23 replies to this topic

[Almadjian]

I recently came on board the forums here and, after browsing through various threads, came upon this one. I have always been fascinated by Bond's (read Flemming's) choice of weapons.

Interesting how times change. Bond started out being an ex-military civil servant who was called upon at times to do some dirty work. Not currently a soldier and keeping cover he needed a small gun. He chose a Beretta, a widely popular gun, light, compact, reliable, user-friendly, and accurate.

As Flemming started to gain renown, he had to provide his character with more respectability and gave him a Walther PPK and a S&W Centennial Airweight revolver.

Much misinformation exists regarding these weapons. First of all, the .32 isn't all that much better ballistics-wise than the .25, so all of that "brick" and "plate-glass window" stuff can go out the window. The .25 holds 2 more rounds than the PPK so has more firepower. The PPK does have marginally better sights than the Beretta. However, the .25 is easier to shoot being single-action. The PPK has a horrible double-action trigger pull on the first round that makes any first round shot inaccurate unless its point blank or a slow, non-stressed shot. Cocking the PPK for a single-action first round shot may be practiced but makes for a slow 1st round shot as well when compared with the Beretta.

The fact that Flemming had Bond change guns in Dr. No has always made me snicker. I rarely find fault with Flemming, but in this case I do. I suppose he had to come up with some kind of reason for switching. The .25 as being underpowered wasn't commonly accepted then, as much as today. Officers carried .25's a lot. Many undercover cops carry them today as well.

Anyway, the Beretta was dropped because it

Edited by Almadjian, 05 April 2005 - 06:21 AM.

[Taro Todoroki]

Great post Almadjian! Very informative. Welcome to CBN also.

[Qwerty]

Wow! I echo Taro's sentiments, very informative and interesting post. Let us know if you'd ever like to work out something for the CBn main page - we're always open to ideas and suggestions.

A big welcome to CommanderBond.net.

[00-FAN008]

As Flemming started to gain renown, he had to provide his character with more respectability and gave him a Walther PPK and a S&W Centennial Airweight revolver.

Much misinformation exists regarding these weapons. First of all, the .32 isn't all that much better ballistics-wise than the .25, so all of that "brick" and "plate-glass window" stuff can go out the window. The .25 holds 2 more rounds than the PPK so has more firepower. The PPK does have marginally better sights than the Beretta. However, the .25 is easier to shoot being single-action. The PPK has a horrible double-action trigger pull on the first round that makes any first round shot inaccurate unless its point blank or a slow, non-stressed shot. Cocking the PPK for a single-action first round shot may be practiced but makes for a slow 1st round shot as well when compared with the Beretta.

The real reason that Fleming chose the PPK over the Beretta .25 is because he recieved a message from his friend, a balistics expert by the name of Boothroyd, who informed Fleming that the Beretta was in fact "a lady's gun", and that he should switch to the PPK. Fleming agreed, as well as introduced Boothroyd into his novels as the character Q.

[right idea, wrong pussy]

Superb post, Almadjian! I think that Fleming was, for the most part, very confused when he chose weapons for Bond. I strongly suspect that, even if the Beretta has the virtues you describe (and you make very convincing arguments in that regard) Fleming chose the gun because it looked good to him or because he remembered agents using it in the war when he served, or something like that. He certainly didn't choose it because he had studied guns and was thoroughly convinced of the Beretta's merits. If he had been convinced that the Beretta was a good gun, he would not have changed to the PPK so easily when Boothroyd (who became Major Boothroyd, AKA Q in the novels) wrote and called the gun "a ladie's gun". All of that stuff about the PPK having a delivery like a brick through plate glass was, if I remember correctly, taken verbatim from Boothroyd's letter to Fleming. Proof that Fleming was confused about Bond's weapons is in the fact that Boothroyd recommended that Bond carry the PPK and a larger pistol, and that he carry them in certain holsters. Fleming completely mixed up the holsters when he wrote DN.

