Tag Archives: firearm review

November 9, 2016 · 5:35 am

Firing Review — The stainless Colt M1991A1 .38 Super +P


Colt M1991A1 .38 Super +P

Colt M1991A1 .38 Super +P

You may recall that I gave a first-look review of this intriguing weapon and caliber before.  I had no intentions of firing that weapon, and still don’t as it’s a pre-bankruptcy example of the venerable Colt M1911 design in a somewhat rare caliber.

p1060130

What’s in the box

Fortunately I satisfied my itch to try the M1911 in .38 Super +P by acquiring a second copy.  As with the first copy, this one is also a Model 1991A1 in stainless, and outwardly it’s identical.  The only difference appears to be the included magazines, as the firing example came with rubberized footings screwed onto the bottoms.  See below for a comparison:

Rubberized footing on magazines

Rubberized footing on magazines

Previous magazine footplate

Previous magazine footplate

So, finally, I got around to firing this incredible combination — the classic Colt M1911 chambered in the powerfully exquisite .38 Super +P cartridge.  For an explanation on how this combination came about in 1929, and a brief history on the .38 Super +P cartridge, read my first-look review by clicking on the link below.  I’m sure you’ll find it both informative and entertaining.

The Prancing Horse

The Prancing Horse

Being the M1991A1, today’s Colt has the  Series 80 trigger.  For an explanation on that and a comparison with the Series 70 trigger go to these links:

Starboard view

Starboard view

And since I’ve covered the trigger on the Colt M1911 in those past articles, I won’t cover that again here today except to say that it’s what you’d expect from the M1911 design.  In a word — Superb.

Slide locked back

Slide locked back

As I’ve stated previously in the above articles, the Colt M1911 was originally designed around the .45 ACP cartridge.  Only in 1929 — when law enforcement had trouble going up against Depression-era desperados in thick steel-bodied cars and wearing body armor impervious to the .45 — did Colt get around to putting a bit more oomph through the Colt M1911.  That resulted in what is basically the forerunner to the Magnum load — the .38 Super +P, which would for six years reign as the most powerful handgun cartridge until the advent of the .357 Magnum revolver in 1935.  The .38 Super +P still beats the .40 SW, and even compares favorably with most commercial loads of the .357 SIG.

Slide forward

Slide forward

Considering the increased muzzle energy and higher velocity of the lighter .38 Super +P round, one would expect more recoil over an M1911 chambered in .45 ACP.  In actual practice it turns out just the opposite.  M1911 recoil with the much slower, quite heavy .45 ACP is very controllable, but it does have a “push” to it that gives some muzzle rise.  I refer to this recoil as a “push” because that’s the best way to describe what you feel.  If you read my article on firing the .45 ACP M1991A1 at the link below, you’ll find this description:

“In my opinion the 9mm has a sharper, quicker recoil whereas the .45 ACP imparts a steady, even, thrust-like reaction.  Recoil management is thus easy to accomplish and target reacquisition is very quick.”

Cocked and locked

Cocked and locked

If anything, the .38 Super +P feels more like the recoil one experiences when firing a standard locked-breech 9mm Parabellum when shot from a SIG P229.  The recoil impulse feels quicker than with an M1911 firing a .45 ACP, but the muzzle rise seems less and reacquisition on target is about the same.  There is one difference, however.  That’s in muzzle flash.  I shot this M1991A1 .38 Super at an indoor range with somewhat dim lighting.  The flash was . . . impressive.  Not .357 Magnum-out-of-a-two-inch-barrel impressive, but you’ll definitely notice a flash coming out of the muzzle.

Port view

Port view

My impressions after firing the .38 Super +P is that this is probably my new favorite handgun shooting round, and the M1991A1 in stainless is now my new favorite hiking piece except in brown bear country.  For that I’ll rely upon bear spray and shop around for something even more powerful as a backup to the spray, perhaps a Smith & Wesson .500 revolver with ported barrel.

Colt M1991A1 .38 Super +P in stainless — A real winner

Colt M1991A1 .38 Super +P in stainless — A real winner

Yep, the Colt M1991A1 is simply that fun to shoot.  This is also an incredibly accurate combination in an very controllable package.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms, R. Doug Wicker

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

November 7, 2016 · 5:35 am

Shooting a Pair of Cheetahs — Comparing the Beretta 84FS and 85FS


These Cheetahs travel in packs of two

These Cheetahs travel in packs of two

Next week I’ll return to travel and photography with a series on West Coast cruising to San Francisco, California; Astoria, Oregon; and Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia.  This week, however, will solely feature firearms.  So, sorry, travel and photography fans, but I owe a bunch of people some promised gun articles.

