Color me... baffled. 92F vs. Hi-Power two great 9mm pistols

[SharpsDressedMan]

At the time of adoption of the M9, the CZ75 was a communist bloc made weapon. I doubt that it would have even remotely been considered unless a NATO country had already copied and produced it, and even that would have created too much controversy, even if it was the best design ever.

 

[Nom de Forum]

At the time of adoption of the M9, the CZ75 was a communist bloc made weapon. I doubt that it would have even remotely been considered unless a NATO country had already copied and produced it, and even that would have created too much controversy, even if it was the best design ever.

I agree, at the time of the adoption of the M9 (1985), the taint of communism may have created too much controversy, but as I indicated in my previous post an American made clone (Bren 10) had been in production of two years (1983-86 produced). A five year delay (1990) means the Berlin Wall is down, Glasnost is fully underway, the USSR dissolve one year later, and by the way CZ75s have been being sold in U.S. Military controlled retail facilities in Germany for years to soldiers and dependents. So by 1990 I don't think an American (competent company) or even Czech made CZ75 clone would be too controversial to be considered for adoption. The American military since its inception has a long history of adopting/stealing/modifying the designs of potential enemies for official use.

 

[Willie Sutton]

CZ didn't enter the competition, and there was not a 5 year delay, so it's all a moot point.

The S&W's of the time sucked, to be quite honest about it.

They might have made Bren 10's (I had one) but magazines? Uhh... <sigh>: No. No magazines. This is one ball that Colonel Jeff called wrong. Coulda been good... never met it's potential.

The HP v/s M9 question is one of different epochs of design. The HP is a masterpiece of industrial design. The M9 is a giraffe, that being a horse designed by a comittee. It's a wonderful compromise, doing nothing badly, and nothing very well (except always going "bang", which really is the point). Well, it did something else well: It won the contract.

As before, use my 92 and M9 (one of each, the M9 being one of the early "civil" ones) as "horse pistols": Used where I don't need to carry them myself, and where their utter reliability are important. They make perfect bedside or center console pistols, hammer down on a chamberted cartridge and the safety off. Makes training "low motivation" companions how to use it as easy as a doubla action revolver. Carrying one is best reserved for those wearing BDU's. The HP is a finer sort of pistol completely.


Willie

.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Willie you have my sympathy. D&D really screwed the pooch on those magazines, and other issues. I was close to buying a Bren, but fortunately delayed by other priorities long enough to not end up with a white elephant.

 

[TimboKhan]

I am one of those weirdos that really liked the M9, though I do prefer the Taurus version. What I didn't like in the military (the bullet), just doesn't translate to civilian life. It's big, it's ugly but the ones I have shot have all been accurate and reliable.

With that praise being said, and with the understanding I am currently looking for another Taurus, I wouldn't use one as my house gun. The simplicity of my XD or the average Glock or even the average revolver appeals to me. Not that I find it a particularly difficult gun to manipulate, just not as simple as the other choices. Fun to shoot, and they do make a good truck gun so there is always that.

 

[sikiguya]

Heavy trigger pull is easily fixed with the d hammer spring.