Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Gosh, it seems I understood the concept of Gucci firearm incorrectly, I stand corrected

I've always associated Gucci with 80s excess and ostentatious displays of wealth. Blinged-out Glocks check both boxes.

I understood it more as the fact you would customise a gun, as is often the case with AR15, almost from inside out, even if the modifications can be done perfectly and soundly.

Had the wrong grasp on this!

By the way just tested out a VHS2 yesterday and although that's a bit expensive... Really found it cool. Like bullpups.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I understood it more as the fact you would customise a gun, as is often the case with AR15, almost from inside out, even if the modifications can be done perfectly and soundly.

Had the wrong grasp on this!

By the way just tested out a VHS2 yesterday and although that's a bit expensive... Really found it cool. Like bullpups.

No, Gucci was never known for owner modifications. A Gucci gun is a Desert Eagle with gold tiger stripe finish, and faux ivory grips.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I understood it more as the fact you would customise a gun, as is often the case with AR15, almost from inside out, even if the modifications can be done perfectly and soundly.

Had the wrong grasp on this!

By the way just tested out a VHS2 yesterday and although that's a bit expensive... Really found it cool. Like bullpups.

No, Gucci was never known for owner modifications. A Gucci gun is a Desert Eagle with gold tiger stripe finish, and faux ivory grips.

I never understood that "wannabee" rich kid type of deal. Either go full rich and go to a gunsmith for something truly customised or if you intend to also use it and are not flush with infinite cash, use something that is practical to use.

Afterall there's nothing wrong with mattblack.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I never understood that "wannabee" rich kid type of deal. Either go full rich and go to a gunsmith for something truly customised or if you intend to also use it and are not flush with infinite cash, use something that is practical to use.

Afterall there's nothing wrong with mattblack.

The Gucci Glock is a combination of aspirational affluence and entry-level gunsmithing. It allows one to brag about how much money one spent customizing the firearms equivalent of a subcompact car while pretending to be a hot-rod mechanic.

I feel like I'm holdout a bar of soap when I have a Glock. My local gun range has Glock shooting sports, but I can't get behind it.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
I feel like I'm holdout a bar of soap when I have a Glock. My local gun range has Glock shooting sports, but I can't get behind it.

I think pistol grips are almost a generational thing. If you grew up (as I did) learning to shoot revolvers, Glock grips will never feel right. I'm very comfortable with auto-loaders, but many of these have some of the same features in terms of shape and grip angle.

I know the new hotness is getting the grip as high as possible, but if you shoot revolvers or vintage weapons, it's a great way to get slide or hammer bite, and frankly, I'm not that allergic to recoil. It's funny to watch modern shooter flinch from a .38 revolver's recoil.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
I feel like I'm holdout a bar of soap when I have a Glock. My local gun range has Glock shooting sports, but I can't get behind it.

I think pistol grips are almost a generational thing. If you grew up (as I did) learning to shoot revolvers, Glock grips will never feel right. I'm very comfortable with auto-loaders, but many of these have some of the same features in terms of shape and grip angle.

I know the new hotness is getting the grip as high as possible, but if you shoot revolvers or vintage weapons, it's a great way to get slide or hammer bite, and frankly, I'm not that allergic to recoil. It's funny to watch modern shooter flinch from a .38 revolver's recoil.

I've never seen a pistol shooter flinch from a .38 revolvers recoil.

I've got dinky little hands so Glocks have always felt a little too large for me to hold comfortably, but I've shot them for 25 years now. I'm ok with them. I was enthralled with my new Glock 48 MOS. However I find that grip too small. Roll eyes.

My 1911 with VZ's is the tits, and I like H&K USP grips. Go figure.

Kayback wrote:
I've never seen a pistol shooter flinch from a .38 revolvers recoil.

Seems to be a thing among the current generation. In my youth, .38 special was a puny round, and 9mm was obviously inferior to .45 ACP.

I think the modern ergonomics and popularity of .22LR in carry guns has lowered recoil expectations quite a bit. I've seen people say that .380 is "too snappy" and that they prefer a full-sized 9mm.

On the other hand, there are BFRs with ridiculous chamberings and snub-nosed .500 Magnums for true masochists.

I have a friend who has pretty much settled on a full-sized 9mm and .22Mag target revolver as his preferred handguns, and has zero interest in even trying .45 ACP.

Anyone who is skittish with the idea of guns or really new might flinch too. But that doesn't have anything to do with the actual caliber and is more mindset. They'd flinch on a .22 most likely too.