A sampling of the included goodies

A sampling of the included goodies

Today, I shoot a pair of Cheetahs.  Relax, wildlife fans.  I’m talking about the Beretta series 80 Cheetah pistols, which include the Cheetah models 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 87 Target, and 89.  If you’re wondering about those designations, here’s a breakdown:

  • Model 81: .32 ACP/7.65mm with 12-round, double-stack magazine and wide grip
  • Model 82: .32 ACP/7.65mm with 9-round, single-stack magazine and thin grip
  • Model 83: .380 ACP/9mm kurz with 7-round, single-stack magazine, and longer 4-inch/102mm barrel
  • Model 84: .380 ACP/9mm kurz with 13-round, double-stack magazine
  • Model 85: .380 ACP/9mm kurz with 8-round, single-stack magazine
  • Model 86: .380 ACP/9mm kurz with 8-round magazine; differs from other Cheetahs in that it has longer 4.37-inch/111mm barrel, and a unique tipping barrel that allows a round to be dropped directly into the chamber rather than necessitating a load from the magazine
  • Model 87: .22 LR with 10-round magazine
  • Model 87 Target: .22 LR with one of the longest barrels in the Cheetah line at 5.91 inches/150mm
  • Model 89: .22 LR with 8-round magazine; this is the competition model of the Cheetah series; it has the longest barrel at 5.98 inches/152mm and weighs in at a rather hefty 41 ounces/1,160 grams.
85FS on left; 84FS on right

85FS on left; 84FS on right

All Cheetahs are blowback operation.  The current .32 ACP and .380 ACP pistols are all FS versions.  FS pistols have a squared “combat” style trigger guard, a manual safety that also serves to decock the hammer, a chromed barrel and chamber, a firing pin safety, a magazine safety, and a very tough proprietary “Bruniton” finish on the steel slide mounted over a lightweight alloy frame.

Magaines — 9-round vs. 13-round

Magaines — 8-round vs. 13-round

The models I’m reviewing today are an 84FS double-stack and an 85FS single stack, both in .380 ACP/9mm kurz.  Both models come standard with dual, ambidextrous safety/decock levers.  Specifications are:

Beretta 84FS:

  • Length: 6.77 inches/172mm
  • Width (see text): 1.37 inches/35mm
  • Width (at grip): 1.37 inches/35mm
  • Height: 4.8 inches/122mm
  • Weight (with empty magazine): 23.3 ounces/660 grams
  • Barrel: 3.82 inches/97mm
  • Capacity: 13+1

Beretta 85FS:

  • Length: 6.77 inches/172mm
  • Width (see text): 1.37 inches/35mm
  • Width (at grip): 1.18 inches/30mm
  • Height: 4.8 inches/122mm
  • Weight (with empty magazine): 21.9 ounces/620 grams
  • Barrel: 3.82 inches/97mm
  • Capacity: 8+1
Right profile view

Right profile view

Both the 84FS and 85FS are still available from Beretta, but you must watch carefully for them.  Beretta quit importing them a few years ago, and only recently started reimporting them in small, limited-run batches.  I had acquired the 84FS back in late 2012 when it appeared they would be leaving the market permanently, and just recently snagged the 85FS in early October when the latest batch hit the market.  Indeed, you will find neither listed on the U.S. Beretta website.  Here locally the street price was in the $730-$738 range for both.  Grabagun.com shows online prices at just over $660.

Left profile view

Left profile view

Shooting Cheetahs:  I had previously fired the 84FS and was not impressed with my accuracy, especially compared to how well I fire the Walther PPK and PPK/S (link:  PPK review).  But there were a couple of saving graces in favor of the 84FS over the .380 ACP PPK/S — the recoil was much more manageable, allowing for quicker reacquisition of the target; the 84FS gave me a whopping six-round advantage over the PPK/S.  Nevertheless, I found myself going back to the PPK/S for carry, on the rare occasions when my trusty P99c AS was too bulky (link:  P99c AS review), despite the unpleasantness of the recoil.  The 84FS just feels too bulky, which it is because of the width of the grip, and I just didn’t shoot is as well.

Disassembled Cheetah

Disassembled Cheetah

I didn’t expect to do appreciably better with the 85FS, but I was wrong.  In direct, back-to-back firings alternating between the 84FS and 85FS the latter had it all over the former in accuracy.  I found this astounding.  I would not have thought going into this comparison that a grip width only .19 inches/5mm would make that much difference, but apparently it does with me.

Grip width comparison — 84FS vs 85FS

Grip width comparison — 84FS vs 85FS

And whereas the PPK/S is an absolute beast when it comes recoil, neither Cheetah exhibits this behavior.  Indeed, both recoil with about the same lack of drama one gets when firing a locked breech 9mm Parabellum.  Both Cheetahs lose on this front however in comparison to the milder recoil of the .32 ACP/7.65mm PPK, which is the caliber for which the PP-series was originally designed.