I have to agree with you that the whole criticism of the Beretta "jamming" on Bond at the end of the FRWL mission is rather rediculous. In DN, M says that the gun jammed and this was what landed Bond in the hospital. Not only did the gun not jam when firing, it wasn't even the gun that jammed in Bond's pants. It was the silencer that jammed in his pants! I never understood how getting a different gun was supposed to make a silencer on Bond's gun not jam in Bond's pants the next time around! Furthermore, (and note that I don't own the novels and haven't read them in some time - I could be getting details wrong) the whole issue of Bond's silencer snagging in his trousers had nothing to do with his injury anyway. Bond was worried about Rosa Klebb's poisoned knitting needles. He only got kicked by Rosa's spiked shoe when Mathis' men had disarmed Klebb and Bond let his guard down. The gun made no difference anyway. But then again, the whole beginning of DN always struck me as a bit perfunctory. Notice how we here nothing about the fate of Klebb other than M's off-hand comment that, "Oh, she died". I too noticed that the Beretta has a sleeker profile than the PPK and looks like it wouldn't catch as easily, but I assumed, as Fleming did, that Boothroyd, as an "expert" in guns, got his facts right.

I mentioned earlier my comparative ignorance of the novels, but I am a little uncertain where your evidence comes from that the Beretta M gives Bond was a different type of Beretta from the one Bond has in CR. All I remember about the Beretta M gives Bond (at the end of MR?) was that is was in some wax paper. I don't recall Fleming describing it further. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested to know where you are getting the details of Bond's new Beretta from. Might be right there at the end of MR for all I know!

And you're certainly right about the P99. I've heard that thing described as "a policeman's gun" and it certainly looks much too large for undercover work. But then, the Bond movies in general have been moving more and more to Bond being an action hero rather than a secret agent. If Bond is wiping out entire armies on-screen with sub-machineguns, then why not give him a big, powerful looking 9 MM gun? When was the last time we saw Bond fire a shot off in both directions to confuse his enemies and then hightail it? Not recently.

Anyway, wonderful post, and welcome to the boards!

[Almadjian]

Yes, in the recent movies, Bond has come to resemble more and more Mack Bolan.

oo-fan-You're quite right. And I am aware of Boothroyd's criticism and advice to Flemming. In fact, he wanted Bond to carry the S&W for close quarters as he viewed it as superior to the PPK in that regard, but Flemming didn't do it and gave Bond the PPK anyway.

I just wanted to debunk the Beretta as a lady's gun. If anything the 950 is more of a lady's gun than the Bantam, it's smaller and about 3 oz. lighter, easier to conceal.

The PPK fires a marginally bigger bullet (a .32 travels about 50 feet per second faster than a .25 and weighs 10-20 grams more). Some "experts" have equated this with less than 10% more stopping power (30-33% vs. .25%). Many gun "experts" today advocate large calibres because if they didn't they would be scoffed at by their peers. However, the small "pocket pistol" has a viable use, especially for undercover policemen, covert operators, and the average citizen, neither of which could carry large weapons.

The fact that Boothroyd called the Beretta a "ladies gun" ignores the fact that MI6 operatives actually did carry Beretta .25's. Perhaps the most widely known ficticious carrier of the Vestpocket besides Emile Largo, was Peter Lorre in the Maltese Falcon). Baby Brownings were carried all over the world, and countless copies were made by various copies, (Sterling probably made the best Baby Browning copy, IMHO). Even today, more people are killed in the Unites States every year by a .25 than every other calibre except the .22lr, which isn't well suited to small pocket pistols (IMHO).

The argument that a .25 would have even less stopping power when silenced is not entirely valid either. A .25 would have the same wound ballistics as a silenced .22 from a small pistol and the .22 gains velocity when fired from a longer barrel. The .22 was favoured by the Israeli Mossad for assassinations because the .22 was easy to practice with, inexpensive, and made less noise. With a suppressor, the .25 would be silent and just as deadly, but much more difficult to obtain in the manner the Israeli operatives did, therefore the .22lr.

The choice between which pistol to use at the time was limited between the superb Colt Vestpocket and Baby Browning (all steel and heavy for their size, as well as more difficult to shoot in combat situations) and the Beretta 1919. There were others, but those I mentioned were the most successful, I feel. The Bantam 1919 was lighter (alloy frame, though not all were alloy) for its size than the other two, easier to clean and take care of, had sights (really just a groove, but better than nothing), held more rounds, and fits better in the hand due to slightly larger grip area.

I have owned and shot them all and the Beretta is just a wonderful little piece of work. If Flemming chose purely by chance, Bond got lucky. Perhaps he chose the Beretta because it was a European design. Who knows?

Right Idea, you're so right! CR is my favourite book of the series, BTW. The silencer didn't really have much to do with Bond's injury.

