back to article Bond's Walther PPK goes digital: A civilized gun updated

It's the details that embellish James Bond's character: the martini, the Aston Martin, the Walther PPK. A bit of a handbag gun really ... but there's no point telling people We’re talking about an individual from a certain social background, somebody who possesses a deliberate and definite sense of choice and taste. But …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: The wife's primary pistol of choice ...

          Just go Yahoogle for Shottingham", Nottingham's nickname. The stat was from counting gun-crime incidents per thousand population in inner cities, and the worrying bit was a whole host of Western cities (London, Chicago and Detroit were also on the list) came out as more dangerous than Kabul or Baghdad! Just how much of a failure Tony Blair's knee-jerk banning of all handgun ownership was is a matter of record:

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lil51T7UIrc

          Taking handguns away from law-abiding owners was simply windrow-dressing to garner votes and make it look like New Labour was "tough on gun-crime", when the reality was hitting out at the small number of legal gun-owners cost little to do (most of us voted Tory) but had zero impact on actual gun-crime. Legally-owned and licensed handguns were used in a tiny percentage of crimes prior to the ban, and their banning was never going to make a difference to the massive number of illegal weapons wielded by people that had no intention of following laws.

          An exact analogy would be if I told you that you couldn't have a car anymore, that I was banning all privately-owned cars, simply because some criminal had brought one over from France and run someone over. Oh, but that ban would affect the majority of voters.....

          1. Martin
            FAIL

            @Matt Bryant and Nottingham

            An unconvincing article you posted there.

            Headline - Gun Crime doubles in a decade.

            Actual value - 89% from 1998/99 to 2007/08 , and "provisional figures for 2008/09 suggest overall firearm offences may be down on the previous year".

            Third paragraph - "The number of people injured or killed by a gun has also doubled under Labour." Bias or what? This is meant to be a news article, and your evidence for the failure of Blair's policies.

            Finally, a quote from the bottom of the article...

            <blockquote>

            A Home Office spokeswoman said: "It is misleading to compare figures for 2007 / 08 with those from 2002 and before, due to changes in recording practices.

            "There has been an 11 per cent fall in gun crime since 2005 and provisional figures for firearm offences recorded by the police show they account for 0.2 per cent of all recorded crime.

            </blockquote>

            So, in other words, the whole article is based on misleading statistics.

            I'm actually not arguing that taking handguns away from licensed (though not always law-abiding) owners did very little, and was window-dressing. But you're going to have to come up with better arguments than that Torygraph article - and I have still seen no evidence that Nottingham has ever been more dangerous than Kabul or Baghdad.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Pirate

              Re: @Matt Bryant and Nottingham

              "....Actual value - 89% from 1998/99 to 2007/08...." Well, not quite doubled, but the supergoshwonderful Labour gun laws were supposed to eradicate gun crime, instead it massively increased.

              ".....So, in other words, the whole article is based on misleading statistics....." Please do try and deny that guncrime went up massively AFTER Labour's stupid ban, if only for the comedy value. The only thing the ban eradicated were a lot of UK businesses that legally served the UK market, including companies like John Slough of London (http://www.johnsloughoflondon.co.uk/Antique-Arms/pages/about). Mr Slough actually had a pistol being trialed with the British Army when Blair's idiotic ban came in. Not only did the British forces have to pick a foreign weapon (the P226), sending more British taxpayers' money abroad, the taxpayers had to pay Slough compensation to put his pistol factory out of business and his employees out of work!

              "....and I have still seen no evidence that Nottingham has ever been more dangerous than Kabul or Baghdad....." OK, since I can't find the original report, let's do a little comparison of our own. Here's the link to the international homicides table, please note that Afghansitan as a whole has a murder rate of 2.4 per 100,000 population, even though it has areas which are in effect in civil war.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

              Now, open the following link to the Reform report that got everone calling Nottingham the most dangerous city in the UK back in 2008. Click through to page 22 and check the murder rate per 100,000 population - it's 3.27, higher than Afghanistan:

              http://www.reform.co.uk/client_files/www.reform.co.uk/files/urban_crime_rankings.pdf

              Please note that Nottingham also had the highest rate of crime for seven of the offences in the report. Lovely place!

