User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 6:17:26 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After that? No way is it a "to hell and back" gun. I'd happily carry it, but MAC has always been a pretty solid channel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The VP9 is the finest combat pistol I have ever shot. I have been shooting glocks for over 15 years and own/owned them all. Stock to fully worked over custom guns, I would take the VP9 over any of them. For whatever reason, its an absolute laser and stacks rounds with ease. I really could care less what some mouthbreather small sample size backyard test says. HK guns just plain work. If I could own 1 handgun to take to hell and back, it would be a VP9. Yet to have one malf between 3 guns with about 7k rounds combined. Yes that is a small sample, but more than enough confidence for these 3 guns. Bonus is an amazing trigger and easily conceals IWB. Glock 19 & 26's just get left at home now. Probably should start selling them and buy some more VP9's. I think a half dozen would do. After that? No way is it a "to hell and back" gun. I'd happily carry it, but MAC has always been a pretty solid channel. Exactly, all jokes aside I don't expect any gun to handle all of that without fail but the first two test where fairly simple and and pistol better be able to shake that off fairly quickly and be back in buisness. Instead of click.......click.........click. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 6:58:13 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That video sort of makes the case for hammer fired guns. Also, the push button magazine catch is ambi. Why do people think it isn't?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 7:02:04 AM EST
[#3]
I have an HK VP9 and love it, but the first thing I noticed when I got it was the slide being very easy to push out of battery. The factory recoil spring is light. I have to wonder if that is a significant design flaw.
Did anyone else watch the end of the video where MAC said his VP9 does not run with a suppressor at all? He said he had to push the slide into battery after every shot. I can't believe HK did not put the gun through a more rigorous series of tests. I have not heard of the suppressor issues elsewhere, but after experiencing the weak mainspring myself, I am not really surprised. I can't say I trust my VP9 for cold weather carry after seeing this. If mere water can choke the VP9, than minor perspiration and condensation from working out in the cold could easily freeze up and cause the slide to slow down enough for a failure to return to battery. Might have to trade mine off for something... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 7:05:41 AM EST
[#4]
I own several Glocks and several HK pistols....among other brands.
If I could only keep one 9mm for the rest of my life and throw the rest in to the freakin ocean, the one pistol I'd keep is the VP9. It's the best 9mm I've ever owned. About as close to perfect as I could imagine. I can't think of a single improvement I'd add, or a single thing I'd change. VP9 FTMFW
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 7:31:30 AM EST
[#5]
Does VP9 have its own version of Glock Leg?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 7:44:07 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does VP9 have its own version of Glock Leg?  ETA: I own Glocks too, before anyone gets pissy. ....my niece enjoyed the free coloring books that came with them too  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 7:45:51 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have an HK VP9 and love it, but the first thing I noticed when I got it was the slide being very easy to push out of battery. The factory recoil spring is light. I have to wonder if that is a significant design flaw. Did anyone else watch the end of the video where MAC said his VP9 does not run with a suppressor at all? He said he had to push the slide into battery after every shot. I can't believe HK did not put the gun through a more rigorous series of tests. I have not heard of the suppressor issues elsewhere, but after experiencing the weak mainspring myself, I am not really surprised. I can't say I trust my VP9 for cold weather carry after seeing this. If mere water can choke the VP9, than minor perspiration and condensation from working out in the cold could easily freeze up and cause the slide to slow down enough for a failure to return to battery. Might have to trade mine off for something... Why don't you test it yourself before selling/trading it off. I'm not saying to not trust youtube personalities, but just verify what they say/show yourself. I've learned to triple check what I've heard and seen on the internet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 7:55:52 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That video sort of makes the case for hammer fired guns. Also, the push button magazine catch is ambi. Why do people think it isn't?  http://youtu.be/Po-k84m2kM8
