Are European handguns rubbish?
 

Just a quick question from one who has no idea.

I was reading Debt of Honour (Tom Clancy) and a CIA agent needed a handgun and could only get one from a Russian. It was some low calibre affair (22 or less?) which his was not happy with..fair enough. But the charachter makes some statement to his friend in the realms of 'the europeans dont know how to make handguns'. I find this hard to believe and thought - I know some people who will know for sure :)

Nope!

Europe has long been home to some of the world's finest firearms designers (and one European company, Beretta, is not only the oldest firearms company, but is the oldest company). I'm afraid that Clancy is a tad "mistaken".

On the subject of European handguns:

SiG, HK, Browning, FN, Walther, Berretta, Hammerelli... Yep. They don't know handguns... ;)

I would hazzard to say that the Europeans make more high quality handguns than anyone else in the world. Panther Al's list says it all (and don't forget Glock).

Perhaps the character was referring to Russians, specifically. Their handguns are weak, to say the least.

He might have been commenting on how difficult it is to purchase a decent handgun illegally in Europe. Many of the under the table arms dealers are Russian and generally sell things like the Baikal, a gas firing pistol converted to 9mmP and coming with a dodgy silencer. By all accounts those aren't great guns.

It's not totally accurate, however, a mate of mine is a Police Inspector dealing with gun crime in this area. The last arms dealer they arrested was carrying a couple of Kalashnikovs, several re-activated Ingrams, three .357 Colts as well as a selection of 9mm autos. By all accounts the crappy .22s and Saturday Night Specials are entry level shooters with anyone but the sixteen-year old wannabes take whatever they can get.

All of this is still very dangerous, in the UK you can get shot dead for having a piece of wood in a plastic bag. Just possessing an illegal gun carries a sentence that is longer than murdering someone. Other European countries are similarly draconian.

That said, you'd expect a CIA agent to have better contacts.

Hummm, there is one handgun that does make you wonder just what the designer was thinking....the P9S is a decent little pistol, but the mag release is on the bottom of the grip....little hard to do a rapid mag change!

I'll stick to my old Colt Mark IV Series 70......

Brad Thor's first book Lions of Lucerene (sp) has his main character in Swiss Confederation hunting for the kidnappers of the President. And he needed a gun but couldn't buy a real one... so he bought an airsoft pistol of the pistol he really wanted to get... because he felt the appearence of hving a gun was better than not having a gun....

I am trying very hard to forget Glock... ;) Oh, and add Steyr to the list of great pistols as well.

Mag releases on the bottom of the grip is a very european thing: Goes along with what we consider a pistol is supposed to be used for and what they think:

For the Americans, Pistols are a combat tool: meant to be used in combat with the goal of killing as many people as fast as possible using a minimum of ammo. Hence, the magnums, the .45's, etc...

For the Europeans, Pistols are secondly a back up weapon for when the shit has well and truly hit the fan, and primarily as an Officers weapon; a status symbol more than a combat tool. A holdover from when officers came from an official Officer (or Noble- sometimes the same thing) class. Hence, Mag capacities are typically lower, as well as the use of lighter ammo compared to the US. Hence, the .32's, .380's, the 9mm's, etc... They don't want a heavy rugged massive pistol: something nice and light is much easier to tote around if they never plan on using it in the first place.

Of course, thats just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions... and to be fair, Europe is coming around to the US point of view on pistols.

There's also the possibility that Clancy was using that statement to illustrate some aspect of the CIA agent's personality/character. That is to say, perhaps the agent was written as being biased against European firearms and just made the sort of statement that you hear often enough about car marques.

Like everyone here as mentioned, the Europeans do make some pistols that range from fine to outstanding but as Panther Al specifically stated, it just took the Europeans some time to realize that pistols are more than just status symbols or authority symbols.
Other current/former European pistol makers include: -
Astra
Benelli
CZUB (AKA CZ) - The CZ75 in particular
Korriphila
Korth
MAB
Mauser - Who hasn't seen the C96 AKA Broomhandle Mauser for example?
Sphinx
Steyr
Star
Tanfoglio

Have you had a bad Glock experience?

