The Humble & Handy Glock 26

     Many years ago there was an ultra-liberal, self-serving, anti-gun president in office.  I know, I know, kinda hard to believe, except ... well, okay it's not at all hard to believe in our current predicament, but at that time we had just enjoyed 12 years of Conservative presidency.  Admittedly, President Bush the senior was not Ronald Reagan, but he wasn't half bad, all things considered.  Then came President Bill Clinton, the gun-grabber from Arkansas.  From those scary 8 years came the now infamous Assault Weapons Ban that blissfully reached it's sunset point just a very few years ago.

     If anything good can be said to have come out of that nefarious time of 10-round magazine limits, it's that manufacturers who had until then seemingly been competing to see who could build the largest, most cumbersome pistol, started seeing just how small of a pistol they could wrap around a 10 round mag.  I mean, more people than ever were getting CCW permits and those full-sized military-minded pistols get a might hard to carry discreetly in summertime.  Also, why even carry a full-sized pistol when that size was designed as a means to carry a high-cap mag and you are limited to only a 10 rounder?  Well, in amongst the new breed of ultra-compacts came the entry by GLOCK.  They took their big-honking duty pistols (the 17 round Model 17 and the 15 round Model 19) and cut 'em down around a 10 round mag.  That little engineering feat gave us the Model 26.  They did the same thing for their .40 pistols (the M22 and M23), producing the Model 27 and it's 9-round magazine.

     Those were simply TINY pistols in those days.  A pistol about the same length and height as a Walther PPK/s (very popular with CCW and LEO then), and though a bit chunky, the piece was still thinner than the diameter of the cylinder of a j-frame .38 (the main go-to BUG/ODC piece for cops and smart civvies then).  Every cop I knew wanted one.  A couple got them.  Then one day I got one.  Actually, I got the Glock 26 and then rather prohibitively expensive Emerson CQC7 folding fighter.  I hesitate to mention this, but in the interest of full disclose and for the sake of the really weird humor involved, I gotta tell you, gentle reader, they were divorce presents.  As in, "Here, I got you the pistol and knife you've been wanting."  Aw!  Gee, thanks!  "Yeah.  Have fun.  Now, then, since I gave you a present, I want one in return:  a divorce."

     I didn't realize at the time, but I came out far ahead.  I went through a few different duty pistols thereafter, but I always stayed qualified with the "Baby Glock" on our duty course and saw it more as a BackUp, Off Duty Carry, Alternate Duty Weapon.  When I got promoted and moved to CID, I still carried that G26, usually in a Renegade Ankle Rig.  Sometimes I would carry it as my duty piece if I was spending the day crawling under cars, in attics, sitting in court, etc.  Almost immediately after getting it, I swapped one flat-based mag for one with a Pierce pinky extension.  I used the flat mag for ankle and pocket carry (yes, pocket carry, and yes it's a wee bit thick for that, but I somehow made it work ... somehow).  The finger extension was for belt carry, shoulder carry, or pretty much any other time.   A co-worker, owing me for a holster (that he later retired still owing me for) gave me a 17 round Glock mag as a down payment.  There were times when that became the carry-in-the-pistol mag as even back then I felt that the most important round count was what was immediately available in your hand rather than what was in a pocket, or mag pouch.

     I  used to be assigned to "low profile" work during various festivals, block parties, and other events wherein it was believe that nefarious activity might be afoot.  "Low-Profile" is what a lot of folks call "under cover" but in real UC work, you have a cover ID, some background, and hopefully, if they love you, some backup.  I did a little UC work and enjoyed it, but Low-Profile was what I did most:  blending in with the crowd, seeming to just be one of the good ol' boys, until something happened.  Of course that meant I had usually NO cover, NO back-up, and in those days, very questionable communication abilities.  I describe those assignments as, "Gee, how can we get the red-haired, left-handed, pain in the patookus killed this weekend?"  It was not unheard of for me to carry the Glock sans holster.  Yep, just stuck in the belt, usually appendix carry (or more like descending colon carry I guess, given my South-paw perspective [not to mention, I haven't had an appendix since I was 10]).  Yeah, I know, unsafe, dangerous, reckless, and other bad things as well.  Save it.  I TRIED to trip the trigger on an  unloaded Glock carried thusly several times and never managed to find a way to manage it.  It worked well for me, stayed put, and was FAST to draw.  It was also different times and a lot of us didn't use holsters for low-profile and off-duty carry.  That said, yes you should use one or at least one of those little clips-over-the-trigger-and-pops-off-via-lanyard-on-your-belt jobbies.  There, liability avoided (insert notice that I am in no way responsible for what you choose to do).