Those guns had problems with cycling. Not ignition. I stand by what I said. A Beretta 92 (not some Taurus junk), a SIG P226, and a Colt M45A1 would be an interesting test. I bet they'd all perform okay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 7:55:56 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I own several Glocks and several HK pistols....among other brands. If I could only keep one 9mm for the rest of my life and throw the rest in to the freakin ocean, the one pistol I'd keep is the VP9. It's the best 9mm I've ever owned. About as close to perfect as I could imagine. I can't think of a single improvement I'd add, or a single thing I'd change. VP9 FTMFW Samesies. I tried a PPQ also. It was decent. It really didn't point naturally for me. And the trigger was too light. Probably 15 times while letting the trigger out, as soon as it reset it would immediately fire, as if the pull was lighter than letting it out. Scared me, so I sold it. It didn't shoot nearly as well as the VP9. That said... I just may relegate the VP9 as my "indoor gun" (a role I just created). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 7:56:17 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why don't you test it yourself before selling/trading it off. I'm not saying to not trust youtube personalities, but just verify what they say/show yourself. I've learned to triple check what I've heard and seen on the internet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have an HK VP9 and love it, but the first thing I noticed when I got it was the slide being very easy to push out of battery. The factory recoil spring is light. I have to wonder if that is a significant design flaw. Did anyone else watch the end of the video where MAC said his VP9 does not run with a suppressor at all? He said he had to push the slide into battery after every shot. I can't believe HK did not put the gun through a more rigorous series of tests. I have not heard of the suppressor issues elsewhere, but after experiencing the weak mainspring myself, I am not really surprised. I can't say I trust my VP9 for cold weather carry after seeing this. If mere water can choke the VP9, than minor perspiration and condensation from working out in the cold could easily freeze up and cause the slide to slow down enough for a failure to return to battery. Might have to trade mine off for something... Why don't you test it yourself before selling/trading it off. I'm not saying to not trust youtube personalities, but just verify what they say/show yourself. I've learned to triple check what I've heard and seen on the internet. Yeah, I might spray it with some water and allow it to sit outside for some testing. I do not currently have a suppressor for testing reliability in that regard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 8:46:29 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The test was a little over the top towards the end with the tossing. But the vp9 choking after being submerged in a puddle is unacceptable. I would even give it a pass in the mud and grit test because you could hear it grinding In the slide, but the water puddle.. You gotta be kidding me.. Yeah just dropping it in a puddle and failing is a bit disconcerting for a carry gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:32:43 AM EST
[#12]
I will still carry my VP9 on a daily basis , but I also have Glocks and have no plans on dumping them either. I think the test was good , but again how many times am I going to be rolling around in the frozen mud and falling from a three story building while getting run over?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:37:22 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A truck getting submerged in quicksand is an absurd test. Hard use guns get dunked in mud fairly often. Perfectly valid test. That why militaries test for that quite often. Not sure how your post made any sense in your head. I guess for safe queens it doesn't matter? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I like how people see completely unscientific tests of firearms and are somehow able to derive comparative reliability versus other firearms. 'We submerged this Ford into quick sand and afterwards it didn't run reliably; therefore the untested Doge Ram is clearly the more reliable truck.' ^That is how GD thinks. A truck getting submerged in quicksand is an absurd test. Hard use guns get dunked in mud fairly often. Perfectly valid test. That why militaries test for that quite often. Not sure how your post made any sense in your head. I guess for safe queens it doesn't matter? A scientifically conducted, repeatable mud test, with a specific kind of dirt mixed with a specific quantity of water to achieve mud of a specific consistency is a part of any good military test. Dropping a loaded handgun on some random creek bed (potentially causing a bore obstruction) then stomping on it isn't a good testing procedure for two reasons. First it's not repeatable; the mud will have a different consistency on different days and in different spots. Even if you test two handguns on the same day the very act of stomping on the first gun could alter the mud enough to change the results. Second; stomping on a loaded gun with a potential bore obstruction is fucking retarded, as is failing to check the bore before you try to fire. I don't own or intend to purchase any HKs, but if I did this video wouldn't change my mind in the slightest. What we saw was a stunt, not a test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:43:12 AM EST
[#14]
