I was reading the CZ thread and got to thinking. As civilian firearms users our firearms have the luxury of living fairly pampered lives, and are shot even when in actual SD scenarios in fairly sanitary conditions. So we judge things like trigger feel, controls etc. in that mindset.

When we are talking about guns designed largely for militaries or law enforcement we lose sight of the fact that these guns are designed to be abused and used with cumbersome gloves or other gear and in some cases are VERY close range my primary went down affairs.

I am not judging or saying you shouldn’t want a good trigger or great sights or an RMR Mount etc. I am just saying that I found myself looking at my HKs and from a sanitary civilian users perspective they have horrible triggers and can be bulky for capacity etc. but from an military use it as a hammer perspective while wearing tactical gloves they make a lot of sense. (I only use HK as an example this could be a SIG P226 or whatever.)

Question is do we judge war weapons harder then we should as civilian carriers?

Two thoughts come to mind.

First, even if only from comments I've read here, I think people often see guns in context. They might buy one pistol because it's a classic, with all the good and bad that comes with it. They might buy another as an EDC because it's particularly suited to that role. I would argue that anyone who goes through that kind of thought process probably judges a pistol pretty fairly.

Second, there have been some absolutely appalling military handguns issued in the past, as well as reasonable military handguns issued with appalling triggers, sights, safeties, etc. The mere fact that a pistol was designed, built or adopted as a war weapon doesn't necessarily mean that it was a good war weapon.

I judge a gun for my situation and mine only since I am buying one for my situation and mine only.

IF I was in charge of procurment for the military or a police force where I had budget and logistics concerns I would judge them differently.

I don't think judging a pistol, or any tool for that matter, based on the needs of the user(s) is ever unfair. Keep in mind that sometimes gun companies build guns knowing they are not the very best they can be because they are trying to make a gun that is just good enough to win the large military and police contracts. They know their trigger isn't the best it can be but they build it as good as they feel they need to in order to hit a desired price point.

I do think I get what you are saying though. I don't really mind people judging a gun harshly but I don't like when people judge guns based solely on rumor or when the issues are out of the hands of the manufacturer. The Beretta M9 magazine issue comes to mind. Lots of folks out there who never spent a minute in the military hate the M9 for the jamming issues that they heard about from others that were really due to the governments shitty magazine choices.

I agree with the OP that civilians view firearms differently than military, especially as a civilian's involvement with firearms intensifies or specializes.
It is my opinion that the great advances in firearms design and function has been a direct result of military need prior to WWII. Sporting, target, and personal defense were peripheral to military. Since then, during the 50's thru the 90's it had changed somewhat to concentrate on the civilian perspective, but within the past few years, the focus of development has returned to military and tactical applications.
Some civilian innovations are not suited to military, such as glowing sights. So the military requires equipment to supplement the lack of night sights, such as night vision. But civilians want sights that glow in the dark.
Answer: I judge military weapons with greater respect than I do civilian weapons. I especially respect those weapons used by the U.S. military in great numbers over several decades.

OP makes very good points.

I do though keep thinking of the P210. Wow. How amazing that was to be service issue.

quote:

Originally posted by arlen:
....{snip}....... I judge military weapons with greater respect than I do civilian weapons. I especially respect those weapons used by the U.S. military in great numbers over several decades.

I notice the difference in military vehicles too, compared to what civilian police forces drive. Military vehicles seem to be a little more sturdy than front wheel drive 2017 Chevy Impalas.

The ex-firearms instructor for the San Jose Police Dpt in the 1980's was a close friend, and he made it very clear about why a large part of the military used semi-auto handguns, while most civilian police departments were clearly favoring the revolver ---- he stated the situations for military was very different than the situations for a civilian police. Hence Military handguns differed from about the end of WWI until about 1992. OBVIOUSLY that was the 80's and this is now, and both use more similar handguns now.

ETA: Yes, I realize much of the military had revolvers too in the time period mentioned.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:

When we are talking about guns designed largely for militaries or law enforcement we lose sight of the fact that these guns are designed to be abused and used with cumbersome gloves or other gear and in some cases are VERY close range my primary went down affairs.

Which guns are these and what leads you to that conclusion? I'm sure you will name a few guns that were built geared towards a certain military trials, but I don't see much difference between them and guns that weren't.

Often much of what you're talking about is just peoples excuses for bad designs, bad triggers, bad sights, bad ergonomics, lack of accuracy.

I think there is some rationalization and over thinking going on here. Comparing military handguns to military weapon systems is inherently flawed thinking. A true weapon system or military vehicle doesn't necessarily have a civilian equivalent. A military handgun absolutely does. Pretty much every military handgun for a century or more can be bought in the basically exact same form as a civilian. In fact, most handguns that are military in use started out as civilian first. Not a big corollary there in other weapon systems. No civilian tanks, artillery, fighters, etc.