I really like my Glock 19. It's light, easy to maintain, a pleasure to shoot- and it cost hundreds less than an H&K or SigSauer. I wanted a Walther P99, but apparently, they stopped making/selling them in the States a couple of years ago. I'm actually rather pleased that I decided to go Glock. They're so common that both factory and aftermarket parts and accessories are easy to find and relatively innexpensive. It's the gangbangers and nutters that use them that give them a bad rap.

I think his response may be due to several instances where either poor training on/understanding of the Glock safety mechanism resulted in unauthorized discharges by people who should have known better or (the more likely of the two I think), where several Glock pistols have been found to be poorly manufactured and resulted in pistols blowing themselves apart in the users hand.
I don't recall if the destructing pistols were ones manufactured in Austria or at the Smyrna, Georgia factory in the US.

In all honesty: Yes, the Glock is a good pistol: I might even go as far to say its an outstanding pistol. But I do have my reasons, but for the most part really are not on point.

I'm a huge Steyr fan: I loved my Steyr GB. It is one of the two pistols that first nodded in the direction of combat pistols in that it had a large (18 Rd) magazine capacity (The other was the HK VP70, though for a different reason, also, having owned one of the *fun* versions, I can tell you from personal experience the trigger pull is horrible). It had its issues. Mainly because Steyr screwed up by letting Rogak build them. But once Steyr took over, its star was in the ascendent. As the first hi-cap 9mm, it was destined for greatness, except a year or so later some goofballs came up with this plastic thing called a Glock, and well... ;)

Losing the Austrian Army contract - the GB was considered a shoo-in due to capacity, and the fact that it is a very soft shooter - to Glock put the nail in its coffin.

Thats one reason, the other is that I had the misfortune to have a Glock fail on me at a very unpleasant and unfortunate moment. Not a dig on the design: even Ferrari makes a lemon every now and then. And lets face it, a full auto glock is just pure fun.

The occasions when they was first being purchased by law enforcement and the users shot themselves with unfortunate regularity is a training issue: not fully the fault of the design - mostly. I don't like the trigger at all and how they are taken down. But thats all personal.

As to the list, yeash. How did I forget CZ. There is a company that never gets the props it is due.

Depends on point of view I guess.

Up until recently the British army has used the FN Browning, a 9mm weapon that has a 13 round mag. Compare that to theold American 1911 which was a .45 and only carried 7 rounds.

Today the british use the SIG 226 which is another 9mm with a 15 round mag. American went with the M9 to replace the 1911 which is a 9mm Berretta 92 with a 15 round mag.

Seems to me that America is actualy coming around the the European point of view on handguns, not the other way around.

Looking at the actual list of pistols made by European countries, it's hard to think of what Clancy is driving at -- Glock, Sig, FN, etc etc etc.

I could see expressing dissatisfaction with Russian pistols, specifically -- they're still trying to figure out the concept of a fighting handgun as far as I can tell, but Western Europe got on that bandwagon in the 60s to 80s, depending on firm and specific design.

Hrm... 50-50 on that. Yes, we went with the 9mm. Not too happy about that, but I do like the mag cap that it allows. I really do think that if the .40 existed, it would have been a good compromise chambering for NATO use. Not a fan of the 9: Decent round, but not really a man stopper. I agree that the .45 is a bit much for a lot of shooters. And the size holds back the mag cap. I don't think it was the right call, we should have stuck with the 45, but... I agree that when you consider all the reasons, going to the 9 was a reasonable choice.

Now: If I had to pick a pistol that would be the only one I would ever have, can't trade, sell it, get another of any kind, nor have easy access to parts?

Browning HP all night long. Even over the 1911. The 45 is hard on parts, over the years it wouldn't hold up as well as the High Power would with its lighter 9mm loads.

My 10 cents worth.

Speaking as someone kind of in the middle (that is, not American and not European), I think in regard to this particular point, that the US definitely had the lead when it comes to viewing the pistol as a combat weapon.
For example, it was only about half a century before World War 1 that handguns were used in gunfights in the US, Europe didn't really have that kind of situation (i.e. the US Wild West era).

Although the C96 Mauser had a decent magazine capacity of 10-rds and a decent round, the first (of what we would consider), high capacity magazine on a pistol was for the Browning Hi-Power where the Hi-Power was related to the magazine size rather than the power of the ammunition. The Browning HP was of course, designed by John Browning who was born in the USA in 1855 - just the right time to be told all those tales of gunfights in the streets of Wild West towns and also to see the change from revolvers to automatics.