    1. NogginTheNog
      Mushroom

      Re: The wife's primary pistol of choice ...

      Mr. Jake. Your country (I'm assuming you're American since you use the term 'Brits'?) was founded upon the gun. It's law is enforced through the gun. It's foreign policy is to a large extent shaped by the gun. It's people also seem to rate themselves free by their ownership of lots of guns.

      I'm happy to take your pity if that's what you feel makes your country a better place.

    2. Rusty 1
      Coat

      Re: The wife's primary pistol of choice ...

      My ex's weapon of choice was her gob. I don't know what calibre it was, but I'm damn sure there wasn't a silencer for it.

      1. perlcat
        Pint

        Re: The wife's primary pistol of choice ...

        So was mine. It went off in the morning, and went on all day long, until I sank into the blessed relief of male-pattern deafness.

  1. Graham Marsden

    "the small and rather underpowered PPK"

    "really would have been an unlikely choice for an undercover service to be issuing to its assassins"

    Really?

    An assassin doesn't want to have a face to face shoot-out with his target, he doesn't want to talk to him or make a witty comment, he wants to get the job done as quickly and safely as possible.

    The .25 Beretta would be fine for this: Walk up behind the target, a single swift shot into the back of the head which probably won't even penetrate out the front of the skull, and while anyone nearby is wondering what that "crack" sound was and why some bloke has fallen down, the assassin is walking away, job done.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: "the small and rather underpowered PPK"

      "....Walk up behind the target, a single swift shot into the back of the head which probably won't even penetrate out the front of the skull, and while anyone nearby is wondering what that "crack" sound was and why some bloke has fallen down, the assassin is walking away, job done." The standard CIA assassin's pistol during the Vietnam era was the .22 used in exactly the way described.

      An American friend assures me that the various US police forces say more people are killed by .25ACP in cheap pistols like the Raven than any other calibre. Given a few decades, the cheap and light Ket-Tec .380s may catch up, but the .25 has been killing drunks in bars since 1905.

    2. jake Silver badge

      @Graham Marsden (was: Re: "the small and rather underpowered PPK")

      Really.

      In your scenario, a dagger or stiletto would make more sense, and cause less commotion. More accurate then the toy "Bond guns", too.

    3. fajensen
      Terminator

      Re: "the small and rather underpowered PPK"

      Back when I did pistol- and rifle -shooting, it was all with deceptively small and wimpy-looking .22 rounds - however the bullets would go right through about an inch of oak planks intended to protect the fluorescent lights illuminating the targets - which one discovers because "everyone" gets bored shooting at the target and need to test if the sand will spray like it does in the westerns (It does, except much higher)!!

      These little rounds would certainly kill at close quarters and one would not really need a silencer, the sound is a very undramatic little "bang", with hardly any recoil so the assassin could even get several shots in before anyone noticed.

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Holmes

    Bond's options were limited.

    The New Service Model (more commonly known as the M1917) was a popular Lend-Lease weapon with British troops as it fired the same ammo as that other Lend-Lease favourite, the M1928 Tommy gun. In particular, the famous Paddy Mayne carried one, which explains why Flemming probably chose it as the "power" option. It was also more accessible than the rarer Colt M1911 automatic which was another favourite with the British. Unfortunately, the M1911 and M1917 are big service pistols and the idea of trying to conceal one under a dinner jacket is a bit laughable.

    As regards the PPK, again Flemming's options were limited by the British Army's preference for revolvers over automatics. The only comparable British weapon was the Webley & Scott automatics, such as the old Metropolitan Police model. Interestingly, the Webley & Scott came about for the same reasons the PPK did - plainclothes coppers needing a small pistol that could be easily concealed. The old Met Police model was also popular with the SAS and other clandestine groups in the Mid East in WW2 as it was small, reliable (more so than the PPK, even), and accurate over short ranges. Unfortunately, it wasn't "new" and didn't have the PPK's "sexy" curves.

    Just after the War there was a lot of fuss, especially from the Americans, treating German weapon designs as though they were all amazing. Some of this came from trying to explain away such events as the 1944 Ardennes Offensive when the Americans got their butts handed to them on a plate. The PPK was a good design, not brilliant, and actually less popular with British officers than captured Beretta Modello 1934 automatics, but Flemming probably also had one eye on the American market and realised the PPK sat well with the American perception of German weapons. As far as the Americans were concerned, the Italians had been a walkover, so who would want an Italian weapon like the Beretta?