Every single major manufacturer on this planet makes a handgun that would basically meet the needs of any army in the world that was looking for a sidearm. This is not a particularly tough billet to fill. The US system makes it hard because they come up with a list of "havetohaves" that mean the gun makers have to pick their best gun and modify it. Add backstraps, manual safeties, lanyards, extended mags, blah blah blah blah.

The US Army could have saved taxpayer money by taking an old pizza box, cutting it into a circle, and dividing the circle into quadrants and spinning. Beretta M9A3, APX, Glock 19, 19X, Sig 320, M&P 2.0, etc.

Any one of those mentioned and a bunch I didn't mention would in reality meet the needs of big green. Handguns are easy. It is old tech that only gets complicated when the govt adds requirements that aren't really necessary.

If I deployed again (too old now lol), I would be completely fine with almost any off the shelf Sig, Glock, Smith, Beretta, etc.

Selling to the military and the police to a lesser degree means absolutely NOTHING. Except that it guarantees you will sell a metric shit ton to civilians. Don't overthink this is my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Which guns are these and what leads you to that conclusion? I'm sure you will name a few guns that were built geared towards a certain military trials, but I don't see much difference between them and guns that weren't.

Bingo. I can't think of a single firearm I own which doesn't have some kind of military-design heritage.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Often much of what you're talking about is just peoples excuses for bad designs, bad triggers, bad sights, bad ergonomics, lack of accuracy.

+1
A poor design is a poor design, regardless of the designer's background or intended use. I evaluate (not judge ) firearms on their form and function for a given purpose.

For the most part, I find what governmental agencies (mil or LE) opt for to mean fuck all.

Ultimately, no one ever chooses the "best." Either the decision maker designs the testing with what they want in mind, ignore testing and buy what they want, or just simply take the lowest qualifying bid.

So I don't agree with the theory that we judge civilian firearms harshly. Instead I think most people place way too much value on something being used by mil/LE. I don't know if it's them seeking reassurance that they're extra smart and picked the "right" firearm, or some childish desire to emulate a SEAL. Either way, I think it's rather feeble minded. The government almost never does the right thing, and if they do it's likely purely by chance rather than intentional.

Meh, point me in the camp of this comparison being apples to U-Hauls. What specific judgement are you trying to pass? Which weapon is best to be shot very little by a .mil agency, and then cleaned incessantly to the smallest detail so it will "function" when that guy making the PX deposit at the bank "needs it most" while lubed horribly with the lowest common denominator lube with the best training circa 1991? Yep, there's your best bet.

Or how about on the LE side. The pistol that will function best after being exposed to rain and snow, all the while completely covered in Diet Coke and excess salt from French Fries that hasn't been shot or cleaned since the range last September where two firearms instructors had to coach the guy along to shoot a 70 percent so he can keep his job six more months before he has to do it again? Yeah, that's your choice.

The deep reflections into what "CIVILIANS" do or whatever are almost as silly looking toward the .mil or LE for guidance. 99 percent of all .mil and cops can't shoot past a very basic level of competency. Training programs don't focus on cultivating gunfighters in most all cases. They focus on going through the motions, so that everyone gets a trophy, and the liability insurance for the agency doesn't kick off.

That's the sad fact that most of the gun buying public do not understand. They see things on TV and in movies and they fail to understand that they aren't real. Everything else is spin and marketing by gun companies trying to make a buck.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Meh, point me in the camp of this comparison being apples to U-Hauls. What specific judgement are you trying to pass? Which weapon is best to be shot very little by a .mil agency, and then cleaned incessantly to the smallest detail so it will "function" when that guy making the PX deposit at the bank "needs it most" while lubed horribly with the lowest common denominator lube with the best training circa 1991? Yep, there's your best bet.

Dammit Jerry, I wanted to laugh at this but it is sadly too true...

...except the training part. I have yet (in 20 years) received any "training" in the Army on how to shoot a handgun. Oh, I've qualified with them too many times to count and been issued them for 2x overseas deployments.


I have noticed what the OP is talking about many times on forums. While I was in Iraq, someone posted a pic of a big gouge out of their AR upper behind the cam pin. I thought, wow that looks bad!

So I grabbed my issue M4 (which hadn't been shot all that much) and looked inside...mine was worse! I laughed, it wasn't something I ever thought to notice or care about. I have seen similar things play out many times. Things a soldier or LE officer wouldn't even notice or care about is a big deal to a civilian owner.

Military M4/M16 series triggers are typically atrocious and with the burst group also variable (3rd pull the best). I'm happy with all my "GI" civilian AR triggers. The very best is an old Colt trigger in a Colt AR lower from the 90's I bought used to make a CAR-15 clone. It is outstanding.

Specifically I was thinking about USP's and how their triggers tend to be heavy etc. the safety etc. and I started thinking about the need to run them with gloves and so on.

I was just musing not saying Gun X is better then gun Y just that the average firearm not deployed to wars lead fairly pampered lives.

This has nothing to do with the "nuts behind the trigger" so to speak or the ability for one to train or adapt or to learn to shoot anything.

