Firearms

Archived Posts from this Category

27 February, 2026

Daniel H9 (Gen 2)…Did They Fix It?

Posted by blackcampbell under Firearms | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

The first H9 pistol was from a short-lived company called Hudson. Tiwas a cool, space-age looking pistol — like something out of Blade Runner. The company died off from money issues, but Daniel Defense, known for the AR platforms, quietly picked up the IP and reengineered the pistol to get it to work better. Except, apparently, for a small number of the guns, it really didn’t work better.

Complaints of failure to go into battery, keyholing from the polygonal barreling, uncomfortable spots in the grip — there was a litany of complaints that hit the internet. And for a pistol coming in at $1300 MSRP, that’s not good. Worse, the initial response had that “You’re holding your iPhone the wrong way quality”. That said — they made good on their lifetime warranty and repaired/replaced the damaged units, then went back to testing and reworked the barrel, recoil spring, grip, and while the changes are subtle, they are there. I’d handled the original and the newer generation (?), and I liked it. But not $1300 liked it.

Then they did the smart thing a few months back: they lowered the price to $999.

We had some gun grabbing stupid happening here in my state, so I decided to jump on one of these before they tried to turn us into East California. I got mine ordered in by the excellent folks at Workhorse Armory here in Albuquerque, New Mexico. $980 with tax and shipping.

When I got it in, I decided to do a combination of function test and accuracy comparison with my current favorite carry, the Alpha Foxtrot 1911-S15, and my old reliable, the CZ-85 (an ambi CZ-75.) They are all roughly the same size, with the CZ-85 being the longest by half an inch on the H9, a quarter inch taller, and a touch wider and six ounces heavier. The S15 is a touch shorter in length and grip and an ounce lighter than the H9’s 29.6 oz. empty.

The H9 has an 7075 aluminum frame and G-10 grips, a stainless steel slide with DLC coating, and a cold hammer forged barrel with a 1:10 twist in standard lands/grooves. It’s optics ready, has a short pic-rail on the dust cover, ambi slide releases and an external extractor. Workmanship is top notch. I’m not much on the anodized finish on the receiver, but it does seem to hold up well. The DLC coating on the slide is robust — as it is on the Alpha Foxtrot. After 500 rounds, there was no appreciable wear on the slide surfaces, and the barrel was perfect. A bit of wear on the finish was seen on the ramp where the barrel meets the frame, but well within what you see with most modern handguns. You actually get three magazines with it, so kudos to DD for that — they are 15 rounds if you’re not in a crap state.

I had time to test it out that weekend, so the daughter and I went and put it through its paces. It’s a metal gun — clean it and lube it properly before you hit the range.

The sights are a green fiber optic front and U-notch rear, which I like. At the usual seven yard mark, the H9 drilled a single inch-ish big ragged hole for me — full magazine — with about a two inch drop. That drop would go away, once I got used to the grip angle about two mags in. My daughter did a group of about the same size with a few flyers, but still inside two inches in the nine ring. By comparison, the S15 and CZ-85, both of which I have loads of trigger time on, both shot slightly larger groups, with the CZ pulling to the support hand about a half inch.

It is supposedly zeroed for 25 yards, and with 124 grain ball, it was printing just a hair under point of aim at that range. At that range, taking her time, my teenage girl was able to get a 2” group, free-standing. (I did not do as well…) 

Taking my time, I got ridiculously good groups out to 15 yards. Going fast — and it does like to run fast — I could still keep it all in the ten-ring. There’s complaints about the “upside down” Glock-style trigger safety. Once you’re shooting, you don’t notice it, at all. It has a bit of take-up, breaks clean, and resets with a very short travel. It feels like a standard quality 1911 trigger. It was about on par with the S15, and much better than the old CZ. Weirdly, after about six rounds, I felt like I slowed down when trying a mag dump — not the gun, me. 

Recoil impulse is as good as advertised. Both the daughter and I noted the strongest muzzle flip with the CZ-85, not the S15 (which was what I thought would pop most). Recoil impulse is straight back, then up. The barrel does sit closer to the hand than the S15, and maybe just a touch lower than the CZ. This is supposedly due to the geometry of the bore axis and spring set-up, but I suspect it’s just as much that the weight of the pistol is slighter toward the nose. Double taps were fast, and strings up to six or seven rounds, as well…then that weird slow down for me, not much, but noticeable. Pretty certain I’m compensating for a change in the weight balance or how the grip is sitting in the hand. She did not notice this at all.

We shot 300 rounds of STV’s Scorpion 124 grain ball (solidly good practice ammo), 100 rounds of STV’s Patriot 2A 124 grain ball (cheap…and hard primers mean the occasional failure to fire), 50 rounds of decent Remington 115 gr,, and 50 rounds of Underwood 125 gr. XTP. Zero issues with extraction, accuracy, no keyholing, no failures to feed or go into battery. The only issue was with the Patriot ammo, but that also had a failure to fire on the first strike with the S15, but also the CZ…and that thing has never malfunctioned on me. So I’m discounting the three no fires on those rounds.

