t care. It’s a blast to shoot.