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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
A lot of Western military procurement seems to operate on the basis that war is impossible, and the most important thing is giving the generals or ministers cushy jobs once they leave office. The way in which government arsenals were completely dismantled and replaced with indifferent private contractors who have zero surge capacity would be inconceivable at any other time.

The UK discovered (and now is probably forgetting) just in time deliver that fails 5% of the time is actually quick tricky when fighting a war (in 2003 in Iraq).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For target shooting.

Have you ever had a gun you just couldn’t shoot accurately? A temperamental beast where no matter the adjustments made or practice, it just wouldn’t behave itself?

I had a Turkish clone of an Israeli clone of a CZ-75 that had vicious trigger slap. If you pressed the trigger from just the right point it shot fine, but if your finger was not in that perfect position, it bit you in a very weird and uncomfortable way. That one didn't drown in a canoe accident, it was sold.

The gun I bought with the proceeds is the one at the bottom of a lake.

Any thoughts on the SCCY CPX-1 or SCCy DVG 1 ?

my dad is looking at one but the reviews on them, I can't tell if they're good, ok or crap.
My Dad has a thing about always buying cheap and I think that's probably a very poor idea for a self defense pocket gun. I know he has the money for something more expensive. He just always buys cheap, it's irritating. He bought me some gloves and was excited by how cheap they were. I said I'd run through them in a month and sure enough, utter garbage.

I suspect this would continue to be true with guns. It's also put a few things into perspective for me about guns I have been looking at. I'm thinking saving up 1600 dollars is the right call and will open up some doors to a quality pistola for me. I really only want one. I could live with buying two, because I probably will, but I don't want a collection.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/03/sccy-cpx-1-review/


https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/01/24/shot-2020-sccys-new-concealed-carry-dvg-1-pistol/


Iv'e got no personnal experience with them but based on this, that doesn't sound terrible.

I'd never buy cheap for a gun I would bet my life on though. No need for a competition gun either I guess. Something reliable and ergonomic. With spare money for useful accessories.

Thank you. I'm sending every review I get ahold of to my Dad.

Dads can be real stubborn at time

The artcile explecitly says that these are guns mostly 'to carry without fearing to lose it", as in, secondary carry to bring with you on activities were you might let it fall or end up at the bottom of a lake for that matter.

Obviously I haven't got a whole lot of experience either with carry guns as it's illegal in France unfortunatly, but I bet fellow americans will answer in ampler details!

Cheap isn’t the same as value.

Have you introduced him to the Vimes “Boots” theory of economic unfairness, which also explains false economy?

I have not understood a word of what you said doc

Allow me to elucidate. Whilst in its full form this is a socio-economic critique, it also works to demonstrate False Economy - that is buying something because it’s cheap, without worrying about its relative quality.

His Grace, The Duke of Ankh, Commander Sir Samuel “Sam” Vimes wrote: The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

In short, Warhead’s Dad is arguably cheating himself out of money by just buying the cheapest available. A more mid-range might involved greater initial layout, but will lead to less expenditure overall, as they simply last longer than spending the same money on multiple cheaper versions.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Then again, don't forget HK scammed the bundeswhere with batches of G36 using other material than what was advertised and causing them to bend under heat.

So I'm not so sure they'd care. Plus military markets in Europe are less if a bad buzz because you will rarely hear them complain or this won't reach that many people aside from us gun nerds.

Well the UK is continuing to move away from the bullpup, for an M4 clone it seems.
Knight's Stoner 1 (KS-1) rifles, designated the L403A1 in UK service.

Initially for its ranger brigade (don't ask). Surprising the UK marines are getting a shorter ranged rifle while the US marines are going longer ranged!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/90-million-contract-equips-armed-forces-with-advanced-new-rifle

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Allow me to elucidate. Whilst in its full form this is a socio-economic critique, it also works to demonstrate False Economy - that is buying something because it’s cheap, without worrying about its relative quality.

His Grace, The Duke of Ankh, Commander Sir Samuel “Sam” Vimes wrote: The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

In short, Warhead’s Dad is arguably cheating himself out of money by just buying the cheapest available. A more mid-range might involved greater initial layout, but will lead to less expenditure overall, as they simply last longer than spending the same money on multiple cheaper versions.