Regarding the Beretta in CR and MR, they are the same type, just different versions, I would think. Who knows how old the Beretta Bond had actually was? in Dr. No, he had carried it for 15 years. Did he buy it new then in the 1930's. Or was it an older one. The original 1919's didn't come with a grip safety. The later ones did. Beretta continually made small refinements. Even later versions (in the 1930's had a chamber loaded indicator. The ones made in the late 40's-early 50's had a different shape grip safety than prior models, etc. I assume M obtained a new Beretta for Bond, which would have been the most updated model, the 418, and thus the same as the Beretta from CR (1919), but just updated with small refinements (418).

The skeleton grips bother me. This would allow dirt to get into the inner workings of the gun and cause problems. Thinner grips would not really save much weight or space on an old Bantam. Plastic grips on a 950 do make about a 1/2 oz. difference and are a little thinner, but they expose the magazine release catch more than is comfortable for me. I switched back to the wood.

The sawn and taped issue also bothers me. Probably, Flemming just meant polishing the feeding ramp with Emery tape, easy to do and improves already good reliability. The "sawn" part mystifies me. Maybe Bond sawed off the front sight to make the gun more ergonomical, since at very close range, one doesn't commonly use sights anyway. Also, the other two pocket pistols I mentioned, the Colt and the Browning had smooth barrels.

For those interested, have a look at this informative site for Beretta Bantam pictures: http://www.littlegun.....201919 gb.htm

This one is for history and production of the Bantam: http://www.berettawe...Beretta 418.htm

This one gives a good pictiral history too: http://www.gipa.it/start.html

Cheers!

Edited by Almadjian, 04 April 2005 - 09:24 PM.

[J.C.D'Arc]

I, too, am interested in this question. In fact, this topic was the subject of my very first post here. There was some interesting discussion on it. Have a look here: http://debrief.comma...01

I've never owned a Beretta. I do own a PPK. Also a P99 with the "QA" style trigger. (I didn't get the P99 because the movie Bond carries one, I got it on its own merits. Likewise the PPK; I got that one because of its size, feel and concealability. Mine is in .380.) In my opinion, the stainless steel PPK/S might be the best of the PPK-type Walthers. It seems to be easier to shoot accurately than the PPK, due, I think, to the added mass of its metal backstrap. It also carries one more round than the PPK, in .380 anyway.

[Almadjian]

I'm familiar with that thread and that is one of the reasons for my post. Regarding the PPK in .380, which is what Bond should be carrying now, BTW, it is a good gun. I have owned one. can't hold a candle to my German PP in .380 though for shootability. In fact, a PPK with a longer PP barrel will inprove the shootability of the PPK/S a little bit. Anyway, why shoot a .380 that weighs 22+ oz, when one can have a lighter gun (14oz.) in a better cartridge (.38) with a S&W snbbie. More accurate, concealable, and reliable, and just as quick and easy to reload. The only reason is because you want to silence it--thus Bond's case.

Edited by Almadjian, 30 March 2005 - 06:17 PM.

[SecretAgent007]

Just noticed this thread and have a little experience on this topic
Kennedy's detail carried (as all Secret Service agents in the 50's and 60's carried) S&W "K" frame Model 10's (4" bbl.) and then in the late 60's the model 19 (2.5" bbl.) when it was introduced. Smith eventually made up a special batch of 19's with round butts for the Secret Service (concealed better than the square butt). Most agents at the time, still preferred the 4" barrel over the "K" frame 2.5" bbl. though. They were not authorized to carry ANY backup semi-autos or revolvers until the late 1980's. And Colt never made a .25 revolver. Today the Secret Service carries the Sig 228 (9mm) and is starting to carry the Sig 229 in 40S&W as well as a limited number of Glock 23's. They are authorized to carry the Sig 230 (.380) as a backup, as well as the Kahr K and P series of semi-autos.

As a side note, the CIA was using sterile Browning Hi Powers purchased from Interarms up until about 10 years ago. They now carry the Glock 23.

As for stopping power, there is no such thing, in relative terms. A friend of mine that runs a SF "A" Team witnessed an Arab take (4) .45 ACP rounds in the chest and he still was running towards the person that was shooting at him. I've seen people shot in the head and still return fire. Believe it or not, you can take a bullet in your frontal lobe and not feel any pain or be mentally affected. I've talked to Eskimo

Edited by SecretAgent007, 03 April 2005 - 08:47 PM.