     Spring forward a few years.  I stopped the nekkid-gun carry and stuck with holsters of various makes.  They all added too much bulk for IWB carry (and I was starting to grow those dreaded early middle age love handles by then but shhhh!  I'm hoping no one will notice).  I had many other options and finally retired my old companion.  Recently, however, after some training, research and deep thought (especially after some ALERT training, sorta hard-core and in depth training wherein one learns how to take on active shooters either alone or with pretty much anyone who you can get to go with you), I came to see the benefit of having a lot of rounds on hand.  Now, I still carry my Kahr PM40, especially when it's boiling hot outside.  I carry a S&W 30-1 sometimes or even my .32 PPK (the latter two especially if some old hand/ wrist injuries, or these days my old friend arthritis flair up).  But that Baby Glock is finding its way into or onto my waistband more and more frequently.  I usually carry that 17 rounder as the main backup mag.  Yes, I've heard that if you grip it wrong and put too much pressure on that over-sized mag body hanging out of the piece you can jam the gun.  I don't usually have any pressure on the body of the mag, and have shot it a LOT without a problem, so I feel comfortable doing this.  Plus I practice failure drills like crazy so ... yeah ... I think I'm good.

     Okay, we've covered some history (maybe a wee bit too much of mine, but I tend to blab).  What about the piece, you ask?  It's had thousands of rounds through it.  I lost count long ago, but I'm sure I'm well into the plural thousands.  The trigger on mine is phenomenal for the type.  I knew a gunsmith who worked on his own G26 until he thought it was perfect.  He tried my out-of-the-box-but-well-used trigger and cursed ... and cursed some more.  Then one evening he dropped by my house (the sort of bloke who'll sit in his car on the road in front of your house for half an hour talking because he doesn't have time to come in).  He had worked on another cop's G26 and smugly told me he finally surpassed even the trigger on my G26.  I tried the trigger (dry fire, of course).  I agreed it was indeed the best smithed trigger I'd ever felt on a Glock of any model.  While he was glowing in that review, I unloaded mine and handed it over.  He dry fired mine exactly once before handing it back to me rather rudely, calling both my birth and familial relationships into question, and driving off in something I like to describe as a snit.  Heh-heh-heh.

      With that trigger it shoots very well indeed.  In truth, however, I've never shot a Glock 26 (or it's .40 caliber fraternal twin the 27) that wasn't very accurate.  The factory sights are combat sights and most decidedly NOT target sights.  In fact, at the 25 yard line, the blocky front post takes up most of the chest of a combat target.  Still, it takes little time to figure that you just put that big-o'front sight right under the spot where you want to hit, like the bullet is sitting atop the sight post, drop it down inside the rear sight with equal height and equal light and you will hit where you are aiming.  I recently did some prone 50 yard silhouette shooting and was impressed with that that short, chunky piece would do with it's just a hair under 3.5" barrel and some standard 115 gr FMJ ammo.  Mine is currently stoked for carry with Federal's excellent 124gr +P+ HST load.  The Net Nannies and Armchair Commandos (and a few real experts) either like it or hate it.  It's 100% reliable in my pistol, accurate, does well against auto glass and auto bodies (I sometimes get to have fun with a donated vehicle), so I like it.  I used to carry Federal 9BPLE (115 gr +P+ JHP).  On a borrowed chronograph  I got an honest 1275 fps from that short bbl.  I haven't had a chrono handy since switching loads, but how much difference can 9 grains of bullet weight make, methinks?  Anyway that's up there near short barreled .357 magnum velocity with a similar bullet so I see very little to complain about. (Edited 02/10/2014:  I sometimes still carry the 9BPLE as since retiring I have far more of these on hand than the HST loads).

      So, it shoots, keeps shooting so long as it's fed, hits hard (for a pistol), but how does it carry?  It has precious few sharp corners. Almost every surface is rounded and comfortable against skin.  Almost.  When I  press the trigger with my left trigger finger, the magazine release gouges me.  Simple fix, really, I just filed the offending corner off the button with an emery board.  Now it's not a problem.  That little arch on the rear of the grip is supposed to make it fit the contour of the palm, I guess.  I think it adds too much bulk and leaves a nice place for lint and dust to gather in the mainspring.  I've seen Glocks with that arch cut off and the grips sanded and refinished ... but I just can't bring myself to do that with my pistol ... yet.  It is in truth just a wee bit long front-to-back to properly fit my hand, but for all that it still points well, shoots softly, hits where aimed, and all that, so, well, so what if it doesn't feel like it fits just right?