Thing is he has a habit of buying something and turning it into a project. But he also likes to brag on how much he saved. I just don't think that work with a low cost firearm. He has the means to buy basically anything he wants to. This would be a silly impulse buy for him and ultimately pointless. Or he was just showing this one to me because I am on a budget and wanted to get one too. I really can't tell yet. My first thoughts on that pistol were it would be a good throw away gun or a plant but I can't see buying it.
Another reason open carry would just make make my life easier. I would have to see a lot of good reviews myself to consider it but my first batch of reviews were troubleshooting problems which is a red flag. As to your favorite quote, I spent about 200 dollars on my last pare of boots and they were wonderful right out of the box but will have to be replace sooner rather than later because production quality isn't what it was 20 years ago. I love my McRae's but for that price I will shop with someone else.
I guess price isn't always quality.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Allow me to elucidate. Whilst in its full form this is a socio-economic critique, it also works to demonstrate False Economy - that is buying something because it’s cheap, without worrying about its relative quality.

His Grace, The Duke of Ankh, Commander Sir Samuel “Sam” Vimes wrote: The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

In short, Warhead’s Dad is arguably cheating himself out of money by just buying the cheapest available. A more mid-range might involved greater initial layout, but will lead to less expenditure overall, as they simply last longer than spending the same money on multiple cheaper versions.

Oh that's in fact fairly simple


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Then again, don't forget HK scammed the bundeswhere with batches of G36 using other material than what was advertised and causing them to bend under heat.

So I'm not so sure they'd care. Plus military markets in Europe are less if a bad buzz because you will rarely hear them complain or this won't reach that many people aside from us gun nerds.

Well the UK is continuing to move away from the bullpup, for an M4 clone it seems.
Knight's Stoner 1 (KS-1) rifles, designated the L403A1 in UK service.

Initially for its ranger brigade (don't ask). Surprising the UK marines are getting a shorter ranged rifle while the US marines are going longer ranged!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/90-million-contract-equips-armed-forces-with-advanced-new-rifle

Looks, unremarkable, from afar, but I mean, it's sound to update your gear every know and then. You just need to make contracts for good guns... I'm quit fond of the idea that the gun should be as stealthy as possible.

well, I did it. Went to a local gun shop today and bought a pistol. It's on order so I should be able to get it in hand about Wednesday next week.
I don't have my CCP so there's a small wait which is fine. I guess that's one advantage to having the CCP. I should probably do that.

It was an interest experience. I told them I wanted to be a first time gun buyer. It was never not going to happen. The guy found the pistol and put it on order while I filled out the paperwork and paid. I didn't know what to expect. This was smooth. I bought the GSG 922 pistol I have mentioned. I like the platform and it was something I could afford. I'd only expected to go in and ask dumb noob questions. silly me. The do have a 1911 DS PRODIG AOS 9MM in the case. Drool.
I really want to hold one and see if it's a good fit for me. I'll be saving up.

Here's a link to the Springfield Prodigy
.
https://www.springfield-armory.com/1911-ds-series-handguns/1911-ds-prodigy-handguns/1911-ds-prodigy-aos-9mm-handgun/

 warhead01 wrote:
Any thoughts on the SCCY CPX-1 or SCCy DVG 1 ?

my dad is looking at one but the reviews on them, I can't tell if they're good, ok or crap.
My Dad has a thing about always buying cheap and I think that's probably a very poor idea for a self defense pocket gun. I know he has the money for something more expensive. He just always buys cheap, it's irritating. He bought me some gloves and was excited by how cheap they were. I said I'd run through them in a month and sure enough, utter garbage.

I suspect this would continue to be true with guns. It's also put a few things into perspective for me about guns I have been looking at. I'm thinking saving up 1600 dollars is the right call and will open up some doors to a quality pistola for me. I really only want one. I could live with buying two, because I probably will, but I don't want a collection.

I'm a notorious cheapskate myself, so I can sympathize. The thing is, I'm not about junk, I'm about value. I will pay extra for the quality if it is actually there, but I do not believe in "buying the brand name" as some folks do.

I guess the core question is: what does the Old Man want out of a carry piece? By that I mean is he interested in features other than price?