[SecretAgent007]

.22's and .25's don't make great guns to silence. The bullets are supersonic. In order to use a .22 or .25 with a suppressor you must use subsonic ammo. This along with the baffles in the suppressor, slow the bullet even more. The ideal cartridge for suppression is the 45 acp. A 230 grain "hardball" travels at about 700-800 fps with 250-327 ft. lbs. of energy.

In my opinion, the best gun that would be ideal for James Bond to carry is the Kahr PM9 or PM40. The PM9 weighs 14.1 ounces and holds (6) 9mm rounds in the flush mag and (7) in the mag with finger extension and one up the pipe. The MK40 holds (5) rounds with the flush mag and (6) with the finger extension mag and one in the chamber. It weighs 15 oz. Both guns are 5.35" long, 4" high, and .90 and .94 inches wide respectively. These guns, while not as elegant looking as the PPK, are extremely reliable, light weight, and small. They feature a double action only, passive striker block (no hammer), no magazine disconnect (you can fire the round in the chamber without having the mag inserted). They have combat sights and a smooth 4+ lb. double action trigger pull. They are also very accurate for having a 3" barrel. Accuracy in a carry gun is not as important as reliability. Most defensive situations occur at distances under 22 feet. handguns are defensive, not offensive weapons.

Edited by SecretAgent007, 03 April 2005 - 08:50 PM.

[Almadjian]

I concur that the PPK Bond used could have evry well been an all-steel version. However, here are two links to where you can buy an alloy framed PPK made in the '40s.

http://www.gunsameri...s/976565944.htm
http://www.gunsameri...s/976053858.htm

The .25 Colt Vest pocket edition has been made since 1908 through the 50's. Here's a pic: http://www.a-human-r...vestpocket.html

SecretAgent-you're correct about the issue "G Man" S&W revolvers. The 2 1/2" ones are real nice, BTW.

Regarding "stopping power", and shot placement, I agree. I was mentioning something most people think they understand. If I were to discuss that unless the spinal cord or brain were damaged or 20% of blood lost, and begin to explain permanent wound cavitation, I feel I not only would have lost the spirit of the post, but aroused some confusion as well.

Yes, the new .17HMR is selling like hotcakes.

Inetresting about the Eon issue but I've never heard anything of that sort before.

Link about PPK, P5: http://www.longmount...007-SeanConnery

PPK jams: http://www.handgunre...sp?make=Walther

Boothroyd never mentioned the dural frame. But when "something heavier" is a 14. oz S&W what would you figure? Flemming could have been mistaken, or he could have been referring to the bullet. But, as I said, why carry a 21+oz PPK when the S&W is so much lighter, packs a more powerful punch, and is more accurate unless use with a silencer is the only reason?

Interesting about the P99 muzzle noise/flash you describe. I'll have to pay more attention when next at the range.

Re jamming: A .22 in a pocket-sized pistol jams more than a larger-sized pistol in any calibre. A .25 is more prone to jamming as you stated because of the small size of the casing. The .32 is prone to the same problem. I would say that in a small-sized pistol, the .22 is most prone to jamming, followed by both the .25 and the .32. Gun quality, maintenence, and ammo used is important too. Obviously, a cheap gun will jam more than an expensive one. The Beretta 21a series in both .22 and .25 has no extractor and is prone to jams more often than the pricier TPH. However, the Beretta 21a series is MUCH more reliable than the Interarms stainless version of the TPH. The Dural German made TPH is better than the Beretta 21a when used with high-velocity (not sub-sonic or hyper velocity) ammo.

Interarms Walther guns are prone to jamming, period, especially with hollowpoint ammo. The German ones shoot great with FMJ. However, my German PP had to have the feeding ramp polished and the extractor set to ensure reliability with Federal 90gr. Hydrashock ammo.

My Beretta 418s have never jammed. The quality and craftsmanship they were made with is simply outstanding. They are easy to field-strip and clean. I use FMJ ammo for penetration, (forget the new Speer Gold Dot in .25 ACP!). I keep them clean and they never jam, ever.

