More Gun Help Please? The H&K P7M13

[HANS]

About the Bulk issue -- the P7M8, size-wise, sits exactly between the Glock 17 (clearly Bulk -2) and the Walther PPK (clearly Bulk -1). And I mean exactly. I have all three right before me in this very moment. Again, to my mind the P7M8 feels "handier" and better to carry, mostly because of its balance and slim built. The P7M13 doesn't, it is heavier overall and has bulkier dimensions. Hence, while the P7M8 can get away with being Bulk -1, the P7M13 can't. I note that quite a few of the weapon's earlier users agreed with me, labelling it the ideal carry gun of the 1980s. Today, of course, it is overweight in the face of your Glock 26s etc.

As to the Cult of the .45 (Tactical Shooting, p. 5), that predates Herr Cooper considerably. It dates at least to the 1920s, if not much earlier (via the Colt SAA). There are tons of early anecdotes that claim being hit by a .45 will knock you down etc.

As to "your" video, are you (The Warlord) saying that you are The Chieftain? That would be awesome ;) Or do you mean you just happened to know about a video that argued your point?

Cheers

HANS

[War_lord]

Originally Posted by HANS

About the Bulk issue -- the P7M8, size-wise, sits exactly between the Glock 17 (clearly Bulk -2) and the Walther PPK (clearly Bulk -1). And I mean exactly. I have all three right before me in this very moment. Again, to my mind the P7M8 feels "handier" and better to carry, mostly because of its balance and slim built. The P7M13 doesn't, it is heavier overall and has bulkier dimensions. Hence, while the P7M8 can get away with being Bulk -1, the P7M13 can't. I note that quite a few of the weapon's earlier users agreed with me, labelling it the ideal carry gun of the 1980s. Today, of course, it is overweight in the face of your Glock 26s etc.

As to the Cult of the .45 (Tactical Shooting, p. 5), that predates Herr Cooper considerably. It dates at least to the 1920s, if not much earlier (via the Colt SAA). There are tons of early anecdotes that claim being hit by a .45 will knock you down etc.

As to "your" video, are you (The Warlord) saying that you are The Chieftain? That would be awesome ;) Or do you mean you just happened to know about a video that argued your point?

Cheers

HANS

I'm very much not the Chieftain, though I am Irish, the similarity in online handles being totally coincidental, as I've been using this one for over a decade. I just knew of his video responding to the matter of the "sniper Bren".

While you're here, incidentally, I was wondering if you could come down on whether the Beretta "80 Series" is bulk -2 or -1?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by War_lord

It seems to stem from the same sort of fact sheet thinking that lead to High-Tech declaring "Safe-Action" (Glock's marketing term for the trigger dingus on striker guns) pistols "almost impossible to accidently discharge".

Good God! The marketing stuff is the last thing you should trust! I wouldn't even trust it for seemingly basic data like weight and number of shots. Military manuals for a well-understood gun that's been in service for a while, yes. Marketing material and marketing disguised as puff-piece journalism by gun writers, no, especially for a spiffy new gun.

Instead, you have to look for exactly the sort of reports that War Lord has mentioned about the Glock. Glock claims their pistol safeties are almost impossible to discharge, but emergency room admissions and accidental discharge incident reports say otherwise. Ergo, a good write-up of relatively recent Glocks will mention this issue and possible corrections for it. Given the number of Glocks sold vs. likely number of accidents, it probably isn't worth altering Malf or similar stats, but mentioning "Glock leg" as a potential critical failure option is a nice bit of realistic detail.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

G
Instead, you have to look for exactly the sort of reports that War Lord has mentioned about the Glock. Glock claims their pistol safeties are almost impossible to discharge, but emergency room admissions and accidental discharge incident reports say otherwise.

I wouldn't trust these either. A lot of "accidental discharges" are cases of "User accidentally pulled the trigger". Even changing your phraseology to "unintentional" doesn't change those cases. They're "user error" all the way.

.....and yes, I' count the "Glock leg" cases as user error too because they were trying to holster the weapon with their finger on the trigger. It's amazing how many supposedly trained users retain bad habits.

[War_lord]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I wouldn't trust these either. A lot of "accidental discharges" are cases of "User accidentally pulled the trigger". Even changing your phraseology to "unintentional" doesn't change those cases. They're "user error" all the way.

.....and yes, I' count the "Glock leg" cases as user error too because they were trying to holster the weapon with their finger on the trigger. It's amazing how many supposedly trained users retain bad habits.

Oh, I agree entirely. But that's not the point. When Glocks were coming into fashion with PDs there was a cognitive dissonance where a hammer down safety off Beretta 92 was too dangerous, but the "safe action" (in reality always condition zero and effectively single action) Glock was perfectly fine.

Of course a manual safety or a heavy DA trigger pull shouldn't be relied upon to cover for poor handling. And someone who is 100% diligent with their pistol all day every day that they carry it could carry ready to fire on a 4 pound trigger all day every day. As you say any remotely modern pistol won't "go off by itself". A very small number of people issued handguns in Police, Federal Agencies and even the US military are 100% diligent with their pistol all day every day, or even proficient beyond the bare minimum. When you're mass issuing a secondary that going to be primarily used by people who are mostly not going to be gun people or range regulars, you do have to consider idiot proofing.