       For those wanting a .40 (and willing to forget that the case-head of the cartridge is not, in the opinion of many, property supported in the .40 caliber Glocks ... look up "kaboom"), the G27 is a great option.  Essentially the same piece only giving up one round to house the fatter .40s, it is the softest shooting mini-.40 I've ever fired, and I have fired several.  Just the other day I qualified an old friend on the range.  His g/f gave him a G27 for Christmas and he wanted to tote it off-duty.  His qualification (rapid present and fire to very rapid present and fire stages from 15, 7, and 3 yards) was excellent and was the first time he'd shot the brand new pistol.  We then spent a while breaking it in and once more, I was impressed with the design.  Yes, yes, we shot it along side my Kahr PM40.  My PM40 is much smaller and a bit lighter, but that means it pushes a bit more.  Honestly they make great mild-weather/hot weather companion guns.  The PM40 when you'd otherwise go unarmed or with a mousegun (no offense, I like mouseguns), and the Glock 26 or 27 when you can tote something just a wee bit bigger overall.

       Recently I started making some Kydex holsters, finding few out there that I liked or that I was willing to part with my hard earned cash for just to most likely see them in the Box of Holsters That Didn't Quite Work For Me.  That box, excuse me, those boxes, are way too full now.  Kydex is so thin I can make a good IWB holster that adds very little bulk to the chunky Glock so it can ride tucked in my waistband nearly as comfortably as it did when riding "nekkid," but is in truth firmly clipped to my belt.  Also, a paddle design I've been playing with keeps it tight into the body so a light over-shirt (or X-L Aloha shirt) and it hides quite well. There's something about knowing  you have 28 rounds at hand in two magazines (10 round mag, 17 round mag, and one round chambered) that's mighty satisfying when  you find yourself somewhere with a suspicious character or two loitering about.

     So to sum up, I've rediscovered my old friend, the Glock 26.  I think our time apart did us some good.   Oh, and it's fun to shoot, too.

Switch-Hand Shooting

     I know a lot of shooters.  I know a lot of left-handed shooters.  Handedness being what it is I know a whole lot more right-handed shooters.  Interestingly, I know several left-handed people (particularly older cops) who shoot right-handed.  Ask them why they carry their primary weapon (their pistol), this largely one-handed weapon for which they will need maximum dexterity on their off-hand side for use with their clearly non-dominate hand.  Likely they’ll shrug and say something to the effect that left handed holsters weren’t available back when they started (or at least not affordable ones).  I’ve even ran across holsters I’d love to use only to find the dreaded three words “Right Hand Only” at the bottom of the ad. 

     Now, this is not a piece about the exclusion of 10-20% of the population by right-handed elitists.  No, I’ll save that rant for another day.  But, taking the words of the preceding paragraph in mind, think for a moment.  Many left-handed people can and do shoot right-handed when they have to.  Most right-handed people I know balk at the idea of shooting left-handed.  This is not meant as a slight towards folks of the more common handedness.  Theirs is simply the more common world.  I, for instance, love old military guns.  Left-hand friendly military bolt-guns are a wee bit thin on the ground if you know what I mean.  Oh, I make do.  I do the whole reach-across-the-top-of-the-receiver-and-work-the-bolt thing.  I’m actually pretty fast with it on my M48A Mauser, my sportarized Lee-Enfield No.1 MkIII, and even my Mosin-Nagant M44.  The latter, despite the straight-out-at-nearly-ninety-degree bolt handle that seems to lend its self to such manipulations, is not actually the easiest of the bunch to work thusly.  Oh, it works; it’s just not really smooth.  So, when going for speed or even just comfort (they just fit better on the right shoulder) I shoot ‘em right-handed.  How many right-handed shooters, though, when handed a left-handed rifle won’t immediately balk at the notion of shooting it left-handed?

    I think my experiences and those of my fellow south-paws shows that most anyone can shoot with their non-dominate hand.  It’s just that left-handed folks, living in a right-handed world, are more often called upon to operate things “backwards” so shooting “wrong-handed” really isn’t as big a deal to them.

     I think all able-bodied shooters, possessing both hands and all fingers, should endeavor to be able to operate their primary firearms (you do have more than one, right?) with either hand.  Why?  Well, if you’re as accident prone as I am, sooner or later your non-dominant hand may be the only one not in a cast.  Perhaps on an epic hunt of a lifetime that one shot you get at a monster trophy will need to be taken from the opposite side of a tree.  Maybe you’ll be clearing your house after a bump-in-the-night (yes, you should secure and call the police, but maybe the police are far away; heck, maybe you are the police and you’re clearing the house in question).  Maybe you need to cover around a left-hand corner (or, you know, whatever your version of “opposite side” is).  Whatever the scenario, it doesn’t take much imagination to realize that in the real world not everything will be right or left hand friendly. 