There's a reason why Glock came up with the spring cups, folks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:44:53 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A scientifically conducted, repeatable mud test, with a specific kind of dirt mixed with a specific quantity of water to achieve mud of a specific consistency is a part of any good military test. Dropping a loaded handgun on some random creek bed (potentially causing a bore obstruction) then stomping on it isn't a good testing procedure for two reasons. First it's not repeatable; the mud will have a different consistency on different days and in different spots. Even if you test two handguns on the same day the very act of stomping on the first gun could alter the mud enough to change the results. Second; stomping on a loaded gun with a potential bore obstruction is fucking retarded, as is failing to check the bore before you try to fire. I don't own or intend to purchase any HKs, but if I did this video wouldn't change my mind in the slightest. What we saw was a stunt, not a test. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like how people see completely unscientific tests of firearms and are somehow able to derive comparative reliability versus other firearms. 'We submerged this Ford into quick sand and afterwards it didn't run reliably; therefore the untested Doge Ram is clearly the more reliable truck.' ^That is how GD thinks. A truck getting submerged in quicksand is an absurd test. Hard use guns get dunked in mud fairly often. Perfectly valid test. That why militaries test for that quite often. Not sure how your post made any sense in your head. I guess for safe queens it doesn't matter? A scientifically conducted, repeatable mud test, with a specific kind of dirt mixed with a specific quantity of water to achieve mud of a specific consistency is a part of any good military test. Dropping a loaded handgun on some random creek bed (potentially causing a bore obstruction) then stomping on it isn't a good testing procedure for two reasons. First it's not repeatable; the mud will have a different consistency on different days and in different spots. Even if you test two handguns on the same day the very act of stomping on the first gun could alter the mud enough to change the results. Second; stomping on a loaded gun with a potential bore obstruction is fucking retarded, as is failing to check the bore before you try to fire. I don't own or intend to purchase any HKs, but if I did this video wouldn't change my mind in the slightest. What we saw was a stunt, not a test. The first one was nothing but mainly water, there was no reason for it to choke especially to the extent it did. I agree on the rest |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:46:15 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't watch the whole video but I wouldn't swap an H&K for a Glock ever...... HKs aren't that great, really. They're worth no more than the cost of a new Glock, but ask for almost 2x the amount. So no... for the money, I'd rather have a Glock and a bunch of mags and ammunition. They're the SAME GUN for the most part... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:46:36 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A scientifically conducted, repeatable mud test, with a specific kind of dirt mixed with a specific quantity of water to achieve mud of a specific consistency is a part of any good military test. Dropping a loaded handgun on some random creek bed (potentially causing a bore obstruction) then stomping on it isn't a good testing procedure for two reasons. First it's not repeatable; the mud will have a different consistency on different days and in different spots. Even if you test two handguns on the same day the very act of stomping on the first gun could alter the mud enough to change the results. Second; stomping on a loaded gun with a potential bore obstruction is fucking retarded, as is failing to check the bore before you try to fire. I don't own or intend to purchase any HKs, but if I did this video wouldn't change my mind in the slightest. What we saw was a stunt, not a test. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like how people see completely unscientific tests of firearms and are somehow able to derive comparative reliability versus other firearms. 'We submerged this Ford into quick sand and afterwards it didn't run reliably; therefore the untested Doge Ram is clearly the more reliable truck.' ^That is how GD thinks. A truck getting submerged in quicksand is an absurd test. Hard use guns get dunked in mud fairly often. Perfectly valid test. That why militaries test for that quite often. Not sure how your post made any sense in your head. I guess for safe queens it doesn't matter? A scientifically conducted, repeatable mud test, with a specific kind of dirt mixed with a specific quantity of water to achieve mud of a specific consistency is a part of any good military test. Dropping a loaded handgun on some random creek bed (potentially causing a bore obstruction) then stomping on it isn't a good testing procedure for two reasons. First it's not repeatable; the mud will have a different consistency on different days and in different spots. Even if you test two handguns on the same day the very act of stomping on the first gun could alter the mud enough to change the results. Second; stomping on a loaded gun with a potential bore obstruction is fucking retarded, as is failing to check the bore before you try to fire. I don't own or intend to purchase any HKs, but if I did this video wouldn't change my mind in the slightest. What we saw was a stunt, not a test. Ignore all the rest of the test. The water it was put in was not that dirty...and the gun FAILED..end of story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:47:09 AM EST
[#18]
My Glocks never failed to go bang u less the mag was empty.
And I've got a few. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:50:49 AM EST
[#19]
I had a VP9 once but after running a few drills with it, I found out exactly how cheap it was. I hate to say it, but my BIL is right about Glocks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:53:38 AM EST
[#20]
I can't watch the Military Arms Channel guy,the faux "contractor" look is a bit too 2006. I don't know why it bothers me,but it does: you don't need to have a beard and wear earthtones to shoot a damn gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:54:48 AM EST
[#21]
Glock are KISS is design. That why they work so well.