Agreed, already seen how the few first round of a friend, being 22, made him step a bit backward although there's literally 'o recoil. Someone fully new to the range and firearms can be really overwhelmed by the idea of recoil, but that doesn't last for long!

This is pretty cool footage

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anyone who is skittish with the idea of guns or really new might flinch too. But that doesn't have anything to do with the actual caliber and is more mindset. They'd flinch on a .22 most likely too.

It's not newness, it's what they are accustomed to. The guy who won't shoot over 9mm is older than I am, he's just determined a comfort level that I find a little absurd. And I tease him about it.

But among the new generation (which includes my kids), there is an aversion to any form of discomfort. We're seeing this in the way that just about every handgun now has alternate grip panels and even frames. It's fine, but it's the antithesis of the old school where you just got used to it. You know, like that Ruger Bisley I used to own in .44 magnum with hardwood grips. I didn't hurt so much as make your hands go numb.

And yes, I know shooter who consider .22LR "enough." I think there's a huge opportunity for updated .32 ACP weapons for this crowd, because in compact frame, .32 ACP is quite soft, and one of my daughters has decided that it's the perfect caliber for her (her targets bear this out).

A far cry from when I bought my first handgun and - after listening to all the "experts" - opted for a .357 Magnum because everything else was "underpowered."

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
I feel like I'm holdout a bar of soap when I have a Glock. My local gun range has Glock shooting sports, but I can't get behind it.

I do have to say I don't like the finger grooves in a lot of Glock grips. I have large hands, and my ring finger will ride along the ridge that is supposed to separate your ring finger and pinky. Now, there are aftermarket Glock lowers that I'm interested in that have no finger grooves, and are styled more similar to a 1911.


Now, I'm no Glock fanboy, and I somewhat dislike the pistols. However, why do I love Glock? The magazines. Not the cheapest mags, but far from the most expensive. They are reliable, come in various capacities, and they are everywhere and will be for decades. I have a couple pistols where tracking down factory mags (the only reliable ones there are) feels like cruising back allies in hopes of finding VHS cassettes of snuff films.

Agreed, especially in a country such as France where aftermarket is very limited.

Most spare parts and attachments are hard to find, and when you do find them, their atrociously expensive. Save for a few very common, mostly glocks for example.

You have got the option to import them but postage is expensive too...

 cuda1179 wrote:
Now, there are aftermarket Glock lowers that I'm interested in that have no finger grooves

Only gen 3 and gen 4 Glocks have the finger grooves. If you get the newest (gen 5) or an older one (gen 1-2), no finger grooves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
But among the new generation (which includes my kids), there is an aversion to any form of discomfort. We're seeing this in the way that just about every handgun now has alternate grip panels and even frames. It's fine, but it's the antithesis of the old school where you just got used to it. You know, like that Ruger Bisley I used to own in .44 magnum with hardwood grips. I didn't hurt so much as make your hands go numb.

And yes, I know shooter who consider .22LR "enough." I think there's a huge opportunity for updated .32 ACP weapons for this crowd, because in compact frame, .32 ACP is quite soft, and one of my daughters has decided that it's the perfect caliber for her (her targets bear this out).

A far cry from when I bought my first handgun and - after listening to all the "experts" - opted for a .357 Magnum because everything else was "underpowered."

As someone who probably qualifies as 'the new generation'- there's an emerging consensus that a gun that fits your hand and is comfortable to shoot is more effective (ie easier to shoot rapidly and accurately) than something with nominally higher effectiveness on paper but which you have to 'get used to'. Part of that is pushback against high caliber as a hard requirement for 'stopping power', as modern defensive hollowpoint loads have narrowed the differences in terminal effects between calibers, and part of it is a shift towards being more concerned with whether the round connects rather than what happens when it does.

It's not just a civilian shooter trend, either. There's a great case study in the form of FBI selecting the 10mm Auto as a new standard sidearm caliber in the early-90s, discovering that smaller-statured shooters simply were not effective with it and downloading to what is now known as .40S&W, and then ultimately ditching it and going with 9mm. I would also push back on the implication that this is a new thing, as the caliber wars between good ol' single-stack fohty-fahv and the whizzbang double-stack wonder-nines have been ongoing since the 80s.

Personally, I own a number of handguns in .45ACP, .357, .30 Carbine, and .50AE, but my go-to handgun is a plain CZ75B in 9x19. Love my 1911s, Automag, and Mateba, all wonderful target pistols, but with the CZ I can put more rounds on target more accurately in less time under stress.