In several countries that would not be a good idea. The laws on posessing and carrying weapons here in Europe are very restrictive. Have a look to the laws on knifes in the UK, for example.

Here in Germany you can be charged for showing a airsoft in public. And the fees can be enormous, depending on situation. It is, however, not a crime, it is an "Ordnungswidrigkeit" ("infringement of law" is what my dictionary calls that circumstance, I hope, this gives an idea to all of you.).

Well, the rest has been said. Some very fine handguns here in Europe, selling good on the international weapons market and very popular with law enforcement agencies all over the world.

Thanks for all the replies - interesting. I did think there were a lot of very good European arms manufacturers and hence must be some good handguns. I had heard that those very heavy handguns like the Desert Eagle were too unwieldy to be as effective as a 'normal' handgun.

For clarification, the CIA guy does specifically say European not Russian (or I wouldnt have been too surprised).

well lets see. john browning was an american.
glocks are by design(double action with no manual safety) unsafe to carry loaded
and i have yet to hold a Beretta that wasn't crap

but SIG, HK, and the Cz 75 make up for the crapiness of those i mentioned and then some.


of course i never trust any weapon made in a country where i cannot legally carry said weapon. (a prime example of the reasons why is the SA80)

IIRC, most of the Glock kaboom incidents were in the .40 S&W and .357 SIG models, which combine a higher-pressure cartridge with a partially-unsupported casing. A lot of them were a convergence of factors... including excessive powder charges in reloaded casings.

(ObT2k: This is one hazard of reusing brass multiple times.)

+1. IMO, if you don't want to carry plastic, the CZ 75 is one of the best values on the market today.

Yeah, I know. Hard to believe anyone survived carrying revolvers all those years... :rolleyes:

- C.

Europe produces, arguably, the world's best handguns. Afterall even the US military use an Italian 9mm as their standard service pistol.

The main argument is mainly over the balance between stopping power and magazine capacity. The heavier and more effective the round, the less you get to play with. Most militaries have chosen in favour of capacity.

However in the 21st century a new factor has come into play, armour penetration. Most modern militaries use body armour as standard which makes both the .45 and the 9mm useless. The Germans have developed a 4.6mm round to deal with arour while FN has gone with a 5.7mm.

As body armour becomesmore and more widespread the compromise will become a complicated triangle of factors and will become far more interesting.

I'll start out by stating that 1911-pattern semis are my favorite handguns of all time (I love my Kimber TLE-II). Having said that, I like Glocks a lot and would really like to know what kind of failure you had with your Glock. My wife and I have both been certified Glock armorers for years and every function failure we've ever seen can be traced back to either a) poor maintenance, or b) pilot error.

As for full-auto Glocks, you can have 'em. Every time I've ever fired a Glock 18, I've come away with a back taste in my mouth. The cyclic is so high and the overall accuracy is so poor, the only thing you really accomplish making a lot of noise and wasting a lot of ammo in a remarkably short time. Full-auto handguns are, in general, about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. If forced to pick one, however, I'll go with a Beretta 93R. The fold-down front grip and burst fire feature at least provide a hope that you'll hit your target a couple times before the magazine runs dry.

B.T. The reason why he felt that way, was because he was tracking down a group of Swiss Mercs who had kidnaped the President of the United States (while making it look like it was done by terrorists), while running away from the Secret Service because they thought he was somehow involved... and having to operate under the radar. the only times he 'showed the gun' was to get people out of danger when the bad guys showed up.

It's a really good read, and i can't do it justice in just a couple of lines.

I've had to depend on a .45 twice in my life (both times in a home invasion situation). Say what you will about the 9mm, IMHO, when your life is on the life, the .45 ACP will put your man down every time.

The British developed the "double tap" method to ensure quick, clean 9mm kills.

The coil spring in the trigger assembly became dislodged. No idea how, as it was a fairly new pistol and I hadn't played with the trigger - I'm a believer than unless you are a trained armorer in that particular weapon, never fuck with the safety and trigger mechanism - more than you would while doing routine cleaning. Just one of those freak things that just happen I figure.