HK (like a lot of German designs) have a tenancy to be over compacted for the task they need to perform. Just look at the VP9s striker block. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:57:43 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. These so-called torture tests are fucking retarded... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't normally throw my guns at steel targets, wood piles, or intentionally push wet sand/gravel mix in them. So I guess I will stay with my VP9. This Agreed. These so-called torture tests are fucking retarded... In denial? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 9:59:08 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're the one HK fanboi in here 
Welcome  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The VP9 is the finest combat pistol I have ever shot. I have been shooting glocks for over 15 years and own/owned them all. Stock to fully worked over custom guns, I would take the VP9 over any of them. For whatever reason, its an absolute laser and stacks rounds with ease. I really could care less what some mouthbreather small sample size backyard test says. HK guns just plain work. If I could own 1 handgun to take to hell and back, it would be a VP9. Yet to have one malf between 3 guns with about 7k rounds combined. Yes that is a small sample, but more than enough confidence for these 3 guns. Bonus is an amazing trigger and easily conceals IWB. Glock 19 & 26's just get left at home now. Probably should start selling them and buy some more VP9's. I think a half dozen would do. So you're the one HK fanboi in here
Welcome I love my H&K's; USP's, that is.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 10:04:04 AM EST
[#24]
No, that test doesn't look good for that VP9. However, a test sample of one is a piss-poor test and not a fair representation of the design. Using this test failure as "evidence" that the design is flawed, logically we would have to conclude that:
All Sig P226 pistols break after 2 rounds. M&Ps are prone to blowing up. Glocks fail being dunked in water. Beretta 92s always jam. Walther P99 mags all fall apart. Walther PPQs have problems that can't be fixed. Now granted these are reviews of ONE sample but logic and reason states that if we are to condemn the VP9 design for the results of MACs test, then we would HAVE to condemn other designs based solely on the results of these other videos as well! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 10:14:29 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Glock are KISS is design. That why they work so well. HK (like a lot of German designs) have a tenancy to be over compacted for the task they need to perform. Just look at the VP9s striker block. http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/15.jpg As a VP9 owner, I'm forced to agree with this observation. While it's a fine shooting gun, things like the Rube Goldberg style striker release or the curvy trigger bar spring makes you kind of pause and think if there really wasn't a simpler way to make those work. That said, I still like the gun and will continue to carry it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 10:19:41 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Glock are KISS is design. That why they work so well. HK (like a lot of German designs) have a tenancy to be over compacted for the task they need to perform. Just look at the VP9s striker block. http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/15.jpg The VP9 striker block is just as simple as the Glock's. The Glock moves vertically while the VP9 moves laterally. Initial movement commences upon the rearward motion of the trigger bar in both designs. A spring returns it into place when the trigger is released. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 10:19:45 AM EST
[#27]
Remember a while back when someone compared a G21, USP TAC and mil-spec 1911 in the sand and the G21 choked?
I happen to love the G21 and feel its one of the best 45's on the market. You all put too much stock in reviews of a SAMPLE OF ONE. Use that computer in your noggin and do some critical thinking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 10:27:54 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The first one was nothing but mainly water, there was no reason for it to choke especially to the extent it did. I agree on the rest Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like how people see completely unscientific tests of firearms and are somehow able to derive comparative reliability versus other firearms. 'We submerged this Ford into quick sand and afterwards it didn't run reliably; therefore the untested Doge Ram is clearly the more reliable truck.' ^That is how GD thinks. A truck getting submerged in quicksand is an absurd test. Hard use guns get dunked in mud fairly often. Perfectly valid test. That why militaries test for that quite often. Not sure how your post made any sense in your head. I guess for safe queens it doesn't matter? A scientifically conducted, repeatable mud test, with a specific kind of dirt mixed with a specific quantity of water to achieve mud of a specific consistency is a part of any good military test. Dropping a loaded handgun on some random creek bed (potentially causing a bore obstruction) then stomping on it isn't a good testing procedure for two reasons. First it's not repeatable; the mud will have a different consistency on different days and in different spots. Even if you test two handguns on the same day the very act of stomping on the first gun could alter the mud enough to change the results. Second; stomping on a loaded gun with a potential bore obstruction is fucking retarded, as is failing to check the bore before you try to fire. I don't own or intend to purchase any HKs, but if I did this video wouldn't change my mind in the slightest. What we saw was a stunt, not a test. The first one was nothing but mainly water, there was no reason for it to choke especially to the extent it did. I agree on the rest Glock didn't come out with maritime spring cups so the gun would work under water. Water in the striker or firing pin channel can be a problem for a lot of designs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 10:30:52 AM EST
