It's that time of year again, time for the SHOT SHOW. For those that don't know this is the annual event for the firearms industry where new products are introduced and manufacturers are hawking their wares to retailers. It is huge. It takes ever minute of serious hustling to cover every square inch of the show and most people arent able to make it. Oh and the general public is not allowed in. Like I said, this is a show for business, where retailers are placing orders with manufacturers and distributors. There are a few ways around the restriction on admission such as having a curios and relics license or being on active duty military or law enforcement, but that is about it. I've been to the Orlando show, but for the past 5 years its been held in Vegas. Don't know if that will change but hope it does because Vegas is just too far away. Anyway with all that out of the way.. Is anyone else following the show? Honestly from whats been leaked so far I am not terribly excited. There doesn't seem to be a ton of innovation coming down the pike this year. Pistol wise this is what I am seeing of note so far. Remington so far has announced one of the few new compelling products, the R51. It's another single stack 9mm meant to compete directly against the likes of the S&W Shield. Interesting design as it brings back a nearly 100 year old operating system in 21st century packaging. MSRP looks amazing. It's nearly at $100 under average retail price for the Shield. This makes me wonder where they cheaped out or if they are going with the idea of making profit through sheer sales volume. Walther has announced their 5" PPQ which will be great for the IDPA / IPSC / USPSA guys. They've also introduced a .22LR verison of the PPQ. Since they make the .22 M&P for S&W I would normally be excited as that that is a fantastic pistol. I'll go so far as to say that its better than the Ruger lines of .22LR pistols (I.e. MK III / IV). However I'm seeing some things about materials used that will cause me to reserve judgement. If it does pan out then great. It will make a great training tool for those with the full sized PPQ and over all fun gun to shoot. Various models, including one with a threaded barrel will be available. Glock has announced their 41 and 42 models. Nothing revolutionary with either. The 41 is chambered in .45ACP. It's a big boy and would be best as a duty weapon for LEOs. The Glock 42 is Gaston's effort to get into the single stack market. It's chambered in .380! I think that Glock screwed the pooch with this one in not releasing it chambered in 9mm. Other than that no leaks from S&W to speak of. They did just announce their Bodyguard line of .380s with out the built in laser, but that's it? Don't know if that is due to an Apple like fanaticism for secrecy or if they just don't have much new to speak of. Sig has something to announce, but considering their recent track record it will probably just be a case of polishing a turd. So anyone else paying attention? Anything you want to see? I feel like I'm seeing a bunch of turd polishing. Where is the PPQ in 45 or service length barrel? When is Glock going to fix the brass to face issues? What about S&W ever getting serious about the trigger on their M&Ps? How about SIG recommitting to quality assurance?
That Glock 41 looks nice . . . should I ever motivate myself to actually purchase a handgun, .45 is kinda what I have in mind. Thoughts?
Go with either .45 or 9mm. The .40 is a solution looking for a problem. If you want a .45 you've got two choices to make. 1911 style or striker fired. From there you have two more questions; Are you buying this to have fun at the range with or do you plan on, and hope to never have to, betting your life on it? If you go 1911 you're gonna spend a healthy amount of coin to get one that you can bet your life on, though Remington R1911s have gotten acceptable reviews and are less costly. Why so much to buy a reliable 1911? Because of manufacturing techniques they have to be tuned. So you're looking at a Les Baer or Wilson Combat buying a Rock River Arms and having a gun smith tune it for you. Kimber ain't what they used to be. However I will defer to Elwood on the 1911. As for striker fired, I'd go with either Glock or S&W M&P with points going to the M&P for ergonomics and "shootability". If it were me and my criteria is for self defense I'd go with the M&P for the above reasons and simplicity of the manual of arms. The 1911 is a fairly complex mechanical device, I am not a fan of grip safeties, and its a heavy SOB. However just to have one? If I have the cash I would never turn my nose up at a 1911. They are a thing of beauty. I prefer 9mm for a variety of reasons. One of which is the ammo is cheaper and I can train more. Another comes from the school of thought that believes in superior volume of fire. I'd rather have 15 or 17 rounds available than 7 or 8. Finally with my physical issues, it's less punishing for me to shoot 500 rounds in a day.