     So, when a right-handed person is faced with a left-handed corner or when your dominant hand/arm is out of action/otherwise occupied (like with a crutch), what are they gonna do?  How competent are you with your non-dominant hand?

     Personally, I think you should be able to keep all your shots on a pie-plate at ten yards shooting fairly rapidly (say one round per second or faster).  I suspect most folks can once they get over their initial uncomfortable feeling of shooting “wrong-handed.”  Back when I first got into law enforcement, we had to fire 18 rounds from 25 yards, six of those with our non-dominate hand.  I always got highly annoyed when guys would declare those six shots as “throwaways.”  Holy crap!  They had a total of 75 seconds to fire their 18 rounds, swapping positions between each string of six (lots of revolvers still around even back in the late ‘80s, early ‘90s).  You could easily save up 30 seconds or better for the “weak-handed” stuff.  Still, folks cheered when that part of the qualification was done away with.  We still have to shoot with the other hand (one-handed, point-style) from the five yard line.  In an emergency, that’s a bit more realistic of a distance, I suppose.  But still, failing to hit from 25 yards slow-fire, from kneeling, just because you use that other booger-hooker box is a call for more practice, not a declaration of the rounds just being “throwaways.” 

     Admittedly, I may have it a bit easier than some.  I’m actually completely ambidextrous.  I shoot primarily left-handed because I think left-handed (watching me with a wrench or screwdriver is reportedly the height of hilarity).  Well, that and it’s a big poke in the eye of social convention.  I was first trained to shoot as a child right-handed.  I was a teen when I fiddled around a bit and found I preferred to shoot left-handed. So, yes, I may have an advantage when switch-hitting.  Still, I’ve known my share of people who, due to an injury had to use their non-dominant hand.  They became every bit as proficient as they were before in fairly short order.  So, it is possible, it just may take more effort for some than for others.

     The primary problem when shooting with the non-dominant side is a matter of eye dominance.  Most folks are right or left eye dominant.  Some folks are cross eye-hand dominate (e.g. right-handed but left-eyed).  Such folks often, upon finding this out, continue shooting pistols with their dominate hand, but shoot rifles and shotguns of the shoulder under their dominant eye.  Shooting with the non-dominant eye means probably having to close the dominant one or else you'll just see down the side of the weapon/scope/sights.  Again, I'm kind of weird in this regard, but I've found most folks can make-do.  For instance, a right-handed, right-eyed person shooting a rifle left-handed will likely close or at least partially close his right eye.  When the same person shoots a pistol left-handed, he'll likely just bring the weapon a bit right-of-center and turn his head a little more, aiming with his dominant eye.  It's really a matter of whatever works.

     I’ve covered some of the reasons, and I’m sure everyone can think of many more as to why we should all practice with our opposite hands.  Let me add another:  Backup Guns.  Right now my backup is in my right front pocket in a Kydex holster I made for it.  My primary pistol is high on my left hip, right about nine o’clock.  I like my backup to be available to either hand (like an ankle rig) or the opposite hand.  That way, if my primary arm is injured, I can at least still return fire.  Paranoia?  Perhaps.  Good practice?  Definitely!

     I have one additional reason:  It’s actually great practice.  Think about it.  If you don’t regularly handle your weapons off-handed it will feel unfamiliar.  Yep, much like back when you first started shooting.  Suddenly your mind knows what to do, but you may have trouble at first getting your body on the same page.  This will give you ample opportunity to re-train from nearly the beginning.  Sight-alignment, trigger squeeze, body indexing, smooth draw, foot placement, squaring to the target, these are all things you’ll have to do at least a little bit of re-training on.  It’ll be like training someone to shoot, only it’ll be you.  This training should translate back to shooting with your dominate hand.  Also, once you get really good, it’s kind of … satisfying … when, while shooting with some friends, to take the gun in your non-dominate hand and say, “(Yawn) I’m feeling left-handed today.  Let’s see how I do.”  Be warned, though, if money is on the line, you might be treated much the same way as a pool hustler.  [wink, wink]

     So, whether for better self-defense (always the primary purpose to keep in mind), better bragging rights, or just to prove a challenge to yourself, get some trigger time with that non-dominate hand.  Yes, you can.  Seriously, no excuses, just go do it.