Grip width comparison — 84FS vs 85FS

Grip width comparison — 84FS vs 85FS

Now a word about concealability.  As I hinted earlier, the 84FS offers no real advantage in this area over the higher powered 9mm Parabellum, 10+1 rounds offered in the P99c, and four additional rounds of lower energy ammunition just isn’t worth the trade-off.  The 85FS may change my mind, however.  True, both the 84FS and 85FS are technically 1.37 inches/35mm wide, but that’s deceiving.  That width is measured at the widest point, which just happens to be those ambidextrous safety/decock levers, which are negligible in size and this add no real bulk in actual concealment.  It’s the grip width that is the failing in this area for the 84FS, and the 85FS addresses that problem very well indeed.  The grip width of the 9+1 capacity 85FS is 1.18 inches/30mm.  This compares to an overall width of 1.26 inches/32mm on the P99c, and a miniscule .98 inches/25mm on the PPK/S.

85FS versus . . .

85FS versus . . .

. . . 84FS

. . . 84FS

For a minor .2-inch penalty in width I gain two additional rounds in the 85FS in a package that better handles recoil and which aims just as intuitively as the PPK/S.  Not a bad trade-off indeed.  And while the numbers would seem to dramatically favor the PPK/S in concealment, side-by-side comparisons show it doesn’t really have that great an advantage as you can see below.

Two .380 ACP Classics — Beretta 85FS and Walther PPK/S

Two .380 ACP Classics — Beretta 85FS and Walther PPK/S

Like the Walther PPK/S, the Cheetah has a double-action/single-action trigger.  Single-action is a tad lighter on the PPK/S, and reset is shorter.  Double-action is a different story.  The Cheetah is both lighter and smoother in this area.

Here are some additional comparison views of the 85FS against the PPK/S:

Height comparison 85FS vs. PPK/S

Height comparison 85FS vs. PPK/S

Length comparison 85FS vs. PPK/S

Length comparison 85FS vs. PPK/S

2 Comments

Filed under Firearms, R. Doug Wicker

Tagged as , , , ,

October 14, 2016 · 5:35 am

Comparing M1 Carbines — The new Inland vs. the 3rd Generation Universal


Today we compare the new Inland Manufacturing M1 Carbine:

Inland M1 Carbine with oiler and sling (both sent free after registration)

Inland M1 Carbine with oiler and sling

to the third generation M1 Carbine produced by Universal Firearms:

Universal M1 Carbine — 3rd Generation

Universal M1 Carbine — 3rd Generation

The new Inland M1 Carbine (discussed on Wednesday’s blog article) is a true copy of the original M1 Carbines manufactured during World War II.  Indeed, all parts going into Inland Manufacturing’s new iteration are compatible with U.S.G.I. (U.S. Government Issue) examples made by Winchester, the original Inland division of General Motors, Rock-Ola, IBM, and others.  After the war many returning servicemen longed for M1 Carbines for their own, as the rifle was lightweight, suitable for hunting medium-sized game, and easy to shoot with remarkably light recoil.  And so it was that surplus M1 Carbines were released by the government onto the civilian market, but demand eventually outstripped supply.  At this point various civilian manufacturers stepped forward to fill the void, most often using leftover parts to assemble new M1 Carbines, or to refurbish older ones.  These companies included Bullseye Gun Works; ERMA; Global Arms; H&S; HOWA (Japan); Johnston-Tucker Arms; Millville Ordnance; National Ordnance, Plainfield Machine; Rowen, Becker Company; Steelville Manufacturing, Tiroler Sportwaffenfabrik und Apparatenbau (Austria), Tri-State Tool & Die; William’s Gun Sight Company; and, of course, Universal Firearms.

Universal M1 Carbine with metal handguard

Universal M1 Carbine with non-U.S.G.I. metal handguard

Universal began producing their Universal M1 Carbine using surplus parts, but as supplies dried up they began manufacturing in-house.  Unfortunately, in-house means increased cost.  Universal thus redesigned the basic M1 Carbine to cut manufacturing cost, resulting in a reduction in quality, reliability, and according to some, safety.

Inland with U.S.G.I.-style wood handguard

Inland with U.S.G.I.-style wood handguard

An abject lesson for the uneducated gun collector: Stick with what you know, and research what you don’t.  I’ve always wanted an M1 Carbine, so when I found the Universal 3rd Generation pictured here at what I thought was a good price, I snatched it up.  Yes, it was a good price . . . for a U.S.G.I. original.  For a Universal it was not.  After I took it home and began researching M1 Carbines, I found that the 3rd generation Universals bore little in common with the original design, and even far less in quality and reliability.