Which circles back to my view which is get the most powerful thing you can shoot reasonably accurately. Don't get something you can't control, but don't go smaller just because "shot placement is key". Don't risk your life on getting perfect shot placement. Go for the most powerful thing you can do "good enough" with. What caliber this means will be different for different people, but I would say personally that anyone who can handle .380 can handle 9mm and there is no reason to downgrade.

 catbarf wrote:
.

Personally, I own a number of handguns in .45ACP, .357, .30 Carbine, and .50AE, but my go-to handgun is a plain CZ75B in 9x19Love my 1911s, Automag, and Mateba, all wonderful target pistols, but with the CZ I can put more rounds on target more accurately in less time under stress.

I shot .45ACP in various 1911s for many years. I love throwing trashcans around. My handload is a TC 230gr at around 900fps, a touch spicy but it works well and on steel it knocks it down with authority. The first time I did a classifier with my 9mm Glock 26 I went up a division and that was with standard 124gr FMJ out a box.

I'm still trying to get a 1911 back, looking at a Les Baer, but still carry my G17/G48. I'm not as good with my 48 yet as I've got hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange through it. It's a 2 pin early Gen 3 frame. Shot to pieces I love it but carry my 48 MOS. Having electronic sights makes blind shooters happy.

IIRC when the FBI came out with the ballistics test 10mm and .357 SIG were the only automatic calibers that could pass it. Ammo tech has continually improved to the point that 9mm and up can pass it, so it makes sense to switch to something easier to shoot. And if LE is just going to mag dump at 7-10 yards with an 18% hit rate, capacity trumps caliber. That said....




Grips are a generational thing to an extent as most revolvers and older semi autos were intended to be shot one handed, and the training of the time reflected that. Sometimes things do rise and fall out of fashion too. 3 dot sights had been common but the new hotness is blank or blacked out rear sights.

I'm one of the people that heavily upgrades their guns. I personally would not buy a "Gucci" Glock or put thousands into upgrading an existing one, but can't really fault the people that do. A lot of people either got a Glock as their first gun, or were issued one for their job. Switching to a hammer gun would be a good idea, but getting better with what you know is also a viable choice.

Do you really need extra cocking serrations, "lightening" holes cut into the slide, a bling-tastic finish, and similar? Of course not. But anything that increases the intrinsic or practical accuracy (how it shoots from a rest vs how you shoot it), or improves your shooting drills, can be worthwhile. if you bought the gun because John Wick used it and you shoot 100 rds a year out of it, then yes its a waste.

For instance my AR started out as a generic GWOT era M4 and over time I have replaced nearly every part. It had good accuracy, and now shoots frikkin laser beams at 100 yards from a rest with good ammo. It had an adequate trigger, now it has the finest of any gun I've owned. Knowing that the gun has that kind of accuracy is very helpful when practicing as I know the problem is me, not the gun/ammo. To me its worth it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which circles back to my view which is get the most powerful thing you can shoot reasonably accurately. Don't get something you can't control, but don't go smaller just because "shot placement is key". Don't risk your life on getting perfect shot placement. Go for the most powerful thing you can do "good enough" with. What caliber this means will be different for different people, but I would say personally that anyone who can handle .380 can handle 9mm and there is no reason to downgrade.

I generally agree, but I think what makes it more complicated is that 'what you can shoot reasonably accurately' will depend on a lot more than just caliber. Many people who can handle 9mm just fine in a full-size steel-frame delayed-blowback handgun will struggle with the same caliber in a subcompact polymer-frame form. There are a lot of factors that affect practical effectiveness, particularly when it comes to guns intended for concealed carry, and a gun can go from barely controllable to rock steady for a particular user from something as simple as swapping out slick plastic grips for molded rubber ones.

If switching to a lighter caliber than one can 'handle' means either better practical accuracy under stress or a smaller/lighter system that they will actually carry rather than leave at home, then I can't really fault that, provided an adequate self-defense load is used. I draw a hard line at .22LR though, just because I've observed too many malfunctions with rimfire ammunition to trust it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which circles back to my view which is get the most powerful thing you can shoot reasonably accurately. Don't get something you can't control, but don't go smaller just because "shot placement is key". Don't risk your life on getting perfect shot placement. Go for the most powerful thing you can do "good enough" with. What caliber this means will be different for different people, but I would say personally that anyone who can handle .380 can handle 9mm and there is no reason to downgrade.

I disagree - shoot the caliber and platform that you are most accurate with, period. Under the stress of a self-defense situation, accuracy will degrade, and if you were only "good enough" you are likely to fail.