Two .25s (Beretta Jetfire & Colt 1908)

Testing Two .25s

     Yeah, I know, I know, a .25 ACP is no better than harsh language.  A .25 will bounce off a man’s skull.  If I shoot anyone with a .25, he might get angry … blah, blah, blah.  Unlike a lot of pundits and key-pounding, armchair commandoes, I’ve actually seen what a .25 ACP can do.  Just where I work we’ve had four shootings with a .25 and all (ALL) were one-shot stops.  Admittedly, one was a contact or near contact shot (kinda like real life, maybe?), and one was a suicide (but the subject did not move, just fell over). In one the victim didn’t die and was not seriously wounded, but what that tiny bullet did accomplish was amazing.  The other was across a room and it did not, despite all the urban legends, bounce of the victim’s skull.  He did not move or twitch; just dropped.  So my respect for the cartridge is based on real-world observations, not urban legend.

     It’s been said that a lot of the problems with .25s comes from the use of the cartridge in either old worn out (or manufactured out-of-spec in the first place) pieces, or in some of the modern sub $100 junk one finds for sale in less reputable areas.  If the barrel is too large by a couple thousandths of an inch … well I think you can see where I’m going.

     Assuming a good barrel, a good pistol, and good ammo, however, a .25 ACP through the vitals should be about as effective as anything else.  Think about it.  A .50AE is considered “HUGE” but in reality it’s only twice the diameter of the little .25 (slightly less than half actually, but you’ll need a micrometer). If the .25 is so tiny then how can twice tiny be huge?  Power.  Sure, the .50AE, or heck, even the 9x19mm is exponentially more powerful than John M. Browning’s smallest cartridge design.  But wait.  If one is stabbed through the aorta, the heart, or another blood-filled organ of choice by a quarter inch metal rod, isn’t that a bad thing?  I hope my point is made. If not, look around, there are some posts here about 9x18, .40 S&W, and some other bigger bullets that might hold your interest.

     Now, why on Earth am I not only writing about a .25 but even by my own admission carrying one?  Well, see, my preferred little piece of perpetual presence (Kel-Tec’s P3AT .380) wound up in need of service after several years of hard carry and a few thousand rounds.  Minor stuff, really, but I found myself temporarily in need of a tiny pocket gun:  A gun to have when I absolutely did not need anyone to know I was armed:  A gun to be a backup or even tertiary gun.  Well, in my wife’s armory was a Beretta 950B “Jetfire” that I’d given her a couple years prior.  She’d never shot it and showed little interest in it over her other pistols.  There’s a lesson here, boys.  Let Mama-san pick her own pistols.  Anyway, I borrowed it (and in truth had always coveted it anyway).  I qualified with it on my agencies backup course (15 yards and in, even clearing a malfunction from bad ammo and STILL shot 100% with most of the hits in the heart and/or spine).  Now, I carry FMJ ammo since penetration is not the .25’s long suit and at the anemic power level I don’t think expansion can really be relied on either.  Plus, in its role, I need 100% reliability.  So, FMJs it is.  This isn’t a 9mm Luger or .40 S&W so I’m not endangering innocents a block away by risking perforating the bad guy.

     I decided to shoot it some more today and fire it side-by-side with my 1908 Colt Vestpocket .25 ACP.  My Colt was made in 1912 and my Beretta was made in 1966.  The Beretta was made a year before I was and the Colt is 100 years old this year.  First, a basic comparison:

     The Colt 1908 is a single-action, striker-fired pistol.  It features a thumb-safety on the left rear of the frame and a grip safety on the rear back-strap.  The grip safety is firm and takes a conscious grip to engage so the weapon will fire.  Personally I think this is a nice touch on a tiny pistol with a tiny safety lever that might become accidentally disengaged.  It’s a right handed pistol, to be sure, but I can manage it with a bit of innovative manipulation (we left-handed shooters are nothing if not dexterous).  It feeds out of a six round box magazine held in place with a heel-based clip (not a bad idea on a pocket gun really).  The sites consist of a dimple on the rear of the slide leading to a trench down the length of said slide.  A tiny front site sits right at the front in the middle of the trench.  This is not a pistol for aimed fire or for winning bulls-eye matches.