[#29]
I love my VP9. But I'm not going to say that the test was worthless. The water test was the most damning. But the tester SHOULD have dried/cleaned the firearm after that before continuing with the test. For all I know, EVERY failure after the initial dunk was caused by the same piece of debris. Maybe the HK survived the mud test, but that initial dunk was still affecting function? I'll also say, I'm not impressed with the number of parts that broke. Granted, it was a pretty stupid demonstration. Almost comical. But even so, the VP9 broke a mag release paddle and cocking ear, got some grip plates moved about, and sustained damage to the grip and polymer piece that houses the cocking indicator. That tells me that this is not a robust firearm. Suddenly the simplicity of a Glock does look pretty good (after you replace the stock sights). I'll tell you what. I still think my VP9 will be my home defense handgun and IDPA gun. But the dumb old Glock 19 probably just resumed its spot in the Bug Out Bag. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 10:43:16 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah just dropping it in a puddle and failing is a bit disconcerting for a carry gun. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The test was a little over the top towards the end with the tossing. But the vp9 choking after being submerged in a puddle is unacceptable. I would even give it a pass in the mud and grit test because you could hear it grinding In the slide, but the water puddle.. You gotta be kidding me.. Yeah just dropping it in a puddle and failing is a bit disconcerting for a carry gun. How is a Glock that does not have the Maritime spring cups that let the water drain from the striker channel going to compare? I bet it would be about the same. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 11:00:10 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love my VP9. But I'm not going to say that the test was worthless. The water test was the most damning. But the tester SHOULD have dried/cleaned the firearm after that before continuing with the test. For all I know, EVERY failure after the initial dunk was caused by the same piece of debris. Maybe the HK survived the mud test, but that initial dunk was still affecting function? I'll also say, I'm not impressed with the number of parts that broke. Granted, it was a pretty stupid demonstration. Almost comical. But even so, the VP9 broke a mag release paddle and cocking ear, got some grip plates moved about, and sustained damage to the grip and polymer piece that houses the cocking indicator. That tells me that this is not a robust firearm. Suddenly the simplicity of a Glock does look pretty good (after you replace the stock sights). I'll tell you what. I still think my VP9 will be my home defense handgun and IDPA gun. But the dumb old Glock 19 probably just resumed its spot in the Bug Out Bag. After being thrown against steel plates...... I mean cmon man. I can destroy ANY gun by throwing it against steel with the right impact point hititng. Might as well put it in the over @ 600* for a few hours, to simulate an operator who has to traverse through Lava. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 11:06:49 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is a Glock that does not have the Maritime spring cups that let the water drain from the striker channel going to compare? I bet it would be about the same. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The test was a little over the top towards the end with the tossing. But the vp9 choking after being submerged in a puddle is unacceptable. I would even give it a pass in the mud and grit test because you could hear it grinding In the slide, but the water puddle.. You gotta be kidding me.. Yeah just dropping it in a puddle and failing is a bit disconcerting for a carry gun. How is a Glock that does not have the Maritime spring cups that let the water drain from the striker channel going to compare? I bet it would be about the same. I'm pretty sure the cups are for shooting under water, not simply getting it wet and shooting. The water will be pushed out of the channel on the first firing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 11:22:51 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After being thrown against steel plates...... I mean cmon man. I can destroy ANY gun by throwing it against steel with the right impact point hititng. Might as well put it in the over @ 600* for a few hours, to simulate an operator who has to traverse through Lava. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I love my VP9. But I'm not going to say that the test was worthless. The water test was the most damning. But the tester SHOULD have dried/cleaned the firearm after that before continuing with the test. For all I know, EVERY failure after the initial dunk was caused by the same piece of debris. Maybe the HK survived the mud test, but that initial dunk was still affecting function? I'll also say, I'm not impressed with the number of parts that broke. Granted, it was a pretty stupid demonstration. Almost comical. But even so, the VP9 broke a mag release paddle and cocking ear, got some grip plates moved about, and sustained damage to the grip and polymer piece that houses the cocking indicator. That tells me that this is not a robust firearm. Suddenly the simplicity of a Glock does look pretty good (after you replace the stock sights). I'll tell you what. I still think my VP9 will be my home defense handgun and IDPA gun. But the dumb old Glock 19 probably just resumed its spot in the Bug Out Bag. After being thrown against steel plates...... I mean cmon man. I can destroy ANY gun by throwing it against steel with the right impact point hititng. Might as well put it in the over @ 600* for a few hours, to simulate an operator who has to traverse through Lava. Well, look at the Glock. No plastic controls, no grip panels, and the rear plastic slide cover does not interfere with the movement of the FP. Any gun can be destroyed, the question is how easily. There was no indication the mag release was impacted by the steel either. Half the problems seem to come from the weak recoil spring, at least that's an easy fix. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 11:31:29 AM EST
