Lively discussion to follow...

BC Mike said:
My only comment about safety is that safety begins and ends with the shooter and his/her religious adherence to ACTS & PROVE. Anything past that is like Ford vs Chevy in a safety test. And again I don't understand the obsession with concealability in Canada. How about a comment on that?
Click to expand...

ACTS and PROVE are poorly thought out government crap. The four fundamental rules of firearms handling are all that is required. Full stop.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=319462

Concealed carry like many other activities is illegal in Canada...ON PAPER!!! It does not mean people don't do it. Oh right, like criminals and some regular folk as well. Laws are only advisory statements indicating what penalty one could face should they commit said offence AND get caught. If laws prevented crimes there would be no need for police.


TDC
 
TDC said:
ACTS and PROVE are poorly thought out government crap. The four fundamental rules of firearms handling are all that is required. Full stop.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=319462

Concealed carry like many other activities is illegal in Canada...ON PAPER!!! It does not mean people don't do it. Oh right, like criminals and some regular folk as well. Laws are only advisory statements indicating what penalty one could face should they commit said offence AND get caught. If laws prevented crimes there would be no need for police.


TDC
Click to expand...

Ok but you get my drift. Use common sense and don't depend on "safeties", right?
 
BC Mike said:
Ok but you get my drift. Use common sense and don't depend on "safeties", right?
Click to expand...

Right. Mechanical safeties are the insurance policy when you lose control of the firearm(drop it). When you have positive control of the firearm the soft stuff between your ears should be used.

TDC
 
TDC said:
ACTS and PROVE are poorly thought out government crap. The four fundamental rules of firearms handling are all that is required. Full stop.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=319462
TDC
Click to expand...


The only difference between ACTS and the 'four fundamental rules of firearms handling' is the fourth point.

Whereas in ACTS, the fourth point is "See that the firearm is unloaded - PROVE it safe."; the fourth rule is "Be sure of your target and beyond."

Otherwise the first three are the same. The wording is just a bit different.
 
I think everyone here is missing the best part of the P7M13. Hans Gruber used one as his pistol in Die Hard. He has the special version without a threaded barrel that can still accept a suppressor.

DH-P7M13-1.jpg


I can't speak for the P7M13 but the P7 PSP is a fantastic pistol.

Apparently the P7M13 model doesn't work in freefall though:

DH-P7M13-3.jpg
 
Mike Oxlong said:
The only difference between ACTS and the 'four fundamental rules of firearms handling' is the fourth point.

Whereas in ACTS, the fourth point is "See that the firearm is unloaded - PROVE it safe."; the fourth rule is "Be sure of your target and beyond."

Otherwise the first three are the same. The wording is just a bit different.
Click to expand...

The wording is very different and the PROVE acronym is useless. There is no such thing as an unloaded firearm, therefore you cannot prove it safe. Only four rules are needed, the rest is fluff.

TDC
 
The P7M13 doesn't look as sleek as the P7M8...look carefully the grip is longer than on the P7M8.

I have 3 P7M8's and a box full of spare parts to keep them running. Some observations.

1: Very accurate, however due to the depth of the grip I don't get as fine trigger control as I would like...I prefer first finger crease vs. finger pad contact and the P7 forces me to use finger pad contact.
2: Very reliable. Every pistol I've ever owned...including a Glock... has had break in failures within the first 500 rounds of so. Then they become very reliable. Only the HK P7M8 and the HK P2000 have been flawless with no failures.
3. Very slim and compact, more comfortable in a holster.
4. A PITA to clean, tons of tiny nooks and crannies, gets dirty as hell...the gas piston system makes it kind of like a AR. It's also a PITA to detail strip, unlike the 1911 or more modern plastic guns. Lots of US guys use ultrasonic cleaners for their P7.
5. Fast to draw and shoot.
6. For me anyway, I shoot the P2000 (5lb LEM) a little better as the P2000 with the small grip fits my hand a little tighter and I get the 'power crease' contact of my first finger joint onto the trigger. Of course I figure this out after buying the P7's and all the spare parts....:rolleyes:
7. Nice gun to shoot on cold days, no gloves needed!
8. They look very nice when hard chromed.

Basically they're a neat gun technologically speaking but they are high maintenance. Due to money spent on parts I'll keep mine...I typically sell a gun once I find one that fits my hand better and shoots more efficiently.
 