So, is it worth it? At $1300? Maybe, maybe not. At $999 or a touch lower? Absolutely! The grip is comfortable and points naturally, like an old Browning Hi-Power. Recoil is reduced from other 9mm pistols in the size range. It bloody shoots! Fast, accurate, light enough to carry concealed (and if I can find a damned lefty holster for it, I just might…) 500 rounds, starting with +P hollow points, and working down to the 115 Remington — no problems, and at clean up we found the Patriot left the pistol absolutely filthy, but still…it had run flawlessly.

They fixed it, and it is an excellent choice for self-defense and probably would kick ass for competition. If there’s one place I might expect failure after high round counts, it’s going to be the ledge for the recoil assembly, but honestly — I think this thing will go for some time.

 

7 December, 2025

Review: Kimber CDS9 Classic

Posted by blackcampbell under Firearms | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

I’m late to the game on this pistol. Stumbling onto a video about it, I hit the interwebz to see what all the fuss was about. The initial CDS9 is a beautiful thing — rich red G10 grips, dual-tone frame and slide, and in a size that was enticing. There wasn’t quite the hate online as you see for a lot of Kimber’s products — some on it earned, but a lot of it not. It’s also $1100ish dollars for a lot of features I really don’t value. A pistol like this, for me, is deep carry. No red dots. No threaded barrel. No rail. But it did have something my Alpha Foxtrot S15 didn’t have: ambi controls. (There’s really zero reason not to have full ambi controls on a pistol in 2025…)

For guys like me, there’s the “Classic” version of the CDS9. No frills, just the necessary bells and whistles to make this a top-notch pocket gun. (Yes, there’s an optics ready version.) I decided to go for it.

The CDS9 with the 15-round magazine. Great for practice, less so for concealment.

You get a cardboard box with a nice, handbag-sized, two pistol range bag; a 13- and 15-round magazine; a CDS9 pistol, the usual lock and sticker, and an utterly useless “safety” booklet that doesn’t even include the disassembly and reassembly instructions. You have to use the QR code on the booklet to download the booklet. Stupid.

The gun has an aluminum frame and a stainless slide in the Kim-Pro II finish, and a stainless steel barrel. The finish is gorgeous and silky smooth in a neutral gray color. The grips (which can be changed out for the sexier G10s from the normal CDS9) are black polymer with a grip texture that doesn’t seem too bitey…until you start banging away. The texturing is also across the back of the pistol and really holds the pistol firmly in the hand. There’s a great undercut on the trigger guard and there was no impacting on the middle finger while shooting. The guard is also large and easily accommodated gloves. It has an external extractor that really chucks the spent shells and most importantly (for me) has an ambi safety and slide stop. The magazine release is swappable left to right.

I owned a Micro-9 from Kimber a few years back and wound up selling it because the trigger finger was caching the magazine release while shooting, dropping the magazine. Not ideal. The magazine release is much lower in profile, as is the safety and slide stop, and in 300 rounds on the first trip to the range, I did not experience an accidental release. The low-profile of the safety has been an issue for some online. I had no issues thumbing it on and off, even while drawing from the pocket of my jeans to shoot. Honestly, if that was a concern, the tail on the CDS9 is short enough you could carry hammer down and draw with your thumb on the hammer, cock it at presentation, and fire. I tried both with zero issues.

This is at the end of 300 rounds — a bit dirty, but not bad, at all.

Recoil with 124 grain Patriot Sports ammunition — not the top end STV offers, but still factory quality ammo — was reasonable for a lightweight pistol. I suspect with the shorter 10-round magazine, it would be “stout”. The pistol ran all 300 rounds without an issue save for two failures where the 15-round magazine locked open with a single round in the box. That’s not a pistol issue; that’s a magazine issue.

Not taking my time, accuracy was decent out to 15 yards with hits in the X or 9 ring. I fired a single mag at 25 yards and saw a two inch drop but solid groups inside three inches. It will run fast once you get used to the trigger, which has a nice 4 lb. consistent break. The trigger is flat faced but does have an upper pivot that isn’t noticeable while shooting, but I do think slowed me down when it needed a bit more let-out for the reset. It feels like an straight-back 1911 trigger; it’s not. While it shoots fast, it also seems like the recoil catches up to you a out six to seven rounds in — something a few commenters had pointed out in their reviews.