I am in no way saying firearm X is and inferior piece of crap because it wasn't ultimately designed to chase a military contract of some kind vs. something else.

Hey I have the flu and was just musing.

Chris

I find it funny some people will not consider a certain gun because some jokester on you tube showed. A gun jamming when caked with mud or after being frozen in ice. Never gonna happen to me in my lifetime ( didn’t even happen when I was deployed )

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
Specifically I was thinking about USP's and how their triggers tend to be heavy etc. the safety etc. and I started thinking about the need to run them with gloves and so on.

The Colt 1911 was designed as a military sidearm to be fired from a horse and it has a great trigger and a largely useless grip safety, so I'm not really following the logic about why a crappy HK trigger makes it "mil-spec."

quote:

Question is do we judge war weapons harder then we should as civilian carriers?

No. When a soldier or officer is issued a sidearm and magazines and holster and ammo, that soldier or officer has precious little room to argue with what is issued, because they aren't a stake-holder in the process.

It may be a fine firearm, or it may be a turd. But it's what his/her unit wanted - or was told they were getting - and since the soldier/officer's buy-in is zero, they don't really have a choice. But no matter how good or bad it is; that gun is now certified 'mil-spec' or 'agency' and all that comes with that designation.

We - as Americans and CCW people - have the ultimate selection. We aren't limited to issued guns, or shuffled into an approved choices list. If we don't want one because the trigger feels funky, or the sights are weird, or the frame hits my hand in a weird spot, or any other reason - we can move on.

Some people are willing to trade that choice and personalization for a title. I've heard it a million times: "I liked gun x I had, but I traded it on this gun y. It's what the blah-blah agency carries." Or "It's what the SEALs use" or any variation thereof. These gun owners are willing to trade what works or what they actually enjoy for a title. Not better performance, not higher capacity or more reliability, but a title. It's single-point buying, and it's a little silly.

Let me give you an inverse analogy of a customer in the store.

Customer: "As a concealed carry person, I want the best concealed gun I can get. Which one is that?"

Store: "The Kel Tec PF-9 is the best carry gun you can buy."

Customer: "Why is that?"

Store: "It's slim, it's light, and it's very affordable."

Customer: "That sounds good, but how does it perform?"

Store: "In one instance I can prove, the T. Martin shooting in Florida, a carrier used the Kel Tec PF-9 to make a one shot kill in an actual altercation."

Do you see what I mean? If you're just using that single point of data to hang your hat on, how can you say the PF-9 not the best carry gun available? They already told you it's slim, light, and affordable - and then gave you actual evidence of it succeeding in real-world use. What more do you need?

Now obviously the argument disregards the issues that a $200 pistol may have. It disregards the jagged harshness of the grip. It disregards the terrible recoil management, and the sponge-o-riffic trigger. And the list goes on. But, despite these faults, can you say that when called upon in the one known instance it was really needed, that it didn't do the job?

So the truth is, yes; we judge them harshly, but not too harshly. We find flaws, defects, and issues with almost everything on the market. Rather it's random drop firing Sigs, or heavy-ass 1911s, or ergonomic challenged Glocks, or the shitty trigger on HKs, we find them out.

The difference is, if we don't like it, we can actually do something about it.



bigwagon; I get where you're coming from, but I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think he's asking why are we so picky about small issues, when some of these guns are proven performers in the hands of military forces or law enforcement officers.

There are three things that military use gets you in a handgun.

The first is the initial testing protocol, which gives a pretty good idea of whether the design is robust and reliable. It doesn't mean it's "good" for regular daily use, but it gives a baseline for toughness and reliability.

The second is there is a large pool of guns being used for a long period of time, and latent problems with the design will be found; witness the stronger frame and slide for the M9 due to cracking of early versions. These problems were identified and rectified in part because there was an enormous populations of these guns in regular service.

The third thing is that generally, due to the large numbers made, and the requirements that governments have for spares, there are a large number of parts available to keep these weapons operating for a long time.

I don't know if these factors mean we judge them more harshly, but certainly we have a lot of information to work with.

I do, answering your question. I'm generally not thinking about going to war with a particular firearm when I buy it, even if it's one that has history and provenance as a battle tool. I will however judge a firearm on its overall reliability and toughness, taking into account what kinds of harsh conditions it could be subject to including any history in service as a weapon of war or agency use, even if it will never be used that way by me.

Regardless if a firearm is suited for military/LEO use, I judge a weapon solely on MY intended use. I could care less how anyone else rates or judged it as long as it’s effective for my intended use.

quote:

Originally posted by kilyung:
Regardless if a firearm is suited for military/LEO use, I judge a weapon solely on MY intended use. I could care less how anyone else rates or judged it as long as it’s effective for my intended use.

Interestingly enough, we live in great times with so many great options. I judge handguns on my needs as well, and I test them with several standardized drills. All of the major manufacturers are about equal on reliability, despite what the 'tube and IG commandos try to make out with their "torture".