    As a concealed weapon the PPK is a good choice as it is very small, thinner than the snub-nose revolvers popular in the States, and therefore much easier to hide on the person without unsightly bulges. As to the 9mm Short ammo being underpowered, this is a myth. At the ranges most pistol fights happen at, usually counted in feet, the 9mm Short is just as likely to kill an unarmoured opponent as the bigger 9mmP, and making a concealable 9mmP gun that is actually nice to shoot really is a challenge. And let's not even talk about the noise level - a .25ACP isn't exactly loud even unsilenced, but a 9mmP will get the local copper's attention.

    Indeed, even the little .25ACP round will happily punch through a car door or one inch of pine at short ranges. And that's the standard FMJ loading - specialist rounds like the Hirtenberger loading have been videoed going right through a 2x4 plank. At the same time, the little .25ACP is very easy to shoot as the recoil is very low, which means in the typical short-range engagement, a skilled shooter can quickly put four or five rounds in a target's chest with ease. One of the best ways to win an argument with those that insist the .25ACP is useless is to ask them if they want to prove it by taking one in the chest - none of the macho .45 carriers I've ever met has volunteered.

    Personally, I would have given the original Bond the Webley & Scott Met model as the concealed carry weapon, the .25ACP Beretta as an ankle gun, and then probably a .357 Magnum in the car for "distance work" (LKF - the .357 Magnum actually debuted before WW2). But, seeing as they are employing people like Jamie Wilkinson, I expect Bond's next outing will see him carrying the Desert Eagle .50......

    1. Tim Jenkins

      Re: Bond's options were limited.

      As a further reminder of just how long ago we first met him, Bond recalls being present at both the Ardennes in 1944 (while under machine-gun fire in Dr No) and Berlin in 1945 (in The Man with the Golden Gun, out-machoing Scaramanga). We also know he earned his '00' prefix (which signifies an agent who has killed in cold blood, not the 'licence to kill' invented for a film title) during the war by assassinating a German cypher expert in New York (presumably prior to Pearl Harbor) and a Norwegian double-agent. Sadly, Fleming never expanded on these incidents, which would make Bond, assuming a birth date in the early 1920s, now 90+, and one of the dwindling number of veterans of WWII (though, confusingly, of American and Russian military campaigns).

      1. Brangdon

        Re: Bond's options were limited.

        That the 00 prefix represented a licence to kill, is mentioned in the book Goldfinger, in 1956.

  4. TeeCee Gold badge
    WTF?

    Long barrelled revolver.

    Er, last time I looked, .45 ACP was an automatic round (Automatic Colt Pistol).

    A long barrelled revolver would more likely be .45 magnum, .357 magnum or .38 special[1]. The major advantage of a revolver[2] is that, having the round in the revolving magazine rather than in the grip, the length of the round is not limited by the size of the grip. Thus a longer casing for more powder and more power is possible without making the thing impossible to hold[3]. The greater effective ranges possible with the larger rounds are aided in accuracy by lengthening the barrel. There would be little reason in having a long-barreled weapon with a short load cartridge.

    [1] Of the latter two, in a long-barrelled weapon where size is not a factor, almost invariably the former. The latter round may be freely used as a substitute, as the two are identical in all but the length.

    [2] The disadvantage being that, outside of the movies, you have to reload more frequently and reloading takes longer.

    [3] .45 ACP is pretty much the limit and those with smaller hands often have a problem with such. Glock produced the .45 GAP round, which is shorter and uses "hotter" powder to compensate, for this very reason.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Long barrelled revolver.

      "..... last time I looked, .45 ACP was an automatic round...." Look again, like here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_revolver). The US couldn't make enough Colt .45 autos so asked the revolver manufacturers to chamber their products ofr .45ACP.

      1. TeeCee Gold badge
        Happy

        Re: Long barrelled revolver.

        Thank you. I suppose it had to have been done. I still reckon that if Bond were using a long-barrelled revolver it would be a long round one though and probably .357 magnum. .45 magnums are a shade too unwieldy.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Long barrelled revolver.