I personally prefer the .45 for self-defense, you loose out on volume of fire, although not so much any more unless you have exceptionally tiny hands, but the extra power per shot is what counts more in your typical self defense situation, as you'll rarely expend an entire magazine in the even more rare occasion you'd have to pull the trigger, as for target shooting, stick to the 9mm, lighter recoil, cheaper ammo, and higher capacity just make for more fun when you go down to the range
Actually the diameter difference of expansion between a 45 hollow point and a 9mm hollow point is measured in the thousandths of an inch. In the end the difference in terminal effect is miniscule.
it isn't diameter so much as energy, the extra 1-200 ft/lbs is the difference in temporary cavity size and penetration that could lead to a fatal shot
That's what I was taking about with terminal effect. The end result really isn't that different. The 45 isn't a magic round that'll kill ya if it grazes you and the 9mn doesn't need a thousand hits to kill you. Now where the 45 caliber round used to be king when it came to barrier penetrator, but even that gap has been narrowed, especially with some of then rounds released in the last year. OTOH I've seen some new announcements ammo wise today. Anyone here of a TCM 22?
I'm not saying the .45 is a magic round, just that it does more damage and I prefer that over volume of fire, if I need 17 rounds to defend myself I won't be using a pistol
Today souped-up 9 mil rounds (if the pistol is rated for the more powerful rounds) pack a lot of punch.
OK so anyone have any other thought about the SHOT show or even give a shit? Winchester is apparently trying to step up their ammo game. S&W is announcing a few revolvers. Not seeing a lot on rifles for today's media range day
Honestly, I haven't paid hardly any attention to what's what in the gun world in several years. Last thing I remember, piston AR uppers were the next big thing. What ever happened with that btw?
That fad fizzled when it was brought to every one's attention that the DI system that Stoner introduced was really a piston system. The big thing now are "key Mod" rails and the search of lightest weight.
And he's saying that it doesn't do more damage then other rounds to make it something special. Today's mainstream ammo (9mm, .40, .45) is to the point that all penetrate very well and all will hurt like hell if they hit you. It's why the .40 will probably start the long walk to being obsolete. The 9mm has now caught up to the group and can do just as well. Just ask all the police agencies that use it. Frontline is right that the .40 is a solution searching for a problem.
They may want to see how the Glock 42 does in sales before selling a single stack 9mm or they don't want to risk eating into the Glock 26 sales. To me I can't see myself buying the Glock 42 because of the price. I might as well just buy one of the Baby Glocks and have more ammo for the same general price. (Or I would just pick up a Glock 36 if I really wanted a single stack Glock).
Maybe that makes sense. But then look at the rest of the single stack market. Who knows. I'm hearing mixed reviews on stuff. The new Benelli shotgun is getting trashed in reviews.
I also think Glock is to slow to act. Too stubborn. They should have found a way to get the Glock 25 and 28 (both .380) into the American market or they should have made the Glock 42 years ago. And I think people would eat up a single stack 9mm from them if the price was right.
Agreed. They are a lumbering behemoth. It's like everyone else innovates and Glock ignores those until it becomes a critical issue.
The 41 is the 21's "upgrade." The 17 and 22 got theirs with the 34 and 35. This is a long time coming if you ask me. I say that because: One, no one is trying to conceal a Glock 21. It's an open carry duty gun. Why not make a version with a longer sight radius and better velocity? Two, with standard capacity magazines, you're looking at 14 rounds of .45ACP. That's nothing at all to sneeze at.
Someone had fun with the ATF's sign: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/01/another-view-of-atf-sign-at-shot-show.html
Sig's putting out a striker-fired version of the P250, the P320, seems interesting, the only grump i have with my 250 is the DAO trigger
