I’m digging the 320’s. My Compact will do one inch groups at 7 meters. I I were to use a bench rest who knows - it might even be better. I was quite surprised. I see no difference between it and the full size 320. I don’t miss the extra two rounds in the mag either. Besides, Colorado mags are restricted to 15. I recently discovered that by the way. I’ve been rocking a 21 rounder for quite some time. But I figure if I can’t hit something after 15 shots, I might as well turn in my tab.
No sideways shots with my 115 grain Hornady Action Pistol bullets. They’re extremely accurate. But damn they can be hard to hand load. I did over 200 a few weeks ago with no problem. Last week almost 50% were no go’s. I quit at 25 and went to buy factory ammo, I had to deconstruct them and start over. I haven’t tried the HAPs in my new press yet, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed. Still fine tuning it. I guess I’ll order .38/.357 dies for it as well.
My 1911 is a tack driver. I load 215 grain HAP’s for it. I don’t think I’ll get dies for it though. I only plan to shoot .45 at matches and I want to be more precise with my rounds than the press can be, so I’ll just hand load those. Need to polish the ramp though. Even on that match barrel about one or two out of ten doesn’t want to feed, and I mic every single round.
If you can get to Arlington tomorrow afternoon you can be my guest at Range USA.
For starters; why in the fooking ‘ell did ATI decided to use Tapco plastic garbage mags on it and why couldn’t they at least have used South African R4 magazines instead?
Given my sudden fascination with Israeli Armor; I figured why not acquire a weapon that your typical IDF tanker would’ve carried. I’ll be going to a Gun Show this weekend and see if I can find a couple of proper Israeli 35-round magazines for it. Already got the stock on orders for when I SBR it.
Indeed it is. A lot of folks turn their noses up at the cheaper models, but at $1999 this gun isn’t exactly cheap.
Just like back in the day when the less knowledgeable would scorn my Taurus PT-99, even though I would outshoot them on their Berettas. Speaking of which, a lot of those same people cried how inferior the Beretta M9 was to the M1911 when the Army made the switch. Since I replaced my Taurus with a Beretta 92FS I’ve never has a problem with it either.
I’m waiting for those with weak grips and continued stove pipes with the new Sig to say how much better the Beretta was.
I’m taking the new gun to the range today. Should put a smile on my face.
Turkish MKE MP5 factory clones are good. Built on German HK machinery with German tech support. The PTR91 rifles are good as well; built on German machinery bought from FMP (Portugal) and using original blueprints also bought from FMP.
I own an MP5 pistol build in the US using a German parts kit on an LSC receiver. Fun little pistol to shoot.
Yeah, I forgot to mention those same Taurus pistols were produced with tooling purchased from Beretta. Any inability to shoot a Taurus is induced by operator headspace and timing issues.
The PT92 was based off the old Beretta M92S; which, among other features, had frame-mounted safeties, while the M92F/M9 had it’s safety installed in the slide, they also relocated the magazine release from the bottom of the grip (on the 92S) to the middle of the grip, like a 1911.
This is the layout that Beretta submitted for the Joint Services Small Arms program in 1977. By the time the second round of tresting was conducted in 1983, Beretta made changes to its original submission and the Beretta Model 92FS was the winner and adopted as the M9.
Taurus of Brazil, also adopted the Beretta design and manufactured the PT-92.
Decades ago I was at the local range shooting my G19. The owner comes to me with a 92FS says I should try it. (Because he wants me to buy one). Using the same ammo I’d been using I gave it a try.
First couple of rounds I couldn’t even tell if it fired. That’s how quiet and soft it shot.
I carried one for the bulk of my military career as an MP. It is a reliable weapon; ergonomics we’re decent and accurate. I found it a bit on the heavy size, in comparison to an M11 (Sig P228), which I carried on PSD details.
It is not a horrible pistol, just bulky if you intend to carry it concealed.
I like the weight. The first time I fired a Glock decades ago it felt like a toy to me, and polymer, striker fired guns didn’t appeal to me until the Army chose the Sig to replace the M9. I only bought one for that “muscle memory” (a term I still use although I prefer neuromuscular reflex) I came to like it right away, which may explain why I’ve bought/built three of them. However, I still like a heavy gun. My 686 with the six inch barrel is as steady a shooting platform as they come. And the Shadow 2? A stationary object likes to stay stationary until force is applied to it. A heavier stationary object needs more input to move it. I’ll let the videos speak for themselves. It certainly ain’t me. Not with my eyesight. It’s the gun.
I like to imagine how well it would have performed with a front sight.
The S&W 686 and the CZ Shadow 2 both clock in at over 46 ounces.
Nope. I am going 100% original on this one. I will be registering it as an SBR and add the correct SAR stock for it once the paperwork clears. Already have 9 35-round magazines; mostly Israeli with a pair of South Africans.
I like simple stuff. the rifle in itself is hefty as is without the extra weight of optics or fancy accesory rails. Plus I love the sleek lines of the Galil.