Although subsonic ammo is preferable, the .22lr may be used with a suppressor. The muzzle velocity you read about for a .22 is from a rifle and is actually much lower when fired from a small calibre pistol. Parker-Hale or, stateside, AWC makes a superb suppressor for small Beretta and Walther pocket pistols. The AWC one is called the Titan 3. Friends of mine who own one use HV ammo as standard velocity, let alone low velocity subsonic ammo, jams their guns (both the Walther TPH and the Beretta 21A, BTW). As long as either of the guns I mentioned is cleaned after every 100 rounds no jamming occurs. The Titan 3 is wonderful and quiet, but not silent, too.

The .45 you mention is ideal. the small guns I mentioned are for concealed carry. If I were to use a .22 for such work, I would do as the Isrealis did and use a Beretta 70 series one. Hear they never jam. Would like to get my hands on one to try it out, but for now I will stick with my old Duramatic for plinking.

FYI, a link to AWC's site: http://www.awcsystec...titanthree.html

Out of the box, I really like the look and feel of the Kahr's. I would go with a 9mm, myself. I prefer to use 2 guns, a la Dr. No-something light, small and concealable, and something large for special occasions. Why compromise with just one? How many undercover cops have been deprived of their primary sidearm for whatever reason and would be dead now if it weren't for the fact they carried a small back-up?

"Best" is a very opinionated term. I like the Kahr primarily because it can be customized, having a metal frame/slide, unlike the "tupperware" out there. I didn't like Gardener's shallow books very much, but his choice of the ASP was a good move.

I concur that reliability is extremely important. That is why I have never understood everyone telling you if you can't handle the kick of a .38 or a .380 get a .22 pocket pistol (I've read and heard that a lot). They are not reliable enough (100%) for me to suggest anyone risk his or her life on one. The smallest .22 I would carry for personal defense is the lightweight Beretta 70 series semi-auto (16 oz, and just over 6" long, alas, too large for the pocket).

Therefore, I restate that there STILL exists a place for an out-of-the-box pocket-sized automatic pistol in .25ACP calibre like the fine product put out by Beretta--the 1919 series.

Commonly accepted definitions of offensive/defensive are subjective. Unless you're a policeman, you only draw your weapon to shoot somebody with it, never to brandish it, intimidate, stop someone, or scare anyone away. If you're that scared, showing the bad guy your weapon and not using it just removed your element of surprise and put the ball in his corner. If you draw, you shoot and if you shoot, you shoot to totally incapacitate. Therefore, only carry if you're willing to go the distance if necessary. Never draw/shoot, unless you're placed in imminent danger and your life is seriously in jeapordy. To me such use is defensive.

Edited by Almadjian, 09 April 2005 - 04:50 AM.

[SecretAgent007]

As for your friend, if he carried a .25 as a backup weapon, it was not authorized. The Secret Service, while the best trained of all the agencies (in small arms) in the 60's, was not issued backup guns. Just because you know of one person that did, please do not make general sweeping statements that a lot did. I deal with these agencies every day and am familiar with what they now carry, and with what they have carried in the past.

Why would you carry a .25 for backup today? KelTec makes a very small and light .32 (P32) and now a .380 (P3AT) that would work much better, especially with something like a Magsafe. I've chronographed Magsafe's from the Keltec 32 and they move at around 1200-1400 fps.

Beretta's are OK, but there are many better guns out there. The rotating lug on the M9/92/96 series of pistols is problematic. The Army shooting team always had problems with them, until their gunsmiths completely reworked the action. I've never talked to anyone in the military that likes their M9. In fact a lot of guys that went to Iraq put in requests for 1911's because they lacked confidence in the M9. This is what happens when the govt. goes with the lowest bidder on a contract.

Fleming got confused as to what Boothroyd suggested for Bond's firearms. I'm 99% sure that saying the Walther was lighter than the S&W was also a consequence from his confusion. Bond was to carry the PPK in a Berns Martin triple draw (inverted shoulder holster). The Berns Martin was only made for 2" J frames and 2.25" K frames. This would lead one to deduce that Boothroyd wanted Bond to carry the S&W in the Berns Martin for concealed carry. The PPK would have been heavier (Fleming reversed guns). Although, I believe that Boothroyd suggested a few carry guns (S&W and PPK) and the larger framed revolvers for "extreme duty". Fleming simply wrote his notes incorrectly. The aluminum framed PPK is quite rare. I can't imagine that it was suggested. And if it was, Fleming would have mentioned it, if he had it in his notes. He loved descriptions and I'm sure this would have been mentioned. Even John Gardner screwed up in his books. He mentions in a few of his later novels that the ASP is a Browning. No Browning was ever converted into an ASP. Only S&W 39, 39-2, and 439's were.