     The Beretta 950B “Jetfire” is a single-action pistol with an external hammer.  It does not feature a manual safety unlike the 950 BS (S=safety) which appeared two years after mine was made to be allowed for US import under the 1968 Gun Control Act (enter various profanities here).  It features a very innovative tip-up barrel which allows the pistol to be loaded and unloaded without manipulating the tiny slide.  It features an eight round magazine giving it a total capacity of an impressive nine rounds.  It is normally carried hammer down and the hammer is cocked upon preparing to fire.  I prefer to keep the hammer on half-cock.  The inertial firing pin does not protrude from the breech face with the hammer at full rest, but it’s so very close I just feel better with it on half-cock.  The hammer sticks up at such an angle so that one’s thumb almost naturally passes over it when drawing the pistol so the cocking motion is very easy to carry out.  The magazine is ejected by a button set into the lower portion of the left rear grip.  It’s well protected by the grip, almost as secure as a heel-clip and I have yet to accidentally hit it.  The Beretta has sights marginally better than the Colt, but c’mon, we’re talking itty-bitty teeny-tiny sites and on a pistol meant to be shot quickly at very close range and under conditions when proper site alignment and trigger squeeze are not really options.

     So, let’s wring ‘em out.  First off, the Colt was handicapped.  The magazine I had for it just didn’t like to work with more than three rounds in the pistol.  It appears to be the right one for the pistol, but there’s no guarantee and it certainly isn’t stamped “Colt.”  The ammo I started off using was some Federal 50 grain FMJ I’d procured.  I like Federal ammo but this particular batch has been nothing but trouble.  The cases split, often as not, and they seem a wee bit out of spec as they tend to take a LOT of force to seat in the chamber of ANY .25 auto I’ve tried them in.  Silly me trying things again.  Still, shooting from seven then five yards I did pretty well.  At seven yards for some unknown reason I fired six rounds (with alibies for problems related to the questionable mag and dodgy ammo) right handed.  I don’t know why.  I’m actually ambidextrous but I normally shoot left handed.  Maybe being a typical Browning design, it just felt better that way.  Who knows.  The next six round I fired “properly” (i.e. left handed) from five yards.  The group was not much different and only a couple of flyers were questionable.  I also shot pretty fast, as one might do in a self-defense scenario.

     The pistol looks rough in the photos but it looks a lot better than when I got it.  Still, it worked well, magazine and ammo issues aside, and was relatively easy to shoot.  It’s so tiny, though, you can only really get one finger on the grip.  One’s trigger finger seems to find its way into the trigger guard just in an effort to stabilize the pistol when picking it up.  This is where that heavy deliberate pressure needed to overcome the grip safety is a good thing.

     The Beretta Jetfire also did not like the Federal ammo. It shot it okay, but I had to really work at getting the rounds to chamber fully.  I gave up in pretty short order and shot some American Eagle 50 grain FMJ (also Federal but from a more reliable source) and some Aguila 50 grain FMJ.  I should have shot the Colt with the same ammo, but once I put it down, I honestly just didn’t want to stop shooing the Beretta.  It shot overall very well and more accurately than one has a right to ask of such a tiny pistol.

     All the Jetfire’s groups were smaller than the pistol.  That’s smaller than heart sized.  The one big problem I have with the Jetfire (and Beretta’s similar pistols) is that the hammer tends to bite the web of my shooting hand about as often as the slide likes to abrade it, which is more often than not.  My best shooting featured three rounds going one right after the other into one ragged hole from five yards (or was it seven?  Not much difference in accuracy from either post).  Unfortunately by then my hand was hurting to the point I scattered the other rounds a bit farther apart.  Still, all in all, it wasn’t a bad group.  All groups were shot one-handed.

     There are many different micro-blasters out there in .32 and .380 that aren’t much bigger.  However, some people (like my wife) simply cannot shoot anything with that degree of recoil.  For her it’s due to a plate and screws in her arm.  For others it’s a matter of arthritis, strength, or any number of medical issues.  Some folks just WANT a tiny gun.  I think I paid less than two hundred for this lightly used and well cared for Jetfire.  Ammo ain’t cheap but it’s about on par with .32 and .380 so shop around.

     Ultimately, while bigger may be better, if you need for whatever reason, or find yourself limited to a diminutive caliber, get a good quality pistol, make sure everything works, feed it ammo it likes, stick with FMJs, and then just do YOUR part.  Your part, by the way, is to practice drawing from concealment, shooting one-handed, and doing what you can to avoid trouble in the first place.

Polish P-64

Polish Radom P-64

     Who doesn’t love the Walther PPK?  C’mon, who?  What if I said you could get a pistol that was “practically” a PPK, with a mystique and history all its own, for about ¼ the price?  Interested?  Okay, well even if you’re not a fan of Walther’s 1930s design, how about a perfectly serviceable, reliable, accurate, reasonably powerful (and so-far, cheap to feed) pistol, sized right for concealed carry that can be had for a nominal price under 200 bucks?  Are you interested now?

