Brügger & Thomet TP9 Review.
- Thread starter koalorka
- Start date
Missing Something
Regular
So, how does the gal shoot?
I have shot one quite a bit and its nice and smooth (because of the weight and caliber. Great out to 100m
Is the stock sturdy enough?
I find that it is.
Is it even worth using the stock? It's only a 9x19, and it has a a forward grip, so it shouldn't be that bad.
The stock makes it sooooo much better to shoot distance. But for up close you can use it like a handgun.
Is there a pistol magazine that works in this "rifle"? (If the AR-15 can get a pistol mag and the TP9 can't...)
From what I understand the 10 round "pistol mag" was not approved for this unit. (our wonderful gov't in action"
Would I get in trouble for asking if the "mushy" trigger was alright for bump-firing? (No shoelace! Just your index finger.)
Humm.... never tried.....
Who imported it?
Wolverine Supplies is the importer.
Thanks and good luck with your classes at Uni!
BTW great review
From what I understand the 10 round "pistol mag" was not approved for this unit. (our wonderful gov't in action
Are you referring to the silly "rifle" status of the TP9, or is there a pistol magazine that works for it that was not accepted for some arbitrary reason that would immediately turn it into a prohibited firearm when used?
Missing Something
Regular
Are you referring to the silly "rifle" status of the TP9, or is there a pistol magazine that works for it that was not accepted for some arbitrary reason that would immediately turn it into a prohibited firearm when used?
There was a 10 round mag made for the TP-9 that was submitted and it was rejected.
Typical Government B.S.
Of course, but... Well... If you were to hand the magazine to someone, I doubt ANYONE'S first thought would be calling it a rifle magazine.
There's an AR-15 magwell adaptor for the SL8/G36, I don't see how it would be that far fetched.
I definitely see more TP9's being sold if you can use a common 10 round pistol magazine.
incorrigible
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- stubble jumper
Just a helpful word to the wise. I'd check into the legalities of that boring out suppressor blocking material advice, for a couple of important reasons.
First I believe there is a law on the books that refers to what's called 'altering a report'. Not a report like you'd write or file but rather like this definition;
re·port [ri-pawrt, -pohrt] 5. a loud noise, as from an explosion: the report of a distant cannon.
I believe it is illegal to utilize a device on a firearm that changes how that firearm will sound when fired (ie: the report of the firearm). I could be wrong but it'd be worth a check before acting.
Secondly the material in the TP9 suppressor from Wolverine(I have one) is made of a plastic material with a relatively low melting point (around 400 degrees C) and could melt and foul the barrel assembly and/or bullet path causing anything from firearm damage to death.
If anyone had done this it would be my suggestion to place the suppressor portion down on a raise grille over a pan an place it in the oven at around 500degrees C. This will melt the plastic media completely out and let it drain into the pan. While still hot right out of the oven unscrew the ends that were held closed with thread locker(which melts at about 450C). Then fill the now empty void with another medium to ensure the fake suppressor remains legal. Don't forget to re-lock the threads or else you'd be able to remove the new media at your discretion. Also be aware that there is a possibility that the high heat of this process may discolour the suppressor to a titanium colour as opposed to the original black. It may end up something like this if that helps.
Last edited:
Daehanminkuk
Regular
- Location
- Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, ROK
Funny how you say that as the law as I am familair with it does say a device to dampen or otherwise muffle the report of a firearm is illegal.
"changing the sound" is not written specifically into the law.
That would mean that my muzzle break that changes the pitch of my SKS would be illegal.
"changing the sound" is not written specifically into the law.
That would mean that my muzzle break that changes the pitch of my SKS would be illegal.
incorrigible
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- stubble jumper
Altering a report is changing the sound, the two acts are not mutually exclusive. I'm not the CFC, an english or law professor, pissy with my verbs and I definately indicated that I could be wrong. My suggestion was that if it were me I'd check with the CFC before acting. I make no declarations that the rules and/or rulings are fair or even make sense. I only pass on information as a PO who has walked the same path and information was passed on to me when I enquired that there are consequences and reprocussions to 'altering the report' of a firearm. As long as an individual has the piece of paper from your regions CFO that states the adaptation has been addressed it with the CFC then they are in the clear.
This is a huge assumption on my part, and I'm fully aware of the rules of assmuption, but I will 'assume' that one reason that Wolverine sells the cans/mounts completely core blocked with threadlocker to preclude removal of the screwed ends so they cannot be opened is to somewhat alleveiate the due dilegence associated with the risk of an individual performing just the modification suggested i.e. coring a hole thought he plastic core.
Plus the whole safety/fouling of the bullet path issue I would consider to be infinately more an issue than squabbling over wordsmithing; again... not a lawyer, just helping a fellow CGN'er keep their fingers and PAL.
A more observant person may have also picked up my apparently too subtle tutorial on how to get around the issue and an avoid having to core it out in the first place(may want to read the whole thread again).
When I enquired with the CFC I also enquired 'what if a centred sleeve was inserted on the inside of the can from barrel muzzle to can muzzle so that all of the force of the round left the end of the can (essentially making for a longer barrel and only moving the discharge about 6 inches away from the shooter)'. I was informed that even though the actual sound would not have changed, where the sound came from had changed which consituted 'altering a report' in the eyes of the CFC. The fact that I argued that a 6" longer barrel would do the exact same thing fell on deaf ears... if you can excuse the pun.
I however did get an related approval from the CFO, but it was only when I had removed the end cap completely, which I argued essentially turned the can into a flash hider. Even that almost didn't fly because this firearm was never originally designed to accept a flash hider. This did virtually the same function as the centred sleeve by focusing all of the sound out the end of the now 'Flash Hider' but I stopped trying to make sense of CFC decisions long ago. It's helpfull to have the can on when the firearm is in use as there is an rail underneath the mount for attachments, in my case an Tac light/w laser/uv filter. Sun shines on a dogs arse every once in a while I guess...
Last edited:
Daehanminkuk
Regular
- Location
- Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, ROK
1995 bill C68 legislation defined the term silencer.
Defined as: a device designed to muffle or stop the sound of a firearm as a "prohibited device" under the Criminal Code.
there is nothing else in the legislation about parts or what ever. when you have the law you must see it as it is. It takes a lawyer to interpet it.