The P-99 and SW99 are not great weapons. Our local INS facility tests all of the firearms that the govt issues to personnel. Last year they tested all polymer-framed auto's that are being considered for issue. They fired 10,000 rounds from each model (10 guns of each model were used) out of each gun, filling (5) 55 galloon drums with spent brass. A gunsmith from each firearms company was present to repair any malfunctions. The Walther and Springfield XD guns did so poorly that they had to set tables up on the range to repair these two guns. The other gunsmiths were inside the clubhouse the entire time. Out of 10,000 rounds, the HK USP series had ten malfunctions and the Kahr P-9 had about the same. The muzzle report from the Walther was 8 db higher than any of the other 4" barreled guns.

I hope you were not serious about "they can't be that bad" because the French are carrying some. The French are not very gun savvy. Look at the crap they produced during and since WWII. French guns are . So I wouldn't put a lot of stock into what they pick for there agencies.

Silencers reduce the loud signature created by the discharge of a weapon. The noise of a gun firing is actually 2 sounds. The first is the supersonic crack created by the bullet, the second is muzzle noise (high pressure gas escaping the barrel). A silencer delays the escaping gas, slightly reducing the sharp report. So, technically a silencer is a noise reducer. It is the same principle as a muffler on a car. A silencer has an expansion chamber for gas to lose energy as well as a series of baffles that hinder the flow of gas. The gas absorbent materials are usually sponge rubber or steel wool. The entire system is closed but for the barrel and exit holes. These are cut to the exact diameter of the round being fired to prevent the rapid escape of the gas. The gas movement isn't a problem in a closed breach gun, but in a semi auto, the gas goes in both directions. Powder and primer residue move towards the breach. Semi autos and autos are not totally silent. Along with the reduced muzzle report, the mechanical noise produced by the moving parts is quite loud. Along with the escaping gas from the primer. The level of efficiency depends on several factors. If the muzzle velocity of the bullet is subsonic and the breech of the gun is tightly closed, the noise of the report is almost completely eliminated, however a high velocity projectile will make a crack anyway. It creates its own sonic crack after leaving the muzzle of the gun. Slowing a smaller round to subsonic speeds creates the problem of impact and lethality. It makes more sense to produce a subsonic round than it does to create extra mechanical functions for the silencer and its gun. Almost all modern silencers are designed to produce maximum efficiency with subsonic ammunition. Thus, a standard .22 round is inefficient for use with a silencer. Even though the round is subsonic in a pistol, it still produces a crack as it leaves the tube. It is closely approaching 750 mph. The amount of crack is determined by the length and diameter of the silencer. An efficient silencer is pretty large, unlike what you see in the movies. Silencers for hi powered rifles are extremely large with many, many holes for gas expansion. A silencer on lets say a Ruger MKIV (.22 handgun)with an intricle 7" silencer will decrease the volume of the report by about 43db on the first shot. This is still well above the ambient noise floor of 70db, (about 17 db)which is the noise floor that the human ear can distinguish volumn levels.

All handguns are defensive weapons. Individuals carry handguns to protect themselves, as do police officers. When an officer unholsters his weapon it is to protect himself and others that are being threatened, or where an offensive threat may exist. Law enforcement and the military use rifles for offensive operations.

Edited by SecretAgent007, 03 April 2005 - 08:55 PM.

[SecretAgent007]

When I mentioned the Kahr as the "best choice", I was referring to what I consider the best choice for the activities this fictional character finds himself in. Incidentally, the Kahr P series of pistols have polymer frames. The steel versions are heavier.

The only time our fictional character would need a large caliber weapon would be for an assault. He would be better off with a rifle or sub gun. A S&W 500 X frame would be fine under the seat to take out a bus.

While the ASP was revolutionary at the time and the first "wonder 9", I wouldn't carry one for self defense with the offerings available today. There are several problems with the gun. For one, there is a problem with the barrel caming into the frame, which can seize the weapon inoperable. The other drawback is the guttersnipe sight. It is useless in low light. A small modern handgun with tritium vials works much better.

My point with accuracy referred to the fact that a carry gun should be reliable first and accurate second. In order to produce a very accurate semi auto, you can run into reliability problems. The tolerances of the barrel fit, and slide to frame fit can render the gun useless if exposed to the elements. You don't need a carry gun to shoot 2" groups at 50 yards. I own several 1911 pistols that will shoot groups of 1" at 50 years, but I don't carry them concealed. And I carry every day.

Shot placement has very little to do with a guns accuracy at confrontational distances. Again, most shooting occur within 21 feet under low light. You aim at the trunk, where the vital organs are. If you have a gun that shoots 3-4 inch groups at 25 yards (I would not consider that a tight group) you can hit someone in the chest cavity at 21 feet quite easily.

Edited by SecretAgent007, 08 April 2005 - 08:10 PM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Let's cool it guys.

Be a shame to end this excellent informative thread on a sour note.

[Almadjian]

Why would you carry a .25 for backup today? Because the Kel-tec's reliability and accuracy out of the box is poor. Some of my local dealers hate to carry them because, as one stated, "whenever I have to return a gun to the factory it's a Kel tec". They tend to shoot several inches low. Some shooters dislike this factor immensely because they seem to shoot higher with their other guns when practicing shooting high with the Kel tec.

Regarding shot placement, I think that most people couldn't draw and fire a round accurately enough to hit the chest cavity at 7 yards in a confrontation. Yes, with gun drawn, hitting targets at 7 yards is no problem with virtually any weapon with a little practice. However, to be able to do it in a hurry, under stress, is difficult, even at that range. A gun's inherent accuracy is somewhat less importance at close ranges than shot placement, I concur with you, SecretAgent. However, both are crucial in a close encounter of any kind. Why not stack the cards in your favour and have something that is relatively accurate and easy to shoot?

According to those I have asked, most people don't fire the Kel tec very much, just carry it with the best hollowpoint they can afford. All dealers I have spoken with don't recommend one fire it much as it is snappy and no fun to fire. Those who do, however, practice with FMJ. Wonder how they can be sure the gun works reliably with the ammo they will be using in a confrontation, let alone how they will perform when they fire a round with more muzzle blast than they are used to practicing with?

I know the .25 is only a marginally effective round, but the .32 isn't much better. In fact Magsafe's .32 round offers only 18 FSP better muzzle velocity than the .25 Magsafe round. FMJ rounds are only +/- 50 fps faster in .32 than in .25. And I can shoot out the head of a target at 7 yards shooting rapid-fire with one hand with my .25s. I can't do that with a Keltec. Thought of upgrading to a Beretta .32, but I like the SA trigger of the old ones and also I've heard negative reviews regarding the Tomcats. I owned a Seacamp .32 and an NAA Guardian in .32. After some custom work, the NAA worked as well as the Seacamp. Both had nearly a 10 pound trigger pull and were difficult to practice with (finger blisters), follow-up shots were more difficult, and accuracy was out the window after 5 yards unless I was just slow shooting. None of that with my .25s. Despite its "mousegun" reputation, I feel much more confident with my .25s than with the new .32s because of the issues I mentioned: reliability, accuracy, follow-up shots, and user-friendliness.

Edited by Almadjian, 09 April 2005 - 04:40 PM.

[Almadjian]

Magsafe Ammo terminal performance data:
http://www.firearmst.../article432.htm

Edited by Almadjian, 09 April 2005 - 05:01 AM.

[SecretAgent007]

I have a Masters degree is ADMJ and a Bachelor's in business.

In the interest of keeping this civil, I deleted some of my comments in previous posts.

The CIA training center issued a sterile Browning Hi Power to all trainees and agents. The serial number was machined out and the hole welded up. All of the guns were purchased (used) through Interarms. They are now issued G-23's. As with all covert ops, military and Feds, they have several guns to choose from for mission specific ops.

If a govt. employee carries a gun that is not issued to them, or on the approved carry list, they will be subject to termination. If they modify any of there guns, they will be subject to termination. If they use a gun in a shooting that is not approved, they are in deep dog dodo.

Our troops do not carry French guns. Beretta is Italian. I didn't say anything about guns from anywhere else in Europe. The reason they carry the Beretta is that Beretta put in the low bid. Most of the troops do not like them. They especially don't like to have to tear them down. Actually, there may be a change coming in a few years. They are looking to go with something that has fewer parts.

The SEAL's and SF's are involved in "plainclothes" activities overseas at this time. They can choose to carry a backup weapon. Most carry the PTA3 or the S&W 642.