Take down and cleaning is pretty 1911-style, straightforward. The dual recoil spring assembly has one loose outer spring, the other is captured. It hooks onto the lug of the barrel cleanly and easily. The lug is CZ-style, not linked like a 1911, and I suspect that really helps with the reliability. The back of the slide was filthy inside, as was the area around the breech, but otherwise, the pistol was pretty clean.

Since I was considering this as a possible replacement or companion carry piece for my Walther PPK, I thought I’d weigh them, empty and with a full magazine: Empty, the CDS comes in a hair over an ounce heavier than my Fort Smith-made .380 PPK; loaded they are 1.73 lbs (27.6 oz) for the Kimber, and 1.5 lbs (23.7 oz) for the PPK. Barely noticeable considering the payload difference. I suspect with the 10-round magazine, the loaded weights will be at close to parity.

Size-wise is where the Kimber easily overtakes the PPK: 

So, is it worth it? At $750 as a street price, absolutely. The CDS9 is competing in an interesting niche of the firearm world and is up against the likes of the SIG-Sauer P238, or more accurately, the P365; or the Hellcat Pro and Micro. They’re all about the same size, but outside of the P238, these are all polymer frame weapons. The CDS9 feels more solid and the recoil is much less snappy than I’ve felt on the Hellcat.

If you prefer a hammer over striker-fired, if you prefer a metal-framed pistol, the CDS is definitely worth considering over the others above. Holster availability is a bit limited, although if you are going to be carrying in the pocket, the CDS fits the Galco Pocket Protector holster for the P365.

 

22 September, 2025

Review: Grand Power P1 K100 (or P1 Mk12)

Posted by blackcampbell under Firearms | Tags: , |
Leave a Comment 

I’m late to the game on this one, admittedly. I’d hear of these years back, btu had never seen one until a few days ago in my local gun store. The owner had picked one up at an estate sale and for $350 out the door, I had a new pistol with almost no wear.

The chintzy black plastic case had the instruction manual, the three extra backstraps (which have to be prised loose with a flat-head screwdriver), and an extra mag. There was, in my case, also a 10-round California and other crappy state-compliant magazine.

The Grand Power P1 Mk12 or K100 is a 15-shot 9x19mm double/single action pistol with a 4.3” barrel version of the Grand Power, giving it just shy of a 8” overall length, a 5.25” height from grip to top of frame, and it’s 1.4” wide. This puts it in the same general size as a commander length 2011, Glock 19, Walther PPQ, etc. It uses the rotating barrel lockup that allegedly reduces recoil and increases accuracy. Like the 2011 — it has a steel chassis inside the plastic frame and eliminated the frame flex you get on most polymer guns. (And which most people will likely not notice…) All the controls are ambidextrous — mag release, slide stop, and safety/decocking lever.

The trigger is plastic, has a bit of squish in single-action, but it breaks very neatly at eight pounds double-action, five on the single. The reset is short, fast, and audible. The pistol likes to shoot fast, but the grip texture is a bit mellow, so I found that faster strings saw the pistol shift a bit in my grip — throwing my later shots a bit left and low.

The accuracy is very good, and when taking my time it was drilling groups at 10 yards that created a single ragged hole. It looks to be sighted in for 15 yards with 124 grain ammo. I ran a couple of strings after I got used to it, swapping mag-for-mag with my Alpha Foxtrot S15 (one of the more accurate pistols I have, even with the 3.5” barrel), and the Grand Power shot nearly as well. Taking my time at 20 yards, unsupported, most of the 15 went in the 10 ring, with a few flyers in the 8 ring.

The ambi controls are, for a leftie, very welcome. I’m used to using my trigger finger to hit the mag release and hit the slide stop, and it took a few mags to train myself to use the right-side controls. The safety is interesting. When flicked up, the pistol is placed on safe; when pushed down, it will decock and can be left in the lower position — turning the pistol double-action only. My assumption is this feature was created for use by police units with DA requirement on their sidearms…otherwise, it’s stupid.

The rotating barrel is supposed to mitigate recoil. I noticed none of that, however, it is very consistent in point of aim. The barrel rotates on a large scalloped cam on the underside of the barrel that rides on a bearing underneath. The pistol functioned flawlessly through 500 rounds of Winchester, Scorpio, and cheap Federal ammo.

The system does make takedown a bit tricky. You pull the slide to the back and pull the disassembly tabs down (like a Glock), then lift the back of the slide to run forward. The barrel will fall clear easily. The guide rod for the recoil spring is fixed to the frame — an interesting choice. Cleaning is pretty straightforward, oil the contact surfaces, then reverse the order. This can be a big tricky — you have to keep the barrel in the forward position to seat properly and set the slide on the frameabout halfway back. You then need to lift the back of the slide a bit to clear the rails, pull it all the way back and pull down on the disassembly pins, then reseat it. It’s a bit tricky the first time or two, but once you’ve got it, it’s easy enough.