As to the 18: I said it was fun, not useful in anyway other than if you a gangsta trying to look cool - and if thats the case, you've already lost ;). The VP70 is actually remarkably controllable as well as the 93R, tuck the stock nice and tight, and since you have one hell of a pull on the trigger to get it to break, you wind up with a nice tight hold as a beneficial side effect - but yes, the 93R is slightly better: that stubby fore grip does the trick right nice. And the Kimber is a excellent choice. Best 1911 for the buck out there.

For those of you that have used any of the 1911 type .45s, do you have any thoughts on the Para-Ordnance models for increasing the mag capacity?
I have no idea what they cost in comparison to say a Kimber so are the Para-Ordnance models as cost effective?

I don't know if it's justified or not, but Para has a reputation for somewhat variable QC. Their LDA trigger is not the same as a classic 1911 single-action, though I believe they do make some of the double-stack guns with traditional 1911 triggers. You'd better have big hands, though.

- C.

The way I feel about the general question posed by the thread title is, yes and no. Like everything else, some European handguns are absolutely top-notch, and some are crap. US, Canadian, and even Chinese and Russian handguns, the same way (though the ratio of excellent-to-crap may change from country to country).

Mmmm... the P9. One of the first HK Pistols, with the P4 being first. Its action was, and is, unique - basically the G3 roller lock system shrunk down to fit in a 9mm pistol. This is one I always wanted to get my hands on, but never had the chance - or when I did, the pistol was junk and not worth the money.

The P9 was Single Action with an exposed hammer during the Prototype stage, though when it entered production the hammer was no longer exposed. Also, a small number of select fire versions of the prototype was built, as far as I know none was actually produced commercially - you can tell if its a select fire version by the lever mounted on the frame underneath the slide mounted safety. Less than 500 P9's was built: making them quite rare.

As an aside on the P4: It has a interesting lineage. Its based heavily on the Mauser HsC: which shouldn't be surprising. The main designers of the pistol was Alex Seidel and Tilo Möller. Seidel, in addition to founding HK, was one of the major designers of the HsC, Möller later on developed this 9mm Roller Locked Submachine gun for HK that had some minor success.... ;)

The P9S was a double action version, and made up the bulk of all production. In addition to the basic P9S, there was a few selective fire prototypes made, that used a stock design that later saw the light of day with the VP70. Also built was a number chambered in 7.65x21.5 for sale in Italy, as well as sport and target models. There is talk of a .22 conversion kit, but the only time I have seen pics of one was of factory prototypes.

Also on the statement of unsafe guns because of the lack of an external safety and double action designs... well... lets just say the P7 has a rep for being *very* safe, and falls into that category - though you could argue that the cocking lever counts as a safety after a fashion.

I have to say something here. I used to own a Para Ordanance P-14-45 back in the late 90's to mid 2000's. The idea of a 1911 with a high capacity magazine was great, but the one I bought was a lemon. Half the time when I tried to squeeze the trigger, the trigger wouldn't go. I called the company about it and they where dirt bags about it and didn't want to fix it. So over the years I had two smith's try to fix it and both failed to do so. I ended up giving it to my brother that has one that works fine, so he could use it as spare parts. Later he gave it to a friend that was a gun guru and he replaced the series 80s parts with series 70s and said it worked fine. Good concept, but I will never buy from those jackasses again.
I also bought a Springfield Armory hi capacity GI and it was junk. It jammed alot and the grip felt terrible. I ditched that for a loss. If I ever go with another 1911 45 acp it will be a single stack(Kimber I'm thinking). The only 1911 style I own now is a LAR Grizzly MK1 in 45 winchester magnum. I like that gun a lot....

:D

With a .45 you just need one!

I've tried the 9rd and 12rd mags, the problem is the .45 is a hefty round and there, IMHO, seems to be more jamming problems due to magazine misfeed. I've been firing .45 since I was introduced to the M-1911A1 back in 1977. I currently own three, two Colt Mark IV Series 70 and a Series 80. The Series 70 are the best.

When you purchase a .45, people will tell you that you need to replace the wooden grips, that you have to have the feed ramp smoothed and polished, that you need to have a ambidextrous safety installed, the sights have to be replaced with glow-in-the-dark, the list of mods really is almost a mile long!

Straight out of the box, the Series 70 will shoot a 2-inch group at 50 yards. I have never experienced any feeding problems that were not related to a bad magazine (get US military surplus mags) or poor ammunition (IMHO Winchester .45 is not worth the effort to throw away).