Plus, comfortable shooting makes for more frequent practice. I've seen several examples of people who took the "heaviest they can control" and who now rarely practice because it isn't that enjoyable and they consider themselves "good enough."

I agree with catbarf about .22LR being unsuitable. It's harder to find, but .25 ACP was designed to remedy the unreliability of rimfire ammo.

I will say that .32 Long or .32 ACP get you much better ballistics than .22LR and in the right package is very easy to shoot. What's more, vintage .32 Long revolvers can be found in excellent condition for less than $200. One of my daughters loves shooting a European "police pistol" in .32 ACP. With the steel frame, there is very little recoil and seems to point naturally in her hand.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Plus, comfortable shooting makes for more frequent practice. I've seen several examples of people who took the "heaviest they can control" and who now rarely practice because it isn't that enjoyable and they consider themselves "good enough."

Also, corollary: The .32 or .380 or .38Spl or 9x18 you actually carry is infinitely more useful than the 9x19 or .45 you left at home because it was too heavy or prints too much.

I think there's a balance to be struck between caliber and practical accuracy- as tedious as the discourse around ""stopping power"" is, there's good reason FBI penetration tests are widely considered the gold standard- but nobody's effective with a platform they don't practice on or don't actually have available when the fight starts.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

I disagree - shoot the caliber and platform that you are most accurate with, period. Under the stress of a self-defense situation, accuracy will degrade, and if you were only "good enough" you are likely to fail.

Logistics! While the above is the ideal - the reality is you have a budget and platforms you practice with are better than the ideal gun you leave in its box. There is a lot of leeway there for personal use, but organisationally it can be a big cost driver if you pick wrong and end up cutting effectiveness to save cash.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Logistics! While the above is the ideal - the reality is you have a budget and platforms you practice with are better than the ideal gun you leave in its box. There is a lot of leeway there for personal use, but organisationally it can be a big cost driver if you pick wrong and end up cutting effectiveness to save cash.

Cost and cost of ownership (ammo) are absolutely factors as well. That being said, if you need something that is very compact and you go with a 9mm because ammo is cheap, but the felt recoil in such a tiny frame causes you to flinch, or be less enthusiastic about practice, it's clearly not really a savings.

That's why I try to help people think outside the box. I bring up .32 Long revolvers because they are dirt cheap, ammo isn't bad and they're a nice balance of recoil and power. It used to be the NYPD's official caliber, so I can get the job done.

Likewise, there are tons of weapons chambered in .32 ACP that are affordable to buy and use and they also print small.

Weight is a factor, but it can cut both ways - as mentioned above, what might be fine in an all-steel frame may be too "snappy" in a polymer or "airweight" configuration.

I'm a huge fan of .32 Magnum, which is like the platonic ideal of a self-defense cartridge. It's biggest drawback is cost/availability of ammo, but that seems to be improving, and you can use .32 Long for practice.

I've said enough regarding ammo choice/effectiveness and agree that can be a tedious discussion. Cost and cost of ownership (which you might extend to the cost of maintaining proficiency) is a lot more interesting, and careful shopping is a big part of shooting if you are doing it at the level of a hobby. Effectiveness aside, ammunition in dead or mostly dead calibers is fairly expensive for what it is, mostly due to low demand and supply. You could choose to buy a $200 C&R revolver and a $500 case of ammo, or for a similar cost buy a case of 9mm and a brand new serviceable 9mm carry gun like a PSA Dagger, Masada, or Shield Plus.

If you are shooting enough to maintain proficiency with your gun, ammo cost is a big factor. If you are shooting a box here and there, you'll likely be as good as those average LEO shooters with the 18% hit rate. And TBH they usually still win their gunfights so that is probably good enough for a more casual shooter.

With careful shopping you can save a lot of money in this hobby. And that applies to guns, ammo, and even upgrades. I'm much more of a "buy once, cry once" shopper rather than someone on a tight budget, but I still don't want to throw money away either.You have to decide what you want, and whether the price will rise or fall if you wait to buy. Make your purchases carefully using logic that makes sense at the time, and try not to get so set in your ways that you make bad decisions later down the line.

Real world example! :

The only Glock I own is in a dead caliber (.357 SIG) that made a lot of sense when I bought it but makes less sense now. Modern 9mm has sufficient penetration and makes the same sized hole. .357 SIG ammo has been extremely hard to come by in recent years, with a few boxes here and there available at over $1 per round, and absolutely nothing available by the case. I've tried another striker fired carry gun (M18) but I'm not in love with it, and greatly prefer my full size guns that are more suited to cold weather carry.