      Is reloading a revolver that much slower? It appears that nowadays a full load is on a "carrier" that loads all chambers simultaneously. So - open - tilt empty - load - close. An automatic is presumably unload - stash empty magazine - load - prime first round.

      Found it interesting to see that war zone automatic rifles often have two magazines held together with duct tape for a faster exchange.

      As a 1950s UK kid - our toy guns fired 100 caps in sequence. There were very expensive ones with a cap loaded in each individual bullet - nice looking but guaranteed to get you declared "dead" very quickly. Snub nosed automatics and Lugers were considered a cut above revolvers. A toy Sten gun had a mechanism as cunning as the original. The long stick "magazine" was pushed through the stock to wind up a spring - which then provided the rapid fire sound effect as it was released in bursts by the trigger.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        Re: Long barrelled revolver.

        Back to back taped magazines might work for something like the AK-47 which is unconcerned with grit in the workings, but many weapons (SA-80 before it was "improved") would jam on tiny bits of crud getting into the breech/magazine.

        One of the biggest problems with this sort of carriage is that it is also possible to bend the insertion end of the magazine so that it won't latch into the gun body, it might also unbalance the weapon somewhat.

      2. TeeCee Gold badge
        Happy

        Re: Long barrelled revolver.

        Yes it is. Getting the rounds in on an speedloader improves matters, but the automatic has a huge advantage. When empty, the slide and hammer stay back. Flick catch and mag drops out, bang in new mag and you are good to go. You don't need to fully prime the first round after reloading on an auto, just thumbing the slide release chambers the next round. In a firefight (i.e. the only time this really matters), you wouldn't bother stashing the empty mag. If you win, you get to pick it up later.

        Another consideration is that automatics recock after each round is fired. Revolvers have to be manually cocked or you suffer the inaccuracy caused by the long trigger pull against the cocking mechanism.

        Somebody who has practised a lot may well get up to auto speeds reloading a revolver using speedloads, but any idiot can reload an auto very rapidly after a mere few moments of practice. Also you still have to factor in having to reload after every six (or so) shots rather than every 10, 15 or whatever.

  5. Shakje

    But I thought everyone knew

    the P228 was a pea shooter?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I thought he used a .38 spl in Dr No

    I could be wrong. I am getting old and its been decades since I read the book (or saw the movie for that matter)....

  7. jason 7
    Happy

    I love the iconic pic of Connery......

    ....holding a long barrelled gun.

    Nice to know its a iirc a Ruger .22 target pistol, as that's all they could get their hands on during the photo session.

    Even less super spy as firearms go. Still in the right hands......

    Lucky it wasn't a Gat airpistol.

    1. Ron Christian

      Re: I love the iconic pic of Connery......

      Colt Woodsman, I do believe.

      1. jason 7

        Re: I love the iconic pic of Connery......

        Nope not a woodsman, if you compare. Very close though.

        http://media.theiapolis.com/d8-i28-k9-l1Z/sean-connery-james-bond.html

        http://www.coltautos.com/woodsmans/Woodsmanci.htm

  8. Not_The_Droids
    Black Helicopters

    How times change

    Seeing all this US vs UK gun argument...

    I'm currently reading Churchill's book series on WWII (fascinating read, I'm on book 4 of 6). Seems that in the late 1930s / early 1940s, GB was begging for every firearm they could get their hands on, because of the seemingly imminent German invasion (which, fortunately, never happened, because of the Air Force superiority). Part of me wonders - what happened to those millions of firearms that were shipped to GB in the 1940s and distributed to protect against invasion? Were they collected up? (I somehow doubt the answer is in book 6.)

    Black helicopters, because we have plenty of those around here too...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How times change

      I don't have a source, but I don't beleive many of them we actually distrubuted. Apparently providing about 30 different calibres to random locations around the country was a bit much for the ministry of supply.

      Presumably however, the weapons would only have been issued to the home guard, so collecting them again would be simplicity itself. Just issue the unit with new enfields and collect the old rifles from the armoury. As for what happened to those enfields however, quite a lot are still in place in the armouries of the old home guard drill halls in the L59 varient for use by the Air/Army Cadet forces.