Also: is he an experienced shooter? If so, he may well enjoy buying something cheap and tuning it into a match-grade weapon. There are people like that.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
Any thoughts on the SCCY CPX-1 or SCCy DVG 1 ?

my dad is looking at one but the reviews on them, I can't tell if they're good, ok or crap.
My Dad has a thing about always buying cheap and I think that's probably a very poor idea for a self defense pocket gun. I know he has the money for something more expensive. He just always buys cheap, it's irritating. He bought me some gloves and was excited by how cheap they were. I said I'd run through them in a month and sure enough, utter garbage.

I suspect this would continue to be true with guns. It's also put a few things into perspective for me about guns I have been looking at. I'm thinking saving up 1600 dollars is the right call and will open up some doors to a quality pistola for me. I really only want one. I could live with buying two, because I probably will, but I don't want a collection.

I'm a notorious cheapskate myself, so I can sympathize. The thing is, I'm not about junk, I'm about value. I will pay extra for the quality if it is actually there, but I do not believe in "buying the brand name" as some folks do.

I guess the core question is: what does the Old Man want out of a carry piece? By that I mean is he interested in features other than price?

Also: is he an experienced shooter? If so, he may well enjoy buying something cheap and tuning it into a match-grade weapon. There are people like that.

He has a lot of shooting experience He's mentioned really enjoying shooting the Barretta M9 back in the day, it was his assigned weapon at one point. He also carried a 1911 at some point and M16s, all of this while in the Army. He grew up around rifles and had to hunt for food from time to time. He got back into shooting several years ago with black power pistols, which are loads of fun. From there he got his CCP, the world is getting crazy and he's 73. We usually shoot a few 22 pistols he has and a few riffles also in 22. I think 7 or 8 firearms in total not counting the black powder pistols. He goes to the range quite a bit, and a membership there.
I have no idea if he thinks he's encouraging me or actually wants one of those little pistols. I think if he did buy it he'd take it with him on his motorcycle club trips. Because it could be packed easily. It feels more like he's just throwing money at something because he can not because he cares much about it. I was planning to look for something else to recommend he look into. Which leads me to Glock. The shop I was at today is part of a discount program for Veterans and police. Apparently it's a good discount. I don't know much about Glocks outside of the name. As far as the pistol in question I am not aware of anything special that can be done to it aside from maybe a change of sites.

Glocks are fine. They're the AR15 of pistols. Modularity and customizability out the wazoo. You can get em cheap or very expensive. Many caliber options as well.

I personally don't like them a ton. They are quite wide, which for conceal carry is a negative to me. The lack of a manual safety is also a personal issue for me. I just like having the tactile motion of switching the safety on and off. And I just prefer metal framed handguns. I like weight. But that's just me.

 warhead01 wrote:
I don't know much about Glocks outside of the name. As far as the pistol in question I am not aware of anything special that can be done to it aside from maybe a change of sites.

I'm not a fan of Glocks and the reason I asked is that snub-nosed revolvers can also be inexpensive and very dependable. Because the magazine does not run through the grips, much more variety in grip styles are available.

I don't like glocks to much. Civilian issues ones are not as precise as other weapons (we mostly shoot for sporting at 25m in my range), although I like the ergonomics. I think I'll get one nonetheless at some point because there are so many of them on second hand market in France that you can grab a decent one for like 400 euros.

Military issue Glock in France has the heaviest trigger for safety reasons so it's not great

 warhead01 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
Any thoughts on the SCCY CPX-1 or SCCy DVG 1 ?

my dad is looking at one but the reviews on them, I can't tell if they're good, ok or crap.
My Dad has a thing about always buying cheap and I think that's probably a very poor idea for a self defense pocket gun. I know he has the money for something more expensive. He just always buys cheap, it's irritating. He bought me some gloves and was excited by how cheap they were. I said I'd run through them in a month and sure enough, utter garbage.

I suspect this would continue to be true with guns. It's also put a few things into perspective for me about guns I have been looking at. I'm thinking saving up 1600 dollars is the right call and will open up some doors to a quality pistola for me. I really only want one. I could live with buying two, because I probably will, but I don't want a collection.

I'm a notorious cheapskate myself, so I can sympathize. The thing is, I'm not about junk, I'm about value. I will pay extra for the quality if it is actually there, but I do not believe in "buying the brand name" as some folks do.

I guess the core question is: what does the Old Man want out of a carry piece? By that I mean is he interested in features other than price?

Also: is he an experienced shooter? If so, he may well enjoy buying something cheap and tuning it into a match-grade weapon. There are people like that.