Universal M1 Carbine front sight lacks protective "ears"

Universal M1 Carbine front sight lacks protective “ears”

There are of course the little things, such as the use of a metal handguard rather than the more expensive wood piece of the original.  Then there’s the front sight, which lacks the protective “ears” characteristic of military weaponry of the era.

Inland front sight protective "ears"

Inland front sight protective “ears”

This is not to say that the M1 Carbine design was perfect straight out of the starting gate.  There was room for improvement.  For instance, the original design had a push-button safety.

Inland with original push-button safety disengaged

Inland with original push-button safety

Soldiers in the field hated it, because in the heat of battle it was too easily mistaken for the nearby magazine release.  In a firefight it’s just considered bad form to drop you fully loaded magazine onto French soil when you’re supposed to be firing your weapon.  Pretty embarrassing, actually.

Inland push-button safety (depressed) next to the magazine release button

Inland push-button safety (depressed) next to the magazine release button

Later M1 Carbines substituted this push-button with a flip-lever, and this is the design incorporated on the Universal.

Universal flip safety

Universal flip safety

Other changes really don’t make any sense, at least to this manufacturing novice, and one would think some changes would actually increase manufacturing costs.  One example is the slide lock.  On the U.S.G.I. this is a simple push-button mounted atop the slide.

Inland push-button slide lock

Inland push-button slide lock

Universal decided to replace this simple, effective, and cheap system of locking back the slide with a lever mounted behind the slide directly onto the receiver.

Universal M1 Carbine lever-type slide lock; also pictured are the slotted slide and bolt lug

Rotating bolt, bolt lug, and slotted slide from a Universal M1 Carbine

Other cost-cutting measures seem too trivial to have warranted implementation.  Take for instance the slide at the point were it mates up with the lug on the rotating bolt.  On the U.S.G.I M1 Carbine this is a solid piece.  Universal thinned out this area, which resulted in a slotted slide wherein the connection to the bolt lug is clearly visible.  You can see this slotted slide-and-bolt lug configuration above, and here below is the Inland with it’s true-to-the-original slide:

U.S.G.I. button-type slide lock

U.S.G.I. solid slide

Some parts appear relatively unchanged.  The U.S.G.I. had a rear sight that was fully adjustable for both elevation and windage.

Inland fully adjustable rear sight

Inland fully adjustable rear sight

This is one feature retained on the later versions of the Universals.

Rotating bolt, bolt lug, and slotted slide from a Universal M1 Carbine

Universal adjustable rear sight

As for the wood furniture, the Universal example pictured here has a relatively shiny finish, as you can see in the closeup image below of the forestock and Type-2 barrel band/sling swivel:

Universal M1 Carbine barrel band and sling swivel

Universal M1 Carbine barrel band and sling swivel

The new Inland Manufacturing, however, pride themselves on not only retaining the matte finish, but even matching the wood grain and the stain of the original to duplicate as close as possible the look of the guns that came out of the old Inland division.  Even the U.S. Armory Ordnance cartouche is replicated on the stock.

Inland M1 Carbine with oiler and sling (both sent free after registration)

Inland stock duplicating the original Inland’s grain patterns and stain.

One last difference that I find particularly unnecessary and even galling, and I don’t even know if this was original to the Universal or if this change was made by a previous owner.  That would be the screw used to tighten the barrel band around the handguard and the forestock.  On this copy the screw is a hex-head, which is something one would never find on a combat weapon as it makes disassembly and cleaning dependent upon a tool that would normally not be available to the soldier, or otherwise easily lost.

Universal M1 Carbine Type-2 barrel band with hex-head screw

Universal M1 Carbine Type-2 barrel band with hex-head screw

The U.S.G.I. barrel band was tightened into place with a flat-head, which could easily be turned using anything from a coin to the lip of a spent cartridge.  Below is an image of this barrel band screw on a barrel band that has been loosened and moved forward in preparing to remove the handguard.

Flat-head screw on barrel band

Flat-head screw on a loosened barrel band

To my gun followers, I hope you’ve enjoyed this week’s look at two very different versions of the .30 M1 Carbine.

As for my travel friends, starting next week I’ll be presenting a closer-to-home road trip into an area of New Mexico I’ve not yet presented — the area around Silver City, into the Gila National Forest, and along the famous Cat Walk.  Also in that upcoming series we’re going to review a charming hole-in-the-wall gourmet restaurant with a twist — not only must you make reservations in advance, you just also go online at least a day in advance to peruse the chef’s ever-changing daily menu and place your order at that time.

Until then, have a great weekend.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms, Photography, R. Doug Wicker

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,