  9. No, I will not fix your computer

    The gun is irrelevant

    While it may be iconic, the point is that Bond is Bond, Bond is not the gun or the gadget, he is skillful, resilient, dedicated, unfearing, unyealding (chairs with the seat cut out come to mind), he'll kill with a uranium rod, a bathroom sink or a missile, to kill someone with a "practical" weapon is somehow a bit rude, very unbritish, the PPK is just one of the slightly impractical weapons, giving the bad guys a chance, his distain for gadgets is exactly the same, only used when absolutely required, literally life or death (or undoing ladies clothing), "he" wants to beat the bad guys, he doesn't want the tech to.

  10. Jay Holmes

    I would argue that pistols are not long range weapons so are in fact pointless for anything further than 50 metres (and this is classed as long range!)

    Therefore the PPK is perfect for what Bond and indeed a lot of undercover operatives need. It is easily concealed and due to its size easily stabilised for firing giving you more accuracy.

    Lets face it a 9mm to the heart will kill someone just as easily as a .45 or .50

    Having fired several pistols including Desert Eagles, Berettas, Brownings and various revolvers I must admit I do like the PPK it is compact and accurate and after a day on the range you can walk away and still pick up a pint quite happily.

  11. Dropper

    Nothing wrong but..

    I don't really care what pistol James Bond uses.. as someone mentioned it only runs out of ammo when running out of ammo adds drama to a scene.. but didn't it get upgraded to the more modern and several times more powerful Walther P-90 sometime during the Brosnan era?

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Meanwhile back in the real world

    Here's a personal experience which may shed some light on the case for private firearms ownership. I used to own some rental properties in a dodgy part of town, and I had to collect the rents myself. The rents were paid in cash because most of my tenants didn't have checking accounts.

    I have a legal concealed weapons carry permit, and carried a .32 cal PPKS. In nickel. Pretty little thing, nicely made, fits my hand well.

    The comments about it being underpowered and prone to jamming are absolutely true. It is very finicky about the flavor of ammunition it is fed, and while it makes a ferocious noise when fired, the rounds often do not penetrate through an empty cardboard oil can. It is really the wrong gun to be considered a defensive firearm, but it is what I had at the time.

    Anyway, some random dirtbag decided he needed my rent receipts more than I did, and advanced on me with a short length of pipe. I pulled the Walther and aimed it at him, holding it in the best two-handed "I mean business" style.

    He did not stop to reflect that the PPKS was a "lady's gun".

    He did not stop to reflect that the PPKS is seriously underpowered as a combat weapon.

    He did not stop to reflect that the PPKS is prone to jamming.

    He did not stop to reflect that I didn't have the safety off! (And I didn't even realize it!)

    All he knew was this mofo'er had a GUN pointed directly at HIM and was going to shoot him RIGHT NOW.

    Fortunately, he quickly decided to find someone else to rob, preferably someone without a firearm, and decamped forthwith. Very forthwith.

    I don't know who was more scared, him or me, but afterward, I still had the rent money. So here's a case where availability of a firearm prevented a crime.

    I now carry a larger caliber revolver which doesn't have a safety, and will fire with a trigger pull. I've also sharpened up my technique and keep in practice because there are no guarantees the next guy will be smart enough to cut and run like the first (and so far only) guy.

    Pistol fights happen with very little advance warning (the assailants rely on surprise) and at close ranges. There isn't time to call the police, nor could they possibly arrive on time even if you were able to call them. If you have to arm yourself, carry the largest caliber weapon you can comfortably conceal and control, and keep it simple because if you have to use it, you need it NOW, not after 15 minutes of fiddling with it to get it to "armed" status. The best defense is to simply avoid situations where you might conceivably need a firearm in the first place, but sometimes you might not have that option.

    1. Danny 14

      Re: Meanwhile back in the real world

      I use a different technique, its called insurance. If I get mugged with the "works" money then it gets replaced. That way I dont need a gun, I just hand over the money and file a police report.

      The next guy you get jumped by might also have a gun. If I get jumped by someone im probably more likely to live by just handing over the money.

    2. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Re: Meanwhile back in the real world

      " I didn't have the safety off! (And I didn't even realize it!)"

      "I now carry a larger caliber revolver which doesn't have a safety, and will fire with a trigger pull."