Recently, I was excited to see my preferred ammo dealer offering cases of .357 SIG HSTs for $600, and planned to buy one the next time I ordered ammo. Then the mini-panic hit, and that same case of ammo available only in one place, became $870 overnight. At the same time, the CZ Shadow 2 Compact was released. People rave about the full size Shadow 2 but I'm pretty well set on full size guns and didn't see the need, but remained curious. The Shadow 2 Compact is also getting rave reviews, I am in the market for a new carry gun, and I really, REALLY want one, but they are in high demand and people are treating them like Playstation 5's. I would have to pay hundreds of dollars more than MSRP to get one right now.

So, with the end goal of upgrading my "carry" gun to something better than an M18, and preferably a Shadow 2 Compact, as I see it these are my options:

A- Don't buy anything and get as good as I can get with the M18, a gun with dissapointing accuracy, and relatively expensive magazines/aftermarket parts. Hope the Shadow 2 Compact is available later at MSRP, which it probably will be.

B- Go ahead and buy the case of HST for $870, which could instead be 3 cases of 9mm range ammo, a different midrange gun, or any number of other things. Use that ammo to regain and maintain proficiency with the Glock 32 and save the last box for carry ammo.

C- Convert the Glock to 9mm with a complete upper for $500, with enough money left to buy a whole case of range ammo or upgrade the trigger. And be able to switch back to .357 if I had the inclination. With the downside of the federales potentially showing up at the house thinking I am making "ghost guns".

D- CONSOOM PRODUCT and just pay the extra $300-1000 to get the CZ. Maybe go get the new Iphone while I am at it.

E- Buy a different, good CZ or Jericho carry gun instead which would probably more than suit my needs, but with the knowledge that if I like it I will still want the Shadow 2 Compact.

F- Buy a different, more expensive high end carry gun I will probably really like rather than being gouged on the Shadow 2 Compact, like a Staccato or even an EDCX9 which is really more than I want to spend on a handgun.

G- Start thinking outside the box and learn to love 100 year old .32 caliber guns.

What would you choose?

 Slowroll wrote:


G- Start thinking outside the box and learn to love 100 year old .32 caliber guns.

I think everyone knew I was going to go with that option.

I'd like to add a little bit to your ammo discussion and note that per-round price isn't necessarily the "cost" of the ammo. This is because revolvers typically have modest appetites. You shoot your six (or five, or seven) and then reload. A 9mm full size will typically hold at least 15 rounds, so unless you download your mags, you're going to go through much more ammo.

I actually do that, rarely putting more than 5 rounds in a magazine. This forces me to handle the weapon more while conserving ammo. Also, I think acquiring the target is more important than endless follow-up shots.

My point is that I find a practice session with a revolver simply uses less ammo.

Another important consideration is comfort level. It takes a lot less time and effort to "get good" with a light caliber than a heavy one. The sad truth is that .32 Mag. is never going to be super-cheap, but its recoil is so low and easy, that I'm naturally good with it - both in accuracy and quick follow ups. Much better than with a .38 of the same size and of course it has superior ballistics, so what's not to like?

Getting back to your dilemma, something to consider is the likelihood that if you have to use it, you're likely to lose whatever weapon you are carrying, at least for a while. I would feel more comfortable about losing something that I have less than $500 invested in.

Re-watching the Terminator and making notes for a possible YouTube/podcast thing with a friend (why yes, it will be every bit as terrible as you expect. If not more so).

My focus is on “little things which make it good”.

Just at the Police Station shootout, and there’s one confirmed, but possibly more, one-handed shots with what I think is a Spas-12, where at least two shots are done without the pump action being applied.

Now, one handed I get is Silly, but given it’s the Terminator doing it, that’s not my concern. My concern is “does the Spas-12 need pumping between shots or is that like, a single shot setting?”

Love and hugs and cheese and cheers in advance.

What kind of cheese?

Dairylea. I’m not made of money you know.

I've got over 300 types of cheese round here, as de Gaulle said, so what cheese... Probably some sort of bleu.

But there's a semi mode on spas 12 though. The strange buttstock makes it possible to fire one handed.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
(skip to shooting from min 5 or so on)

To be fair the buttstock (hehehehe, but) isn’t present on his one. Which I might count as a “nice slice of minutiae”. I mean, you’ve got to bait comments for the algorithm, right?

Is the semi-auto proper semi-auto, or more ‘slam fire’ and so still requiring manual cycling/pumping?

Proper semi. Well, if it works, in the video they get a failure to feed at the very first cycle.