So is it worth it? At $350, this was a steal. At the original $500 pricing, it would have been, as well. If you’ve been thinking of the PX-4 Storm by Beretta, I’d suggest you hunt about online and find one of these: it looks better, it functions just as well, and you’ll probably get it for a good price. Grand Power and Stribog are both made by the same group in Slovakia, and the quality is there. Allegedly, one of the P1s had over 100,000 rounds through it without incident, but I’d take that with a bucket of salt. Magazines can be a bit tricky to find online, but I located a few with a half hour search, and their importer Global Ordinance also had some available.

 

25 April, 2025

Review: Military Armament Corp. M1014 Shotgun

Posted by blackcampbell under Firearms | Tags: , |
Leave a Comment 

After the experience with the MAC2, I thought it would be interesting to see how the Military Armament Corporation’s knock-off of the Benelli M4 (known to the Marines as the M1014) compares. There happened to be a pair of these at the excellent Workhorse Armory here in Albuquerque — one with the walnut furniture, and a more traditional tacticool one. I went with the second.

Unlike the MAC2, which uses the inertia system of the M1/M2 series, the M4 utilizes the “auto-regulating gas-operated” (ARGO) system — it’s a short stroke piston system that supposedly self-cleans (bullshit!), and is supposed to be self-regulating to handle both light and heavy loads. More on that in a moment…

The MAC1014 (in this configuration) came with plastic stock and foregrips, and unlike the MAC2, there was actually a rear sling mount. The shotgun came with a MAC-branded sling, three choke tubes, tools to change said tubes. It uses the “ghost ring” sights — with a nice bright white dot on the front post, and the usual two white dots on the ring for very quick acquisition of the target. It also has a Picatinny rail on the receiver ahead of the read sight for optics. It comes with a 5 round tube — so six shots, total, but like the Benelli, can be modified with aftermarket parts for seven, either from MAC themselves or Benelli-compatible parts. Allegedly, the gun is 99% parts interchangeable.

I did a thorough cleaning, as I had with the other two MAC shotguns and saw none of the finish issues I had with the first MAC2 we tested. The weapon broke down easily and once cleaned and oiled, I took it out to the range the next morning.

This first trip was not the fifty shell shoulder torture of the MAC2; I only shot 30 shells, but could have easily done twice that. One of the supposed benefits of the ARGO system is lighter recoil, and that’s true. Even with older Super-X slugs, the recoil wasn’t worse than my little KS7 firing birdshot.

I kept it simple: all targets were at 20 yards. The ammo used was all Federal Premium and some older Winchester Super-X slugs. About that self-regulating thing with the gas system…nope. Maybe this is a break-in thing, but it really didn’t like the “Personal Defense” loads — 1145fps 00 buckshot. They shot phenomenally well: on point of aim, with a very tight group that had minimal spread (maybe four inches). So, just a good word in for the FliteControl packing for the Federal 00 buckshot; it’s fantastic! But in the MAC 1014, I had a failure to eject with every shell, and I purposefully spread these out with the slugs and heavier buckshot to see if the gun would loosen up a bit as I went on. Nope.

This was not an issue with the Federal Power-Shok buckshot, rated for 1350fps. Recoil was still quite light and I was able to annoy the guy next to me on the range but popping off six in rapid succession. The Power-Shok were nowhere as tight as the FliteControl ammunition, and the spread was about double at 20 yards, including a few over the shoulder of the silhouette. Next was the Federal Trueball slugs rated for 1300fps. These are stout, but I found them surprisingly pleasant to shoot from the 1014, and like the FliteControl — true to point of aim and light enough on the recoil I could drop the whole tube and stay in the nine ring. The older Super-X rifled slugs moving at 1600fps saw me drift a few inches to the right and up, but still in the eight and seven ring, due to recoil, which was noticeable — as was the report; much louder — but not unpleasant.

After the range trip, I broke the shotgun down and cleaned and inspected it. The gas pistons were dirty, but not outrageously so. The barrel was a bit dirty, but one pass had it clean. There was no damage to the finish, as with the original MAC2, and the shotgun went back together without issue. Probably the most annoying parts of the disassembly/reassembly are the bolt handle, which has to be rotated as you pull it out, or it’s not coming; and the two piece forearm, which requires a bit of finesse to get it back in. Nothing serious.

So is it worth it? At $370 before tax, this is an absolutely buy. It’s built like a tank; better than the MAC2, in my opinion, and the ARGO system makes shooting it fun without the shoulder pain. I’ll try some faster birdshot and see if it runs it, but my suggestion for self-defense ammo would be keep it over the 1200fps mark. Federal’s got a FliteControl wad in 00 buck running 1325fps…my suspicion is this would be spot on for home defense by minimizing stray pellets. (Yes, I really impressed with this stuff.)