     Well, meet the P-64, the Polish service pistol from 1965 through the late 1970s.  It’s chambered for the 9x18mm cartridge, often called “9mm Makarov” since it was initially designed for that pistol.  When one first sees the P-64 it’s Walther roots are clearly apparent.  Now, is it a copy?  Some say yes, some (like the designers) say no.  External and some other basic design similarities aside, there are some internal differences, so let’s move past the similarities between the P64 and the PPK and look at the P64’s own merits.

     It’s a highly concealable, all steel pistol, double-action first shot, single action thereafter.  It features a decocker/safety lever on the left side of the slide that, when engaged, locks the firing pin in place.  The hammer has a rebound type mechanism so that once the pistol is fired and the slide comes back, tripping the disconnector, and the trigger is released, the hammer is sprung back to its resting position.  There it does not make contact with the firing pin until the trigger is again pulled.  I have heard of some models where the hammer may come to rest on the firing pin.  If so, then to the best of my ability to determine, it’s a defective model and should be repaired or replaced immediately.  Parts seem a bit scarce on the market, unfortunately.  Of course, with a price under $200 many folks could easily afford to buy another pistol that either works better or could be used as a source of parts to fix their primary model.  Mind you, I’ve never seen one that was defective as described, only read about one on an internet forum (and everything on the ‘net is real, right?).  In any event, most savvy folks (most savvy right-handed folks, anyway) carry with the safety lever engaged.  I seem to remember similar arguments concerning Walther's PP series several years ago.

     The pistol is fed by a six-round, single stack magazine featuring a small, plastic finger extension on the bottom.  I'm not aware of anyone making flat-bottomed magazines but the 'net abounds with folks discussing how they modified theirs to make them fit better in smaller pockets.  I've found magazines at various on-line retailers for under $20.  The pistols were initially issued with two magazines.  Some still offer it for sale thusly.  The magazine release is of the European heel-clip variety.  Yes, this means you have to reach over with your non-firing hand and push the catch on the butt back in order to free the magazine.  Oh and how you should hear people gripe about that online!  Some folks swear you’ll never do a fast reload with a heel-based magazine catch, those crazy Europeans!  Well, let’s look at a couple of points with regards to that argument.

First off, this is not a duty pistol (at least to the American market and even the Polish military and police establishment complained it was too small for that role).  It’s a small concealed carry piece.  Even if it had a Walther-style or similar push-button magazine catch of the variety so popular here, would anyone really be doing speed reloads?  True speed reloads of the sort a Bianchi cup competitor uses in competition spells a pinched pinky finger when done with a pocket pistol.  I have no trouble reloading mine quickly and (more importantly) smoothly, but I certainly can reload my full-size SIG P226 faster.  And, if I could stick my P226 in a pocket or on my ankle, or make it disappear IWB under a T-shirt like I can my P64, I probably would not be writing this. 

Secondly, I’m not in the habit of just pressing a magazine release button and trusting my empty or malfunctioning magazine to cooperatively jump forth from my pistol.  I’ve logged enough miles (and thousands of rounds) carrying a Browning Hi-Power in the early days of my LEO career and with a GLOCK 26 much of the time thereafter to be in the habit of “helping” a magazine eject.  This is not a bad habit to develop, no matter how “reliable” your pistol’s magazine ejection.  Things happen.  Lint happens.  Debris happens.  Double feeds happen.  Mr. Murphy comes to visit.  If you are in the habit of helping your magazines out of the pistol’s grip, these won’t be nearly as much of a problem.  So, do I prefer a European heel-style release or our more popular push-button release?  It’s a toss-up for me, really.  The way I do it, one is not significantly faster, nor the other significantly slower.

Thirdly, have you ever had the push-button magazine release on your small CCW pistol get bumped?  You know, the pistol is in your pocket, or on your ankle and suddenly you hear a “click” (if you’re lucky) and now best-case, you have a one-shot repeater and worst case, your magazine is now on the floor somewhere.  This is much less likely to happen with a heel-clip release.  Too, if you’re wearing gloves (for those of you in places where you don’t sweat and sunburn in December), that tiny button can be hard to hit … or entirely too easy to hit.   That, as I understand it, is one of the main reasons behind the Euro style release; the mag stays in place until you want to remove it, and when you do want to remove it with gloves on, you can.