The pic of the "guttersnipe" on the Guardian, is not really a guttersnipe. It is completely different than the one on the ASP. Check out the pic below. The idea was that subconciously you would line up the 3 walls equally and the target would be at the end of the notch. The "night sight" version had inserts placed on either side of the gutter and a tritium-coated pin was placed at the other end. I've owned several ASP's that had the tritium inserts and post. The inserts are hard to replace because the sight is plastic and that type of front post is no longer available. You can still find those sights from collectors, but the inserts and post have long since pasted their lifespan. Also, the post sticks up, into the gutter and partially blocks the sight picture. That sight was available in limited quantities from ASP for resale. It was developed for the "Quest for Excellence" gun that was basically made to entise collectors. They made 100 of those guns. If you want to buy one, a gentleman in Florida has a few left that are pristine. I believe he still has them listed on GA. It is a cool gun, but of all the "wonder 9's" I would rather carry a Devel or one of Austin Behlert's chopped Hi Power

Attached Files

•  guttersnipetopview.jpg   9.39KB   56 downloads
•  guttersniperearview.jpg   8.21KB   58 downloads

Edited by SecretAgent007, 03 April 2005 - 09:55 PM.

[Almadjian]

Post edited.

Edited by Almadjian, 05 April 2005 - 05:45 AM.

[SnakeEyes]

To help steer this back on course: why not carry the PP instead of the PPK. Similar guns, but the PP has more ammo options which to me makes sense. It's also not much bigger/heavier, really.

Or is it? Does it show under your tux? Make your shoulder sag? Are the ammo options for the PP worse than firing rabbit poo out yer barrel?

[Almadjian]

I've owned and carried both a PPK, a PPK/S, and a PP, all in .380. The PPK was about as large as I felt comfortable carrying for the power I felt I was getting from it. The PP was noticeable easier to shoot, being a little more heavy. The PPK/S and PP's grip were slightly easier to get a grip on, but the PPK was no problem, really. The PPs are easier to come by and cheaper and German made in .380, so they're a bargain. I once fondled a customized German-made PPK/s that had a ported PP barrel and good sights. I like the compactness of the PPK but a German one is hard to get. For the weight, I would prefer to shoot .380 instead of .32. German PPK/s are available in that calibre as are the PPs. I really liked my PP and customized it the most. A PPK in .380 would be the stainless version that would have to see some custom work to ensure reliability (feed-ramp polish, extractor adjustment, etc.) and improve horrendous the double-action trigger pull.
This, coupled with a PP barrel would make for a sweet shooter. I will admit that the .32 PPK is easier and more rewarding to shoot than the .380, which bites like a rabid dog.

Edited by Almadjian, 09 April 2005 - 05:06 AM.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Do you know of any photos that show what the "skeleton grip" looks like?

[Almadjian]

In the cutlery industry, the term "skeletonized" implies holes in the grips. Check out the following link to see a picture of what an exmaple looks like: http://discountsupplyunlimited.com/buck_taclite_hi_tech_locking_liner_knife.html

I have never been able to find a maker of handgun grips that offers a grip with holes, though a fine firm such as Eagle Grips (www.eaglegrips.com, my personal favourite) could make some for you.

The Bantam came with relatively thin grips so skeleton grips would not help too much as far as weight goes. I really don't think that the value of "skeleton grips" would be worth the effort, though. It would reduce less than 1/2 oz. of weight. However the drawback would be allowing moisture into the inner mechanism of the gun causing rust. Also, lint and debris would be more of a problem necessitating constant and thorough maintenence of the firearm.

Bond's ASP came with clear Zytel grips so one could see how many rounds the gun still had in it. I suppose if custom grips were made, the holes could be cut to correspond with the holes in the mag (if there are any) to have the same effect as the ASP. This measure is of rather dubious value, however. Besides, Flemming never referred to such being the reason for the grips, I assume mainly weight was the prime factor.

Edited by Almadjian, 08 April 2005 - 09:23 PM.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Thanks! That's what I figured it meant, but since I'd never seen any like that I wasn't sure.

[blackdiamond13]

I just wanted to express my amazement at the realism so artfully portrayed in this series, so skillfully so that it elicits posts worthy of a college-level term paper as to the weaponry of Mr. Bond who was for all intents and purposes still a fictional character through which many of you live vicariously or fewer of you actually share some common bond (snort) via profession. I'm fascinated and will keep reading. Thanks,blackdiamond13 @ Jemsite