The walnut stock and forearm version has a nice classic look to it that I really like, as well.

 

31 March, 2025

Second Time’s the Charm? MAC 2, Take 2

Posted by blackcampbell under Firearms | Tags: , |
Leave a Comment 

My experience with my first “Turkenelli” — the Military Armament Corporation’s MAC 2 shotgun was…lackluster. You can read about it here. A knockoff of the Benelli M2 12 gauge semiautomatic shotgun, it is an exacting enough clone that they are supposedly 90%+ parts compatible. When I took the thing down the first time, I didn’t need the instructions; it was nearly identical to my old M1 Super 90 from the ‘90s. The question was, at $400 after tax, was I getting anywhere near the quality and usability of a gun five times the cost?

Having had a plethora of issues with the weapon, SDS Imports out of Chattanooga had me send it back. The experience with their customer service department was very good. The lady on the phone had responded to my initial email within 24 hours, the tech team had looked at the pictures and concluded “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” and had me send it back. 48 hours later (plus Sunday), I had a new MAC 2. I decided to do the same 50 round run at the local range to see if my experience would be replicated.

I got the same marine-finish MAC 2 with black plastic furniture and a standard shotgun grip. (I like these more than the “tactical” grips.) The MAC 2 comes with the standard Benelli ghost ring sights, but also an Picatinny optics rail. It has a front slug mount…but not a rear. (Really, guys?) A rotating and heavily knurled cocking lever, standard button to release the bolt, and cross-bolt safety. Exactly like the Italian M1/M2s. It also comes with cylinder, modified, and full chokes. The finish is nice — and appears to have been badly applied in my original unit, judging from the level of wear seen. More in a moment.

For the test, a ran 5 rounds of Winchester #4 buck, 30 rounds of 00 buck — all with a 1150fps velocity according to the boxes; 5 more 00 buck with a 1350fps speed, and lastly 5 shells of older Super-X rifled slug with an 1150fps speed. I figured, like the Benelli, the lower velocity might give me malfunctions to eject or feed like some of the Benellis have in the past. All 50 shells ran without an issue.

The original MAC 2 I had purchased patterned very well an shot true to point of aim with the pre-installed cylinder choke. The #4 buck shot a wide pattern at 15 yards — about 30 inches on the widest axis. The pellets on the 00 were generally within a foot or so and stayed on the silhouette target, aiming center mass at 20 yards and not really taking my time. Interestingly, the shot cups veered pretty wildly — up to two feet from the shot pattern. Slugs shot to point of aim between 5 and 20 yards.

The MAC 2 can pop them out pretty quickly, too. The inertia system of the older Benellis isn’t as quick at the ARGO in the M4, but the gun never lagged behind my ability to get back on target and hit the trigger again. Extraction was enthusiastic, as well; the shells were throwing about three yards and slightly forward. Recoil is not as soft as the ARGO delivers, but it’s not as brutal as a pump action.

With a successful range trip concluded and only the barrel/tube support having worked its way forward during shooting, I took it home to clear the thing. This is were things went wrong with the first MAC 2, and I’m pleased to report that this shotgun did not show the signs of wear on the finish anywhere I looked. Not did it have the damage to the bolt head or receiver that the initial gun did. While a sample of two is hard to make sweeping generalizations — I suspect I got a Monday morning gun the first time. It disassembled and reassembled without issue and the internals were not overly dirty, as you would expect from an inertial semi-auto.

The MAC 2 has the following specs:

  • Chamber: 12-gauge, 3-in.
  • Action: semi-auto, inertia
  • Barrel Length: 18.5 in.
  • Stock/Forearm: Black plastic (although they do a really nice walnut.)
  • Capacity: 5+1 (MAC’s website does have +2 tubes.)
  • Sights: adjustable ghost ring rear/blade front
  • Optic Compatible: yes (Picatinny rail)
  • Finish: bead-blast aluminum
  • Overall Length: 47.8 in.
  • Weight: 6 lb., 8 oz.
  • Chokes: Benelli/Mobil® 1/3/5
  • MSRP: $549.99 (I got mine for $350+tax.)

So…is it worth it? In the original review, hell no. Now? If this shotgun is indicative of the quality of most of the MAC shotguns, then yes. You get a parts-compatible Benelli clone for a third the price that runs well (even the original shotgun I tested ran with only two failures to eject)) and looks the part. I might even pop for their M4 clone.

 

25 March, 2025

Update to the Review of the MAC 2 Shotgun

Posted by blackcampbell under Firearms | Tags: , |
Leave a Comment 

So, I bought a MAC 2 shotgun about a month back and had a… not great experience with it. After sending in the pictures taken upon cleaning it after the first use, I was contacted by Reyes for SDS customer service in Knoxville within a day of sending the email with the complaint. When I called her, I forgot about time zones and such and got in touch with them only 15 minutes before close for the weekend. She informed me that the tech guys had looked over the pics and yes — that was not normal and send the gun back. Before clocking out for the day, she had my waybill emailed to me with the instructions on returning it.