He has a lot of shooting experience He's mentioned really enjoying shooting the Barretta M9 back in the day, it was his assigned weapon at one point. He also carried a 1911 at some point and M16s, all of this while in the Army. He grew up around rifles and had to hunt for food from time to time. He got back into shooting several years ago with black power pistols, which are loads of fun. From there he got his CCP, the world is getting crazy and he's 73. We usually shoot a few 22 pistols he has and a few riffles also in 22. I think 7 or 8 firearms in total not counting the black powder pistols. He goes to the range quite a bit, and a membership there.
I have no idea if he thinks he's encouraging me or actually wants one of those little pistols. I think if he did buy it he'd take it with him on his motorcycle club trips. Because it could be packed easily. It feels more like he's just throwing money at something because he can not because he cares much about it. I was planning to look for something else to recommend he look into. Which leads me to Glock. The shop I was at today is part of a discount program for Veterans and police. Apparently it's a good discount. I don't know much about Glocks outside of the name. As far as the pistol in question I am not aware of anything special that can be done to it aside from maybe a change of sites.

If he enjoyed shooting the M9, and has lots of experience using it as a service weapon, why doesn't he get an M9? Are they expensive?

They're known to be a solid, dependable sidearm.

Civilian ones are lottery. Either you get a great one, either it sucks.

Happened to several people in my range and that's a spread opinion on french firearm forums

 warhead01 wrote:
Any thoughts on the SCCY CPX-1 or SCCy DVG 1 ?

my dad is looking at one but the reviews on them, I can't tell if they're good, ok or crap.
My Dad has a thing about always buying cheap and I think that's probably a very poor idea for a self defense pocket gun. I know he has the money for something more expensive. He just always buys cheap, it's irritating. He bought me some gloves and was excited by how cheap they were. I said I'd run through them in a month and sure enough, utter garbage.

I suspect this would continue to be true with guns. It's also put a few things into perspective for me about guns I have been looking at. I'm thinking saving up 1600 dollars is the right call and will open up some doors to a quality pistola for me. I really only want one. I could live with buying two, because I probably will, but I don't want a collection.

We have a CPX-1 that my wife wanted because it was in a cool blue cammo pattern and her favorite color is blue.

Trigger is garbage, WAY too much pull before bang. Ours has the external thumb safety and there is a molded ridge on the grip the safety hits against that rubs the snot outta the web of your thumb if you're holding the pistol correctly to fire it. I think I got 4 magazines for it, and 2 seem to not feed well/cause jams.



You can see the ridge I'm talking about in that picture.

Plus side, super safe gun. You have to REALLY want to pull the trigger to get it to go bang, a negligent discharge is about impossible. Trying to teach my daughter to use it had to stress just a long smooth continuous pull.

All in all, would NOT recommend.

 CptJake wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
Any thoughts on the SCCY CPX-1 or SCCy DVG 1 ?

Spoiler:

my dad is looking at one but the reviews on them, I can't tell if they're good, ok or crap.
My Dad has a thing about always buying cheap and I think that's probably a very poor idea for a self defense pocket gun. I know he has the money for something more expensive. He just always buys cheap, it's irritating. He bought me some gloves and was excited by how cheap they were. I said I'd run through them in a month and sure enough, utter garbage.

I suspect this would continue to be true with guns. It's also put a few things into perspective for me about guns I have been looking at. I'm thinking saving up 1600 dollars is the right call and will open up some doors to a quality pistola for me. I really only want one. I could live with buying two, because I probably will, but I don't want a collection.

We have a CPX-1 that my wife wanted because it was in a cool blue cammo pattern and her favorite color is blue.

Trigger is garbage, WAY too much pull before bang. Ours has the external thumb safety and there is a molded ridge on the grip the safety hits against that rubs the snot outta the web of your thumb if you're holding the pistol correctly to fire it. I think I got 4 magazines for it, and 2 seem to not feed well/cause jams.



You can see the ridge I'm talking about in that picture.

Plus side, super safe gun. You have to REALLY want to pull the trigger to get it to go bang, a negligent discharge is about impossible. Trying to teach my daughter to use it had to stress just a long smooth continuous pull.

All in all, would NOT recommend.

This was extremely helpful! Thankyou very much, this was very helpful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:

If he enjoyed shooting the M9, and has lots of experience using it as a service weapon, why doesn't he get an M9? Are they expensive?