This is why the US Army made a manual safety a requirement for the MHS trials. Glock reluctantly conceded to putting a manual safety to their submission, but when they released the same pistol to the public, no manual safety. Anecdotally I've heard that they've also put manual safeties on some very small South American contracts. I rather strongly suspect they refuse to sell a pistol with a manual safety to PDs or the general public because it makes it harder to pretend the trigger dingus is anything other than liability protection.

Incidentally a major criticism of the P7 in German police use (its original target market) was that the squeeze cocker tended to get activated under stress (as clenching is a natural reaction to surprise) which led to negligent discharge. This was made worse by the lack of a disconnector, so that if the trigger was pulled, and THEN the weapon was cocked, it would immediately fire a round. Yes, this is only a problem if virtually every safety rule is violated. But when you issue a weapon to thousands of people, most of whom likely have no previous experience with or enthusiasm for firearms, one of them will eventually break all the rules. This is why redundancy is good.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by War_lord

When Glocks were coming intt when you issue a weapon to thousands of people, most of whom likely have no previous experience with or enthusiasm for firearms, one of them will eventually break all the rules. This is why redundancy is good.

Redundant safeties just lead you to the _other_ error where the user tries to fire his weapon but forgot to take the safety off. Those are at least quieter errors which may be one reason they tend not to be counted but some users don't survive those errors.

Then there's the "Hit the magazine release instead of the safety" Crit fail.

Redundant safeties only prevent one class or error. They enable another class.

I kind of like the "If you pull the trigger it shoots. If you don't pull the trigger it doesn't".

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I kind of like the "If you pull the trigger it shoots. If you don't pull the trigger it doesn't".

The Soviets tried that in the Tokarev, and it was so dangerous that they had widespread complaints under Stalin during WW II. The ability to set a loaded gun such that you can pull the trigger without it going off has been a standard feature since the 18th century (maybe the 16th century if you count pan covers on matchlocks)

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

The Soviets tried that in the Tokarev, and it was so dangerous that they had widespread complaints under Stalin during WW II. The ability to set a loaded gun such that you can pull the trigger without it going off has been a standard feature since the 18th century (maybe the 16th century if you count pan covers on matchlocks)

A TT33 with the ha,,er down would not fire when the trigger was pulled - it was a single action only gun. However, as there was no hammer block or firing pin control it could go off when dropped or if the hammer was sharply struck. There was also a half-cock position for the hammer, which would at least prevent hammer strikes from firing (and which would also stop pulling the trigger from firing), like a revolver's half-cock. However, de-cocking from half-cock wasn't particularly safe - if your finger slipped it could fire.

All this is much like a number of other pistols of the time that didn't have safeties, or had poor ones - it was hardly unique.

It was why the pistol was about to be replaced about the time the Germans invaded, putting that on hold. After the war it was replaced, of course, partly because of its poor safety record and partly because it was a heavy gun that was over-powered for the needs of the Soviet armed forces post-WWII.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Rupert

A TT33 with the ha,,er down would not fire when the trigger was pulled - it was a single action only gun. However, as there was no hammer block or firing pin control it could go off when dropped or if the hammer was sharply struck. There was also a half-cock position for the hammer, which would at least prevent hammer strikes from firing (and which would also stop pulling the trigger from firing), like a revolver's half-cock. However, de-cocking from half-cock wasn't particularly safe - if your finger slipped it could fire.

All this is much like a number of other pistols of the time that didn't have safeties, or had poor ones - it was hardly unique.

It was why the pistol was about to be replaced about the time the Germans invaded, putting that on hold. After the war it was replaced, of course, partly because of its poor safety record and partly because it was a heavy gun that was over-powered for the needs of the Soviet armed forces post-WWII.

I'm not a handgunner so I can't comment on the virtues of various safety systems, but I trust the combination of Gun Jesus and GURPS HT that the Tokarev was a particularly unsafe handgun, and lots of WW II kit remained in service for decades if it was good kit. The fact that the Soviets quickly replaced the Tokarev suggests that they thought it was not.

I believe that contemporary designs like the Browning HP and Colt M1911 had both safety catches and external hammers.

Edit: also, my original comment was that things like the Tokarev's ergonomic issues with safeties are a judgment call in GURPS!

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I'm not a handgunner so I can't comment on the virtues of various safety systems, but I trust the combination of Gun Jesus and GURPS HT that the Tokarev was a particularly unsafe handgun, and lots of WW II kit remained in service for decades if it was good kit. The fact that the Soviets quickly replaced the Tokarev suggests that they thought it was not.

!

What HT does say about the Tokarev was that it might fire if dropped or hit sharply. It did not say that it was "quickly" withdrawn after WWII. It's dates were 1936 to 1954. The pistols weren't junked then. There were a bunch of them in the Vietnam War area and it was a particularly prized G.I. trophy.

Practically all single action revolvers sued to have that "might fire if dropped" trait but that solved with what's called a "transfer bar" rather than a manual safety.