FedEx took a week to get it back to SDS, during which time I was on a roadtrip that would have allowed me to just drop the damned thing off about the same time. But the turnaround was 72 hours. I had a replacement MAC2 by Monday. Same model and finish. Noted remarked that the damage was mostly the bead-blast style coating flaking from wear. Not good, but not actual structural damage, save that seen on the bolt face. Still — good response from SDS: their customer service is solid, the tech guys didn’t cheap me out like I was expecting, and once I get this out to shoot, hopefully, I’ll have a better experience.

 

24 February, 2025

So, I bought a Turkenelli… Review of the Military Armament Corp. MAC 2

Posted by blackcampbell under Firearms | Tags: , |
[2] Comments 

I’m not really a shotgun guy. I don’t find twelve gauge all that much fun to shoot, but I always had one. I’ve owned a few semiautomatic shotguns, including the original Benelli M1 Super 90. I noticed a knock-off of the Benelli M2 by Military Armament Corporation at the gun store the other day. The price was hard to resist (sub $400), so I didn’t.

Now, I’ve heard a lot about the quality of Turkish shotguns being as bad as some of their handguns (Tisas) are good. But at $400, I figure if it’s even halfway to the Benelli, it would be worth it.

So how good is it? Wrong question. How bad is it?

First, the good stuff: It actually comes with chokes, something Benellis I’ve bought don’t, plus the tools to adjust the chokes, the sights, the angle and distance of the stock. It’s got adjustable ghost ring sights, a rail for optics, and is very pointable and light. It looks good, and at first pass, the action runs well and smoothly.

I got the M2 home last week, and broke it down, cleaned and lubed it. I noted a few aluminum shavings here and there — probably missed in the cleaning phase of the production. I took it out for a run today (Monday). I put a total of only 50 shells through it (plus another 30 in a Kel Tec KS7). It’s pretty light at six and a half pounds, and you feel the stouter stuff after a few boxes.

The M2 uses the time-tested Benelli inertial recoil system, so it should run some of the lighter stuff that the ARGO system wouldn’t. In this case, I started with some Norma reduced recoil buckshot. Out of 20 rounds, I had a single failure to eject. Not a bas start. I tried a couple of shorty Aguilas, anticipating they wouldn’t cycle. I was correct. Back to Norma Performance buckshot for 20 rounds. The Turkenelli ran them without issue, save for one failure to eject. Again, for the first time out, now awful. Hornady Black buckshot ran like a top save for one failure to fire that looked to be the round. (It was three years old.) Ten rounds of slug with no malfunctions. All 2 3/4rds, no magnums.

Accuracy was decent, though the reduced recoil shot about two inches high at 15 yards. It was spot on with the Black and slug. While the shorties didn’t cycle, they did pattern spot on at point of aim.

So far, so good. As usual, when I got home, I started cleaning the weapons, starting with the MAC 2. First thing I noted was that the magazine tube really didn’t want to unscrew. I also noticed a bunch of aluminum shavings from the threads and there was some damage from the brace that holds the mag tube and barrel. It had worked it’s way forward a bit during firing.

I don’t mean a few shavings like you’d find from having not cleaned the area…

This is just from the magazine tube being unscrewed. But wait, there’s more. I pulled the tube and dismounted the barrel. Here’s the front of the receiver:

Note not just the impact damage where it meets the barrel; look inside the receiver there. But we’re just getting started, Dear Reader. I pulled the bolt and took it down. Here’s the bolt:

Aluminum shavings. I popped the trigger assembly, using the firing pin retaining pin, as they instructed. That was a mistake:

Nice. And before you say anything, yes — you could do this with the Benelli and not break stuff. With the trigger guard off, the real fun started. There were aluminum shavings and damage everywhere. Remember, this is only 50 shells, nothing hot; in fact, half of it was reduced recoil.

No — that’s not dirt. How’d the bolt look? It was scuffed at the front of the face.

After half an hour of cleaning I had a nice collection of metal filings and had to go over the cleaning mat twice just to get rid of the bits. I even vacuumed the floor under my seat. And once I was done and oiled the weapon…? More shavings.

That’s after I cleaned the hell out of the gun. There was still more.

Aluminum, admittedly, seems a bit of a bad choice for a 12 gauge, but I’ve seen it from other manufacturers. None of their stuff spontaneously shed aluminum, like Arianna Grande losing weight. And again — 50 rounds of normal factory ammunition.

