tark said:
Do you mean reliability? Ruggedness? Power? The star is as rugged , reliable, and as powerful as any 9mm ever made. At any time, at any price. Cosmetically, it is superior to 90% of them and is above average in accuracy. When pistol "B" can come close to pistol "A" in almost every category, and pistol "B" costs 1/4 the price of pistol "A" , I don't think it is a "silly argument " to "bring it up". It is a powerful argument that perhaps pistol "A" is over rated and not as wonderful as everyone thinks it is.
The .357 SIG round is 9mm, and it's FAR more powerful than 9mm Largo. According to Wikipedia (cite a better source if you have one), the standard 124 gr. 9mm round is a very close match to the 9mm Largo round in all ways, with the same energy and a bit more velocity, and that's before we start looking at +P 9mm rounds.
The 9mm Largo round is NOT as powerful as any 9mm round ever made and the Super A isn't as powerful as any 9mm handgun ever made.
As for the Star Super A being more rugged? Perhaps, but I don't think you can show us any evidence to support that claim, as the gun has never been widely used by militaries in combat, and may have only seen some limited use as a service pistol.
More importantly, running the .357 SIG round in 9mm guns that have been beefed up from the .40 round has proved a challenge for THOSE guns, and I wonder if the Start Super A could handle THAT heat?
Remember, too, the Super At wasn't even introduced until 1946, as WWII was ending, and was discontinued in 1989. At that time in the world ('46-'89) there was an intensifying competition for the U.S market (arguably the biggest and best in the world at the time for civilian weapons) by US, German and Austrian firms. As good as a Super A might have been, the Super A was, in effect, a beefed up version of a much older design, and there was no compelling reasons to trade out of a low capacity revolver for an equally low-capacity beefed up version of an older gun. The hotter 9mm Largo round, which wasn't that much hotter than the standard 9mm round, clearly wasn't enough to force a change.
Do you think a NEW Star Super A could be built then or today for the same RELATIVE cost as any of the contemporary peers, or built today as cheaply as the undisputedly rugged Glock 17 or SIG P-series guns? Unless you can show us that,
your continued focus on cosmetics is a silly argument. When cosmetics affect how well a gun functions it might become more an important and relevant part of this discussion.
Had you just focused on comparing the Les Baer guns to the P210 -- and how your reasons for believing the P210 over-valued, you might have won a few converts. But you didn't, and you also didn't really claim that long-term usage of the Les Baer guns are as trouble-free as the P-210s have proved to be. That may be the case, but Les Baer guns don't seem to be used in the same ways as P-210s are used -- including many, many years as military or service pistols.
Tark, you earlier wrote the following, and later explained that "eat the 210s lunch" mean one-hole groups at 50 yards
tark said:
Well, Walt, for that kind of money, Les, or any number of custom shops will build you a gun that will eat that 210s lunch. At any level or category of performance you care to name.
At that price you're paying for a famous name. You can say the same thing, I will admit freely, about the custom shop guns. You're just paying a lot of money for a name.
So, maybe the Les Baer guns are also over-rated?
I remain skeptical about how easy it might be to find guns that will shoot rings around a P210
for comparable dollars. That said,
I am even more skeptical about the the easy availability of 9mm semi-autos that can shoot one-hole groups at 50 yards at any price. They may exist, but I'm pretty sure they're relatively rare.
;
If I ever get that P-210, I'll post some pics. Good shooting.