[#34]
My to hell and back handgun is an hk. I was hoping it would be the vp9 but I guess its back to the usp.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 11:34:41 AM EST
[#35]
I'll just start carrying my 3" GP100 and call it good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 11:42:01 AM EST
[#36]
I love my VP-9, and am not a Glock fan. Glocks are good guns, I just don't like the way they fit my hand and they don't point naturally for me. they work great for other people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 11:50:47 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just don't like the way they fit my hand and they don't point naturally for me. But the GLOCK zombies swear that none of that matters... only the ability to run after being soaked in mud and battered against steel plates matters. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 11:54:47 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As a VP9 owner, I'm forced to agree with this observation. While it's a fine shooting gun, things like the Rube Goldberg style striker release or the curvy trigger bar spring makes you kind of pause and think if there really wasn't a simpler way to make those work. That said, I still like the gun and will continue to carry it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Glock are KISS is design. That why they work so well. HK (like a lot of German designs) have a tenancy to be over compacted for the task they need to perform. Just look at the VP9s striker block. http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/15.jpg As a VP9 owner, I'm forced to agree with this observation. While it's a fine shooting gun, things like the Rube Goldberg style striker release or the curvy trigger bar spring makes you kind of pause and think if there really wasn't a simpler way to make those work. That said, I still like the gun and will continue to carry it.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 11:55:31 AM EST
[#39]
It'd be cool to see MAC do the same test with a G17. Clearly he could find a cheap one to test.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:13:10 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It'd be cool to see MAC do the same test with a G17. Clearly he could find a cheap one to test. Eh, there is no shortage of Glock torture test videos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:17:01 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't watch the Military Arms Channel guy,the faux "contractor" look is a bit too 2006. I don't know why it bothers me,but it does: you don't need to have a beard and wear earthtones to shoot a damn gun. He is a former Marine, not a contractor. Says something about a product people like, that he likes himself and gets spit on. People talk about Glock Fanboism and I see that HK Fanboism is no different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:21:13 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I could only keep one 9mm for the rest of my life and throw the rest in to the freakin ocean, the one pistol I'd keep is the VP9. What is ironic here is those guns you threw in the ocean, you could pick up and they would more than likely shoot wet.. Where as the vp9 apparently not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:26:36 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ignore all the rest of the test. The water it was put in was not that dirty...and the gun FAILED..end of story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like how people see completely unscientific tests of firearms and are somehow able to derive comparative reliability versus other firearms. 'We submerged this Ford into quick sand and afterwards it didn't run reliably; therefore the untested Doge Ram is clearly the more reliable truck.' ^That is how GD thinks. A truck getting submerged in quicksand is an absurd test. Hard use guns get dunked in mud fairly often. Perfectly valid test. That why militaries test for that quite often. Not sure how your post made any sense in your head. I guess for safe queens it doesn't matter? A scientifically conducted, repeatable mud test, with a specific kind of dirt mixed with a specific quantity of water to achieve mud of a specific consistency is a part of any good military test. Dropping a loaded handgun on some random creek bed (potentially causing a bore obstruction) then stomping on it isn't a good testing procedure for two reasons. First it's not repeatable; the mud will have a different consistency on different days and in different spots. Even if you test two handguns on the same day the very act of stomping on the first gun could alter the mud enough to change the results. Second; stomping on a loaded gun with a potential bore obstruction is fucking retarded, as is failing to check the bore before you try to fire. I don't own or intend to purchase any HKs, but if I did this video wouldn't change my mind in the slightest. What we saw was a stunt, not a test. Ignore all the rest of the test. The water it was put in was not that dirty...and the gun FAILED..end of story. It was a sample size of one. The 'test' was run one time. The medium was completely uncontrolled. The failure was not physically diagnosed. That is all pretty much the exact opposite of what you would want if you were going to draw conclusions. We can't even know for sure if the mud hole that the VP9 was dropped in was even the cause of the initial failure. We do controlled tests because "end of story" isn't the whole story a lot of the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:29:36 PM EST
[#44]
P226
/thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:33:49 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm pretty sure the cups are for shooting under water, not simply getting it wet and shooting. The water will be pushed out of the channel on the first firing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The test was a little over the top towards the end with the tossing. But the vp9 choking after being submerged in a puddle is unacceptable. I would even give it a pass in the mud and grit test because you could hear it grinding In the slide, but the water puddle.. You gotta be kidding me.. Yeah just dropping it in a puddle and failing is a bit disconcerting for a carry gun. How is a Glock that does not have the Maritime spring cups that let the water drain from the striker channel going to compare? I bet it would be about the same. I'm pretty sure the cups are for shooting under water, not simply getting it wet and shooting. The water will be pushed out of the channel on the first firing. Think about that for a second. A bullet fired under water will stop in only a few feet, and will be deadly only in a near contact shot. Why would Glock design new parts just to make a under water weapon with less range than a spear or bang stick? A weapon that's designed for use immediately after leaving the water, on the other hand, has obvious applications in maritime warfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:38:23 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm pretty sure the cups are for shooting under water, not simply getting it wet and shooting. The water will be pushed out of the channel on the first firing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The test was a little over the top towards the end with the tossing. But the vp9 choking after being submerged in a puddle is unacceptable. I would even give it a pass in the mud and grit test because you could hear it grinding In the slide, but the water puddle.. You gotta be kidding me.. Yeah just dropping it in a puddle and failing is a bit disconcerting for a carry gun. How is a Glock that does not have the Maritime spring cups that let the water drain from the striker channel going to compare? I bet it would be about the same. I'm pretty sure the cups are for shooting under water, not simply getting it wet and shooting. The water will be pushed out of the channel on the first firing. Lol. They aren't for shooting underwater. No pistol round is effective when fired underwater, unless the barrel is basically touching whatever it is you're trying to shoot. The spring cups have drain holes to allow the striker channel to drain quickly so that the striker will not be hydrolocked after you pull the gun out of the water. Sounds like the HK striker pistol engineers were asleep at the switch to not think about that possibility, which has been known for quite a long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:39:59 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The VP9 striker block is just as simple as the Glock's. The Glock moves vertically while the VP9 moves laterally. Initial movement commences upon the rearward motion of the trigger bar in both designs. A spring returns it into place when the trigger is released. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Glock are KISS is design. That why they work so well. HK (like a lot of German designs) have a tenancy to be over compacted for the task they need to perform. Just look at the VP9s striker block. http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/15.jpg The VP9 striker block is just as simple as the Glock's. The Glock moves vertically while the VP9 moves laterally. Initial movement commences upon the rearward motion of the trigger bar in both designs. A spring returns it into place when the trigger is released. I'm no engineer... But by looking at that picture it does seem that the stricker block MAY be easier to fail than the Glocks. There seems to be a lot of areas there that may become fouled and not allow it to move freely vs the Glocks vertical(I'll call minimalist) design. Again... My opinion by looking at the picture that it may be as simple as the Glock but maybe not as "reliable". Or I could be totally wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:46:22 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It FTF after just being dropped in a water puddle. That's an immediate no go in my book. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't normally throw my guns at steel targets, wood piles, or intentionally push wet sand/gravel mix in them. So I guess I will stay with my VP9. This It FTF after just being dropped in a water puddle. That's an immediate no go in my book. atleast it didnt explode, thats a plus |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:49:24 PM EST
[#49]
HK fan boys are balls deep in here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 12:50:07 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does it at least come with a nice hard case? You know to keep the water off of it.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The VP9 is the finest combat pistol I have ever shot. I have been shooting glocks for over 15 years and own/owned them all. Stock to fully worked over custom guns, I would take the VP9 over any of them. For whatever reason, its an absolute laser and stacks rounds with ease. I really could care less what some mouthbreather small sample size backyard test says. HK guns just plain work. If I could own 1 handgun to take to hell and back, it would be a VP9. Yet to have one malf between 3 guns with about 7k rounds combined. Yes that is a small sample, but more than enough confidence for these 3 guns. Bonus is an amazing trigger and easily conceals IWB. Glock 19 & 26's just get left at home now. Probably should start selling them and buy some more VP9's. I think a half dozen would do. Does it at least come with a nice hard case? You know to keep the water off of it.
lol, does your glock come with a bunker to keep the shrapnel out |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