So is it worth it? NO. Not just no, hell no. Steer away from this. I can only imagine how they’ve messed up the ARGO system in their 1014s. Yes, it’s sub-$400, but you can get a Maverick, which won’t shred itself with normal operation. Hell, my cheap Kel Tec has hundreds of rounds through it and even eats shorty shells: no failures.

I have a warranty claim into MAC for the firing pin retaining pin and a request to replace the weapon. Will I fire this thing again? Unlikely. If it’s shedding metal, it’s going to fail somewhere.

Update: I reached out to SDS in Tennessee the same day as this occurred, and I will give them this — their customer service folks are on it. They confirmed that this is not a normal event and that the weapon needs to be replaced. The lady on the CS line was very helpful, especially as I got in touch with them right at the end of their work day.

More as events unfold…

 

5 October, 2024

RIP Paul Harrell

Posted by blackcampbell under Firearms | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

Paul Harrell was a YouTuber who did excellent videos on guns, ammunition, and other subjects connected to the shooting community. A former Marine and soldier, he brought a no-nonsense approach to the sport that advocated safety, provided reviews of products, compared different types of ammunition for their efficacy, while always bringing a wry humor to his presentation. So it was completely in character to pre-film a video entitled “I’m Dead”, in which he apologizes to all his 1.2 million viewers that he had passed. Harrell was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer that was much more aggressive than originally thought.

“My sincere apologies…I had hoped that I would continue in this format for the next 10 or even 15 years. And even once I was diagnosed I had hoped we would be here two or three more years, and it’s turned out to only be a few more months. And my apologies for that. It really makes me feel like I’ve let everybody down.”

The video channel Harrell created will continue to be available on YouTube and his brother will supposedly be creating new content.

 

11 September, 2024

Ejection Issues with the New Walther PPK .32

Posted by blackcampbell under Firearms | Tags: , |
Leave a Comment 

Here I go into the issues with the new Walther PPK .32 and some of the possible reasons this may be happening.

 

11 July, 2024

Review: The “New” Walther PPK

Posted by blackcampbell under Firearms | Tags: , |
[3] Comments 

I’ve had several PPK and PP knockoffs across the decades, but I didn’t buy my first actual Walther PPK/S until about five years ago, when an Interarms period Walther showed up for a very reasonable price. It’s a great pistol, but I replaced it with one of the new Fort Smith-made PPKs in .380 a year later. With the release of the new Walther in 7.65mm (.32 acp), I jumped on the first one I saw when the guy that had been thinking about it didn’t just buy it. He walked away to look at something else; I bought it.

First off, Walther definitely took a hint from some of the latest packaging trends. The pistol comes in a very Apple-like simple white box with a gray Walther logo on it. Inside, there is a blue presentation case that is quite nice, with the pistol and extra magazine inside. Documentation, etc. is under the flap in the white box. Noticeably missing in the box is what you used to find — a spent cartridge and a target showing it had been test fired. I haven’t seen this in most manufacturers of late and I suspect a lot of them are kicking their products out the door without an actual test firing. That said — an A for presentation.

Both the .32 and .380 PPK are the same size, weight, and have the new extended tang/tail on the back of the frame. A lot of folks, especially those with bigger hands, love this. I do not. The pistol is beautifully formed, but the tail carried a sharp angle from side to the underside. I find a too high grip on the .380 and I come away with a triangular bruise in the webbing of my hand. Your mileage may vary. One complaint I’ve heard about the new tail is it presents a spur that could catch if you pocket carry. I haven’t experienced this issue in the years I’ve been carrying the PPK in my pocket. If you put your thumb on the hammer of the pistol while drawing, it clears a pocket with little issue.

The very low profile sights are minimal, to be kind, and this aids in concealment and in drawing from teh same. This is not a long-distance weapon. This is made for self-defense distances — under 15 yards. At contact to 5 yards, I can keep a two in the chest drawing and firing fast from low port, with a quick aim and follow up for a head shot. Rapid acquisition of the sights is doable and sub-2″ groups up to 10 yards are easy with little practice. For me, this has been the case with every version (including knock offs ) of the PP and PPK platform.

Back to build quality: The engraving in the “little” PPK is excellent — much deeper that you see on the .380 — to the point I can tell them apart just from that. (The .32 in the bottom pistol in the following images.) If fact, the only real way I could tell the difference otherwise is the slide is sprung much lighter on the .32, and is very easy to manipulate, whereas the .380 requires a bit of pull to cycle.

Trigger pull seems to be about the same between the two pistols, though I haven’t measured it — it should be about 10ish pounds on a long double action with a fast, crisp break; or a 4-5ish lbs. single-action. There’s a bit of takeup on the single action, but once you hit resistance, it’s going to break clean. The extractor spring seems a bit weak on the .32 — more on that later. Even the magazines will swap from one to the other, and yes — the .380 fit in the .32 mag. The only visible difference is an extra witness hole with a 7 to show the .32. The .32 mag in the .380 will lock in but will not lock the slide back. If still fed a round into the chamber when cycled. I’m not recommending you do this, but I was curious…

Take down and cleaning are the same, although my recoil spring on the .32 did not want to come off like the .380 does, and I didn’t want to use too much force. I just lubricated the barrel around it. Then it was off to the range to shoot both and torture test the little one.