I have fired ball, hollowpoint, Glaser, and tracer out of my pistols and never a problem with feeding, especially when using Federal ammo. The best .45 ammo actually comes out of South Korea, it burns sweet with less residue than anything I've seen stateside.

The Colt Mark IV, Series 80 is not as good as the Series 70, I have broken extractors (3!) and a firing pin and had to get my local gunsmith to tune the piece. According to him, the Series 80 suffered with some pretty bad quality control problems due to Colt farming out production to third parties. No idea if this is true or not, but it could explain the Series 80 problems.

As a whole I would say Europe has much more to choose from as far as combat pistols. North America's selection is pretty limited. Thats why until recently the Glock has been the king of law enforcement. Hell they been kicking ass on the U.S. market since the late 80's. Glock is finally getting dethroned by the Swith and Wesson's M&P model. aAside from 1911 variants and the M&P I don't think we really have anything to offer. Thats really puzzling when you think about it. If it wasn't for the 100 year old 1911 design we would look as bad as the some of the eastern bloc countries.

I have only ever fired pistols on firing ranges, under controlled conditions, so I am only qualified to ask questions on this topic:
the SAS are routinely given the freedom to choose their own weapons- why do they seem without exception to choose 9mm (usually SIG226 or 228)?
It could be habit (being British, they are accustomed to 9mm) or a wish to stay with the most easily available ammunition, but if .45" was that much better I would have thought it would at least see use on anti-terror ops...

Bullets HURT!!!
Even a .22 LR which is more likely to bounce off a cotton shirt than do any lasting damage.
Perhaps the SAS recognise the fact that you don't necessarily have to kill to take an opponent out of the fight. The higher capacity of 9mm weapons over .45 is definately a bonus and the .45 still isn't a sure kill (although it's certain to mess you up if it hits).

Its more a case of what they are used to, and doctrine in my opinion.

9mm gives lots of ammo per pound: And it is adequate for the job. Now in the US it appears that the .45 is still the king: Its a better round, but has less rounds per pound. So... training, doctrine, and what the users are used to.

Check out any handgun forum and you will find dozens of threads devoted to the debate between the various caliber handgun rounds.

Both 9mm and .45 have their advantages and disadvantages. It's nearly a wash. It really depends on what round the shooter is most comfortable with.

Pro 9mm:
More rounds per mag/more hi-cap options
Greater muzzle velocity with most 9mm loads = better penetration (could be a con in certain scenarios)
JHP ammo has decent stopping power
Slightly less recoil than .45

Anti-9mm:
Not as much stopping power
high velocity ammo = overpenetration concern

Pro .45:
Better stopping power
Doesn't really need JHP ammo for above
not as much concern with overpenetration

Anti-.45:
Fewer rounds per mag/fewer hi-cap options
Slightly slower muzzle velocity = slightly less penetration than 9mm
More recoil

I went 9mm because I wanted my wife to be able to shoot comfortably and accurately. Even 9mm has a bit more kick than she'd like. I can't imagine she'd be comfortable shooting a .45. With modern JHP ammo, the 9mm is a good self defense weapon, comparable, if not superior to, the .45 (IMHO). I think it really comes down to what you shoot best with. Debating 9mm vs. .45 is kind of a waste of time. It's moot.

And, to bring us back to the title thread, who makes the best 9mm handguns in the world? The Europeans!

It's interesting to note that the latest Russian pistol design, the Grach, is in 9x19mm, which is basicly a copy of the NATO standard. Up untill the Grach the Russians had used cartridges that had a reputation for relative lack of stopping power and weakness.
In general the Russians have never respected the use of pistols outside of police work. Being the nation to pioneer asault rifles they have relied on shortened assault rifles or SMGs for PDW work. The AK74U and Bizon2 are examples of this philosophy.

I'm the first to admit that the .45 is not for everyone. Its a hefty cartridge that requires a hefty pistol to use it correctly. And as we used to joke, with a M1911, after you shot the a**hole 7 times, you can always club him to death!!!

9mm is fun to shoot. I own a Glock and I have a lot of fun on the range, but in a situation where my life depends on it, I will depend on my Mark IV, I simply have no faith in the 9mm as a reliable man-stopper. So I'll guess I will stick with what I like.

At least until the 5MW pulse laser rifle comes out!