Yeah, yeah, okay, so it’s sort-of a PPK clone, it has a heel-style magazine catch that you’ll either accept or not, and it comes ready-made as a pistol tough and reliable enough to serve as the police and military pistol for behind-the-Iron-Curtain work (back when there was an Iron Curtain).  It’s a tough, reliable, easy to conceal pistol for the price of a zinc-alloy ghetto special.  But, you want to know, how does it shoot, don’t you?

Ultimately it shoots quite well, with a couple of reservations.  First off, and this was a major complaint of the Poles, out-of-the-box, the P64 has something like a 25 pound double action trigger pull!  Yes, it is brutal, and no, you won’t get used to it.  When these pistols first came to our shores there was a quick-fix involving, if memory serves, a modified Walther PP main spring.  I’m not crazy about modifying springs.  There is a science unto its self concerning the making and modifying of springs.  Thanks to the good folks at Wolff’s Gunsprings, however, one has but to drop about ten bucks or less in the mail and you can receive a spring (or even a few) made specifically for your Polish P-64 (on their website the pistol is listed under “Polish” not “Radom” as of the time of this writing).  It took me a few minutes to install the new spring (very simple, really) and pulling that double action trigger was no longer a two-finger affair.  The trigger pull is not exactly smooth, but I’ve certainly felt worse.  There is some definite stacking towards the end of the DA pull, but with the new spring it’s not bad.  It’s definitely there, but not really a problem.  Single action is … responsive.  Cocking the hammer (or it becoming cocked after the first shot) does not move the trigger back (like on, say, a PPK).  To fire single action, there is a bit of take-up on the trigger with no real spring pressure.  About the time you begin to feel any resistance you’ve fired your shot.  It’s not quite a hair-trigger, but it is about as light as I’d ever care for a standard carry gun’s trigger to be.

This is a straight blow-back design which means the barrel is fixed to the frame and the slide is held shut only by the pressure of the mainspring.  While this makes for a rather accurate set up (fixed barrel), it means you get more felt recoil.  The 9x18mm cartridge is a wee bit peppy in this regard.  This is not a pistol you’re going to want to spend the afternoon shooting a couple of boxes of ammo through.  I put its recoil in the same class as my Kahr PM40.  Not painful, exactly, but it will definitely get your attention.  The rearmost corners of the slide have been beveled so as to reduce the chance of it biting the web of your hand (again, a ’la the PPK).  It’s still possible to get bitten, and the recoil it’s self tends to make a red “V” on my hand for a few minutes, but it’s vastly better than a lot of other small autos in that while it’s possible to get bitten, it’s not a foregone conclusion.

The 9x18 is an interesting cartridge in and of its self.  It was engineered to be between the 9x19 (a.k.a. 9mm Parabellum, 9mm Luger) and the .380 ACP (a.k.a. 9x17mm, 9mm short).  One could say it succeeds.  The actual bullet diameter is 9.2mm or about .363” as opposed to the other two cartridges which feature .355” bullets.  I haven’t put a chronograph to mine but others who have claim a bit under 900fps for Hornady’s 95 grain XTP JHP load.  There are some domestic loads available which may enhance its capabilities.  But for plain shooting or practice (or real cheap carry on a shoestring budget) Russian surplus ammo is still available for cheap.  I normally find it cheaper than most other center-fire ammo (except maybe 7.62x25mm).  Ballistically  it seems a lot closer to .380 than 9mm Luger, but it seems to have worked well enough for cops and soldiers the former Soviet Union for a long time.

Accuracy wise I found nothing to complain about.  I came across some nomenclature that says the tiny, old-world military-style sites are zeroed at 50 yards.  Maybe, I didn’t shoot a bulls-eye target at that range.  However, from a few steps to 15 yards I shot a group I’d have been proud of from my afore-mentioned SIG P226.  As for longer range (yes, yes, unrealistic) shooting, suffice to say I now know I can knock down pepper poppers at over 75 yards.  Pretty flat shooting little pocket pistol.

So, it’s snappy in the hand.  You really need to spend the few bucks to get the better spring.  Even then, the DA trigger pull is nothing to get excited about.  It shoots an “odd-ball” former Soviet cartridge (that’s C-H-E-A-P and readily available from numerous online sources and your better stocked gun shops).  It’s accurate, reliable, small enough to disappear with IWB carry, and available for a very low price.  As stocks dry up, I expect the prices to climb (remember the super-cheap Makarovs from the early 1990s?), but by how much I cannot guess. 

It has its quirks (the trigger, the Euro mag release) but from a price vs. features & performance standpoint, I don’t think you can beat it.  Mine is definitely not for sale!