For the .380 I used Freedom Ammunition’s 100 gr. remanufactured FMJs and Sellier & Bellot 90gr. FMJ. The .32 was fed only FMJs — 150 rounds of Magtech, 100 rnds. of PMC — both 71 gr. FMJ; Fort Scott 71 TUI., Aguila 71 gr. and Fiocchi 73 gr., then finished with 40 rounds of Underwood .32+P 55 gr. Xtreme Defender with the fluted copper bullets.

The .380 Walther has eaten everything I’ve thrown at it from 68gr. Lehigh and Underwood, to 100 gr. remanufactured stuff, and the only issue I’ve had is with S&B. There’s a real snap to the recoil impulse that is sharp enough that very occasionally, it will half drop or fully engage the decocker! It happened once with the Freedom 100 gr. on this trip but hasn’t happened before. Fortunately, everything else runs fine and the 90 and 68 gr. Underwood perform flawlessly, with hits into a coke can from 20 yards — no issues. I stay away from the S&B for my .380 PPK, although I’ve never had an issue with anything else.

The .32 — oh, the .32. The first box of Magtech was causing issues — solid primer strikes that dented the hell out of the primer, but requiring two or three trigger pulls to get them to ignite. I put this down to the ammunition. I was also having failures to eject. The empty would extract, but get caught above the incoming round about half the time. Then I figured it out: On the .380, the recoil with the new tang makes me teacup the pistol, with my thumb folded down. On the .32, I was riding with my offhand thumb forward…and pressing to the slide. I was slowing the action and causing the failure.

On the PMC, I started having stovepipes. I was 170 rounds in, so I stopped and cleaned the gun a bit. Problem solved for about 50 rounds, then recurred. However, when I switched to the Aguila and Fiocchi I had no such issues. They’re both slightly faster cartridges than the Magtech (which fired dirty!) and the PMC. The little PPK likes the hotter stuff. The Underwood +P 55 gr. Xtreme Defenders ran without an issue and printed solid 2″ groups at 10 yards free-standing. The Magtechs had the worst groupings, but partly that was my stop-and-start shooting while clearing jams. The stovepipes were super easy to clear: hook the casing with my finger and pull. The gun would go into battery and fire, no problem.

Now…I’ve used Fort Scott ammo before and it’s good stuff. Just not in the PPK. Every. .single. round… failed to feed, jamming up going into the barrel and requiring me to take the slide off to pry them out. The bullets are just too long for the breech. Avoid them for the .32 pistol! It does seem that the .32 is more finicky on ammo. It likes the hotter stuff and when it gets dirty, the chance of jamming — mostly stovepipes that can be quickly cleared — goes up. This is much the same for the .22 PPK/S my daughter has as a plinker; 40gr. only and the hotter the better, or you’ll get failures.

Would I carry this as a defense pistol? No, I’d stick with the .380 PPK or if I’ve got the opportunity to carry on my belt, my Alpha Foxtrot S15. If I want a deep concealment .32, the super-light and small Kel-Tec P32 is still king, for me. Would the PPK .32 be fine for a defense carry for someone who was recoil averse or had arthritis or some other condition bad enough that something heavier sprung might be hard to manipulate? Absolutely. When clean and well-fed, the gun is very reliable. Dirty and lighter range stuff is more prone to failure, although after I sorted my grip on the pistol, the incidence of failures to eject dropped from about 40% to about 2%, and that was usually after 50+ rounds of fouling from the cheaper stuff. It didn’t happen at all with Fiocchi, and only twice out of 100 rounds with Aguila (and that was with the gun filthy!)

So is it worth it? Depends, do you want a PPK in the original chambering like I did, and like fans have been railing on Walther for the last six decades to produce? Then, yes. Is it a good self-defense pistol? Provisionally — with good ammo and for people who are recoil averse. Is it a good range toy? With crappy ammo, and a lot of the .32 is meh quality, it’s a pain in the ass; with the hotter stuff, it’s good. Is it worth the near $1000? Meh… it’s easily the best-looking pistol ever designed. There’s something about it — the James Bond connection aside — that is just classy as hell, especially in the stainless steel. However, I keep feeling this pistol should be coming in about $700-ish max, but inflation has skewed pricing so badly the last four years I just can’t mentality keep up.

But was it worth it? I was not as impressed as I thought I would be after seeing it, and it’s a beauty. But I think the .380 runs better.

 

Next Page »