They're known to be a solid, dependable sidearm.

I really don't know.
He latched on to 22's for some reason. I get it if it's just about plinking on a regular basis as it's very affordable. I just don't get it as much for carry when he has the means to gets something that hits harder. A 22 will kill a person sure but I would feel better if it was closer to 100%. Him sharing a 9MM with me may be a step in that direction.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Civilian ones are lottery. Either you get a great one, either it sucks.

Happened to several people in my range and that's a spread opinion on french firearm forums

I had no idea that was the case. I've found the M3's for around a grand but had no idea they'd be possible problem children. Gives me something to think about. It was on my list. Thankfully my "wish" list is getting smaller. So there's that.


This whole set of replies since my first post has been very helpful. Thanks a bunch all of you.

Btw, problems encountered with the M9 in my range were precision ones. Half would spray around stupidly, the other half would be sniper grade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and happy to help as best I can! But that gun looks surely way more terrible with that experience in hand...

I really don't like .22 LR as a self defense caliber. Rimfire is just inherently less reliable than centerfire. Shot placement is king, but click and no bang - particularly in an autoloader - is not a good thing.

If anyone wants the ne plus ultra of cheap self-defense pistols, look for vintage .32 Long revolver. You can find ones in mint condition for less than $200 and .32 long has twice the horsepower of .22 LR with very little recoil.

While not common in shops, .32 long is about 50 cents a round online. Not hard to find. I think the cowboy action crowd are warming up to it. I've shot of ton of it in small pistols and it is mild but accurate. There are target pistols for the Euro market in it that are very expensive.

And with .22lr it is small enough that the chances of it just making the target very angry, even if it is a technically lethal shot, are quite high. Lethal damage isn't very useful if its only going to be lethal 20-30 minutes from now.

This really applies to all small calibers, its just a sliding scale of stopping power. Yeah, "muh stopping power" is a bit of a meme but it really does matter at the extremely small end of the scale. 9mm vs .45 is a mostly academic comparison. 9mm vs .22/.32 is an order of magnitude.

My recommendation for self-defense is to use the largest caliber you can reliably control.

OTOH a .22 is going to give you accurate hits as fast as you can pull the trigger with minimal recoil. Muzzle energy with 9mm is ~2-3x higher but how fast can you get accurate hits with it, especially from a concealable weapon? And how likely are you to encounter someone who, on being shot, will fight to the death to kill you rather than deciding it's time to GTFO before they get shot again? Everything is compromises if you're talking about using a pistol at all and a .22 you can conceal properly is better than a 9mm left at home because you can't.

Never use a .22lr for SD by choice. Buy a 9mm. And live by this, the pistol is a tool to get to the shotgun. A shotgun is a tool to get to the rifle.

I'll stick with .45 ACP for SD. I believe in needing to shoot someone once. 23 years of carrying/utilizing 9mm in the US Army has poisoned me for the round, and definitely on the M9.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
OTOH a .22 is going to give you accurate hits as fast as you can pull the trigger with minimal recoil. Muzzle energy with 9mm is ~2-3x higher but how fast can you get accurate hits with it, especially from a concealable weapon? And how likely are you to encounter someone who, on being shot, will fight to the death to kill you rather than deciding it's time to GTFO before they get shot again? Everything is compromises if you're talking about using a pistol at all and a .22 you can conceal properly is better than a 9mm left at home because you can't.

9mm is really easy to control with just a bit of training, really, if you are a more or less regular shooter, you should be able to pour a fair few bullets in a man sized target at ranges between 10-20 meters even in rapid fire with reasonable hits.

Hand loading your ammo is also of great help as you can use lighter loads for better control if your gun accepts it.

I understand the points. And it's been very good food for thought.

This might irk a nerve or two.
So, I shoot Remington Thunderbolt. I get boxes of 500. I haven't had a click and no bang this year. I don't think I shoot a lot really I'm just shooting about 71 rounds a week right now. That'll move up with the new pistol. All the magazines are compatible. Huzzah.

Right now the most common issue is a feed issue, where the top round sits at an angle just a little two and won't feed. The next round goes in fine.

I am a little surprised to about not having any ammo issues this year. When we stated shooting the other ammo, Winchester, seemed to be less reliable.
I'm not against 9MM.
I have considered 45. It's an option.
I do like the idea of not having to hit a target more than twice.