TDC said:
The wording is very different and the PROVE acronym is useless. There is no such thing as an unloaded firearm, therefore you cannot prove it safe. Only four rules are needed, the rest is fluff.

TDC
Click to expand...

Your capacity for arrogance has no limit! :rolleyes:
 
Dynamite Monkey said:
I think everyone here is missing the best part of the P7M13. Hans Gruber used one as his pistol in Die Hard. He has the special version without a threaded barrel that can still accept a suppressor.

DH-P7M13-1.jpg


That's pretty funny. I also like how he's got it pointed god knows where with finger on the trigger and eyes straight ahead
Click to expand...
 
BKP99 said:
The P7M13 doesn't look as sleek as the P7M8...look carefully the grip is longer than on the P7M8.

I have 3 P7M8's and a box full of spare parts to keep them running. Some observations.

1: Very accurate, however due to the depth of the grip I don't get as fine trigger control as I would like...I prefer first finger crease vs. finger pad contact and the P7 forces me to use finger pad contact.
2: Very reliable. Every pistol I've ever owned...including a Glock... has had break in failures within the first 500 rounds of so. Then they become very reliable. Only the HK P7M8 and the HK P2000 have been flawless with no failures.
3. Very slim and compact, more comfortable in a holster.
4. A PITA to clean, tons of tiny nooks and crannies, gets dirty as hell...the gas piston system makes it kind of like a AR. It's also a PITA to detail strip, unlike the 1911 or more modern plastic guns. Lots of US guys use ultrasonic cleaners for their P7.
5. Fast to draw and shoot.
6. For me anyway, I shoot the P2000 (5lb LEM) a little better as the P2000 with the small grip fits my hand a little tighter and I get the 'power crease' contact of my first finger joint onto the trigger. Of course I figure this out after buying the P7's and all the spare parts....:rolleyes:
7. Nice gun to shoot on cold days, no gloves needed!
8. They look very nice when hard chromed.

Basically they're a neat gun technologically speaking but they are high maintenance. Due to money spent on parts I'll keep mine...I typically sell a gun once I find one that fits my hand better and shoots more efficiently.
Click to expand...

Good report - thanks,
Mike
 
I'm slipping here - I have to agree with TDC. Right after you 'prove' any gun is unloaded is when it becomes dangerous, and when somebody will get shot by it. If ALL guns are ALWAYS loaded nobody would ever be shot 'accidently' we'd never have to hear that bleeting bullsh*t on TV about how "I didn't know it was loaded" or "I unloaded it but it went off" or any of those other excuses for pointing a gun at something you weren't willing to destroy. It's simple really, if they're always ready to go in your head, you'll never get complacent, ACTS and PROVE were created in a condescending effort to make firearms safety so easy even a liberal could do it. The original 4 had been around for so long, but no, we needed a NEW, CANADIAN developed way to safely handle firearms, a way that would revolutionize the safe handling of firearms, and that all other gun banning countries could follow - who thought this sh*t up, Pierre Turdeau?? or the NFB? The original 4 cover everything that's necessary, no need to tart them up with extraneous bullsh*t.
 
nairbg said:
1. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
2. They are likely the smallest Canadian-legal pistols - if concealment is your deal.
3. They shoot like a laser.
4. Their safety system is almost idiot-proof.... (highly skilled idiots not withstanding)
Click to expand...


you just perfectly described the $99 Norc M213s
 
The Tok is much easier to conceal than a prohib 4" revolver, if they (real toks) had a safety they'd be good to go, but it is kind of nice handling a pistol with no safety - it reinforces good safety practices.
 
eigenvector said:
To each his own. Small guns aren't my thing but there are many who swear by the P7M8, so I figure it must have something going for it.
Click to expand...


X2. I have never handled a P7M8, but would love to sometime. Those who like them, really like them.

I think Glocks are beauty queens compared to these HK's.
 
Jeff/1911 said:
X2. I have never handled a P7M8, but would love to sometime. Those who like them, really like them.

I think Glocks are beauty queens compared to these HK's.
Click to expand...

Really? The P7 reminds me of a bulldog or a pug with its short snout. I think the overall clean look is quite similar to Glocks.

TDC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom