Leaderboard

11 1/2" OAL beauty with a false edge and hollow grind. The blade is right at 6" long. it has over 500 layers to achieve it's look. It's about 3/16" thick at the spine. The handles are new product from Voodoo Resins. They have this unique look with the added aluminum mesh added into the blade. Very cool and different. It has SS pins and lanyard tube and comes with the combo kydex/leather sheath shown.

I'm trying hard to dislike this pistol, but it's growing on me. Just don't know if I want a .380 in this size. when there are 9mms and .45acps basically the same size. I just fail to see the advantages, especially with only an 8 round mag. I'd have really have liked to see it with in a double stack.

I'd choose getting whacked in the hip over the spine 10 times out of 10.

I have a couple nearly ready. Get your checkbook ready cause the price is excellent and they are real lookers.

I understand. As good as your work is and as nice as these knives look yo7 won’t ever have to worry about having them laying around for any time at all

From a civilian, retail standpoint, our sales numbers for centerfire handgun ammo show .380, 9mm, .45 and 10mm as the top sellers. .40 is a distant 5th. It's not that it isn't a capable round. That's silly. It's just not as popular as it was. There will always be those that are going to wag their .40 incher in everybody's face like it's the big dog in the room. I deal with those people enough. In the civilian world, times have changed.

Actually very true.

Very nice work.

Yeah, I really do think it's somwhat of niche Pistol. I always like the Browning BDA/Berreta 84 pistols with their sleek lines and high capacity. I think S&W would have done this pistol justice, by increasing the mag capacity.

I think it boils down to whether you are in its in tended audience. There's obviously trade-offs with this weapon. I got one for my wife because 1. She has trouble racking slides. This slide is dead easy to rack. 2. She doesnt deal well with felt recoil. .380 round in bigger/heavier package may have less felt recoil. Not tested yet. 3. She has trouble loading magazines. These mags are easy to load.

PJ holsters in Bradenton,Fla. I've used them on my Walther PPS M2 & Walther PPQ. They are simple, light weight, fit close to the body, snap on the belt, made of kydex, inexpensive, $55, free shipping. Seems to fit your needs. Check 'em out. I have no connection to the co. Just good stuff.

Are you referring to myself and a certain former EN, yamika wearing gentleman, who have been known to like flashy, shiny things?

Well I have $125 burning a hole in my pocket if you want to make a profit.

Now the flip side of that is that people often will wait to see a PERFECT sight picture instead of taking what is GOOD ENOUGH and pressing the shot off. If we are talking a human torso at 5 yards we can argue that as long as you see the gun surrounded by target then you are good to go. In fact I will argue that once you have internalized a directional drawstroke and smooth trigger press you can deliver those shots with your eyes closed and still hit them SOMEWHERE in the torso because your body will drive the gun in the manner you have trained (or not) it to do so. From there it is simply a matter of not jerking the gun off target with your trigger press. We can argue that this crude form of aiming works adequately out to the distance that the slide is still slightly thinner than the target. The only fly in that ointment is that shots we are willing to take in public with the potential for misses hitting bystanders are probably going to be delivered a bit more conservatively than we are willing to take those same type shots on a paper or steel target a range with a dirt berm backstop. If you are taking an extra momentary (maybe .25 second) pause to guarantee a smooth trigger press you really have the time to see the sights. There are many ways to aim a gun that do not require sights being seen clearly. In fact I actually wrote and teach a class called Alternative Indexing Methods that some members here have taken. But most of those started as "workarounds" for low light or shooting while moving or close proximity to the target. All things being equal a stationary traditional sight picture is going to give the best quality hits over the widest range of circumstances. But just because you are using the sights does not mean you have to be slow.

Let us define terms a little better. There is a big difference between a picture perfect sight picture that you would use for slow fire bullseye at 25 yards and merely seeing sights super imposed over the target as you look "through" the sights at a torso sized target at 10 yards. There is a big difference in hard front sight focus with a blurry target versus a hard target focus with a blurry gun versus a hard focus on the target with the gun NOT in your visual cone. I talk about this in every class. I talk about "not using the hood ornament to steer the car". You simply park the car and you will see the hood ornament in your peripheral view and if you NEED to look at the ornament to guarantee the car is centered up in an especially tight parking spot then look at the ornament. For those not following, the car is the pistol and the hood ornament is the front sight. The more you practice drawing and driving the gun (straight up and straight out) to the target the more likely you are to deliver it to where it needs to be. After doing that about 5000 times looking at the sights you will have convinced your brain that you are doing it correctly and now you can largely omit the looking for the sights part on close (inside 7 yards) shots. Just focus on the target and drive the gun there and smoothly press the trigger. Not necessarily "slowly" but smoothly. But whether you choose to look for the sights or not they are still THERE. If your presentation (drawstroke) drives the gun to where your master eye is looking then if you NEED to take a quick peek at the sights to VERIFY correct alignment then shift your focus to them for a nanosecond. You can also pre load your visual focus to the spot where the sights will be and now as soon as you see that super imposed on the target and you get the gun to the appropriate level of extension you finish the trigger press. Obviously the closer the target the less verification is needed. And the farther the target the more verification is needed to guarantee it is pointed exactly where you need it. One issue is that we don't all speak the same language and "close" means one thing to one person and "far" means something different. Also the SIZE of the target is somewhat important in the equation. If we are shooting at a 3" circle at 7 yards that requires more of a sight focus than a 9x16" rectangle at 7 yards requires. Also what is the penalty for a miss? A bad score or a bystander being hit? Those considerations are going to drive your amount of verification you are willing to forego for speed. Now lets talk about speed...your eye can actually see AT LEAST 220 images per second. So it is in fact possible to see your sights at speed and detect whether they are aligned appropriately for the shot or not. Back in the day (1920s) when Fairbairn and Sykes were codifying their point shooting methods they did so because the pistols they issued (Colt 1911A1 and Colt 1908 .380) had nubby little sights that were hard to see at all at night and it wasn't much better during the day. Fast forward to now with fiber optic sights and even night sights that are a lot more visible it is now possible to shoot at speed AND still visually monitor the sights. When Dave Spaulding did a class in Dayton TN back in 2015 we were discussing point shooting vs getting a peek at the sights and how it is not really that much slower to see the sights vs not seeing them. To demo this he asked me to step up and from 7 yards draw (from concealment) and fire 1 shot . The shot was a "d" zone peripheral hit in .72 of a second. Then he asked me to do it again looking for the sights. That was a .82 of a second hit in the aorta (we shot an anatomical target with internal organs visible) . This is obviously a sampling of 1 but the point is that the difference was 1/10th of a second and the hit was substantially better. One was a wound in fatty tissue and the other punched a hole in the pump.... So what am I saying here? If you are accepting any hit any where on the full size human target as OK then sights are largely irrelevant inside 10 yards. If you are trying to keep them within a 6" circle in the high chest then you will probably need to see something to insure the muzzle is pointed where you need it to be pointed when you discharge the shot. The sights are ALWAYS on the gun...now it is just a matter of you LOOKING for them as you press the trigger. Can it be done at speed? Absolutely. I saw a sight picture on EVERY SINGLE SHOT I took at the Rogers Shooting School. Those disappearing 8" plates at 7-20 yards require enough verification that nobody has ever passed it point shooting. I scored Advanced with a 115 score. The baseline drill that you need to be able to do to determine whether you are ready for that class is to be able to hit an 8" plate at 7 yards from the ready in .50 of a second....and it gets harder from there....yet EVERY single shot I fired I saw a sight picture because I LOOKED for it. Not only do we need to be able to shoot fast we need to be able to SEE fast. And that requires practice. https://www.rogersshootingschool.com/index.php At Gabe White's Pistol Shooting Solutions in Waverly TN last October I had a sight picture (of some type) on EVERY single shot during the standards tests. The body shots did not require quite as fine a sight picture as the head shots did so I focused harder on the sights on the head shots and just "noticed" them on the body. On the Bill Drill I saw the sights on every single shot of the 6 shot string and delivered them in the 2.08 to 2.14 second range from concealment. On the Failure to stop (2 body 1 head) I shot 1.58 and 2.00 again from concealment . On the Immediate Incapacitation (2 to head) it was 1.77 and 1.78 and on the split Bill Drill (4 body 2 head) it was 2.29 and 2.51 . All of these were at 7 yards and all drawing from the concealment of a polo shirt. Could I have shot a little faster if I were not looking at the sights? Maybe but the small increase in speed I might gain would be detrimental to the accuracy required and the lower quality hits would have outweighed the speed gained. As it stands, using the sights and shooting as fast as I could while still monitoring them got me Turbo Pin #8. http://www.gabewhitetraining.com/performance-awards/ Now let us discuss accuracy required. At Rogers they are 8" plates. In the case of the Gabe White class that was an IPSC A zone in the body and a 4" circle in the head. Pretty much the same areas that have the greatest effect at making people stop what they are doing. If we essentially doubled up the body target and allowed A and/or C zone hits to count then I might have cut a few tenths off of each string and if we had accepted the whole head instead of just the 4" circle it could have been shot faster. But the faster you are delivering the "down zero" hits the faster you will be delivering ALL hits. And whether you SEE the sights or not is largely a matter of choice. They are there if you choose to look for them. Now do I have to have a "picture perfect" -equal amounts of light and hard focus on the top of the front sight post -sight picture for a body shot at 5 yards? No I just look "through" the sights (or through the gun) or over the top of the gun and shoot about as fast as I can draw and drive it to extension...which I'd say is still pretty quick. On the other hand if it is a head shot at 10 yards with bystanders in the background then that is going to require a better quality sight picture than the 5 yard body shot with a brick wall as a backstop would require. Can we get by with a less than perfect sight picture? ABSOLUTELY....within the proper distances and assuming the size of the target does not require as much verification. Can we see the sights and still shoot at speeds nearing the maximum of human performance? YES...if we actually PRACTICE that. And if we include rifles in the discussion we can get away with a less than ideal sight picture at much farther distances than we can with a pistol due to the multiple points of contact and the longer sight radius. But it is not 1925 anymore and if you are going to drive the gun to full extension (or even 3/4) then you might as well take advantage of that bumpy thing at the end of the slide and take a quick peek at it to guarantee your hits.

I stumbled into this a few years ago shooting IDPA and USPSA. For me it was purely that my eyes couldn’t keep up with my hands yet I was still getting good hits on targets, if I took the time to bring something into focus... I’d be there all day. Most people don’t realize how good they can shoot without even using the sights. With that being said, it needs to be close range and with a pistol they have shot a LOT. I’m gonna steal a line from bersa.... jmho

You're right about the difference in the main spring. The 9x19 EZ is already on the market, it's called the Shield.

Don't have .40 guns. Nobody wants them. You'll get 10% military discount on the ammo.

You have good taste in quality leather holsters. I see one problem though. Quality leather holsters without a thumb break are useless for those of us that like to do back flips on the dance floor while we are out clubbing.

Really? Thanks for that insider info. I will come and see you when I add my next .40 handgun because I know you will want to give me a whopping big discount on the gun and ammo..... Since it’s going by the wayside and all. It will be a Win/Win for both of us.

Greg right now