      Well done for having the nuts to pull your gun, but the can you understand why the two above statements taken from your post is quite worrying?

      I love to shoot guns, but I'm glad I live in a society where it isn't the norm.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Meanwhile back in the real world

        Yes, after I calmed down and thought about the encounter, I realized the several things I had done wrong (including getting into that situation in the first place) and my lack of skill and practice in gun handling. Fortunately for me, just showing the weapon and appearing to be willing to use it was sufficient, but I realized then and realize now that luck is not a reliable strategy. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong weapon, and with inadequate preparation and training. The other guy was even worse off since he simply decided to take a chance that his random would-be victim wouldn't be prepared at all, and that chance didn't pan out for him. Consequently, I "won".

        Being somewhat older (and hopefully a little wiser) now, I consciously try to not place myself in situations where weapons might be required in the first place - don't carry a lot of cash, don't wear flash and bling, don't traverse bad neighborhoods at night, all the usual precautions. However, I have also changed my weapon for something that is more likely to be useful and effective if the poop does hit the fan anyway, and I have trained and practiced with it so that I have a better idea of what I'm doing (and including the responsibilities and consequences of firing a lethal weapon at a human being).

    3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Meanwhile back in the real world

      I think your post actually highlights very well why carrying a gun is a very bad idea for an average person, especially where you say "I don't know who was more scared, him or me".

      I would think that shooting at another human being, even some lowlife mugger, must be a life-changing experience for any decent, non-psychopathic, person. You'll be frightened, nervous, and you'll almost certainly hesitate. If the lowlife facing you also has a gun, and knows that he's already in deep shit, it's very likely that he'll recover (or panic) first. You're dead.

      There's a reason why they train soldiers to aim for "the target", to "take out" "the enemy", it's to stop them thinking of their assailant as a living person, just react and shoot. They can throw up all they like afterwards. I doubt if an average person would want to be trained to that mechanical a level, I certainly wouldn't. If my family were threatened I like to think I'd react well, even bare-handed, but faced with an armed mugger who just wanted my money I seriously doubt if I would be able to take the conscious decision to kill him before he shot me, and I think I'm a better person for that. YMMV.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Meanwhile back in the real world

        I agree completely - it WAS a life-changing experience for me, and I didn't even shoot him! Unfortunately, I suspect that it was not a life-changing situation for him, it was more like simply an occupational hazard of being a mugger. The entire situation puts responsible, civil people at a disadvantage - we do NOT desire to harm anyone, but the mugger is quite willing to, and is prepared to do this in order to achieve his goal. He couldn't care less about us, he wants his daily fix (or whatever) and anyone who stands between him and his goal stands a good chance of getting hurt or even killed whether they resist or not. Lack of resistance is NOT a guarantee that you won't be harmed. Remember, you may not be dealing with a rational person.

        Even a non-rational person will pause if there is a gun stuck in their face. That's what I want - I want him to go away, quickly, and be done with him. I have no desire to shoot him, I am not Dirty Harry or Rambo, and I firmly believe the best weapon is one you never need to use. I want to be able to project a credible threat, and I hope that ends the confrontation right there - but if it does not, I want to be able to follow through with it - I don't know if I can, and I really, really hope I never find out, but I'd rather be prepared just in case.

    4. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Meanwhile back in the real world

      Or you could have used a replica.

      The problem with pointing a gun at someone is you have to be prepared to use it.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon

        Re: Meanwhile back in the real world

        "Or you could have used a replica."

        To be honest if I was in a position where I felt I needed to produce a gun to get me out of it, I surely would want the fucking thing to work, otherwise you'd be just as well off getting your willy out and waving it in their face.

        To the OP: Glad you recognised your lack of experience with the weapon and sought training, but I don't think it's mandatory to have a psych test or even be competent to use a firearm to own one in the US. So whilst you may now have more skills and confidence (and thus are probably less likely to need to fire it in anger) there are going to be a million more tits out there without a clue packing a gun.

        I have no problem with responsible people owning weapons. I don't even like my wife using my BSA Scorpio T-10 (.177 airgun for reference) ffs because she doesn't observe proper gun sense. She can't see why I go nuts when she starts pointing it at things (me, the dog) etc. even when I *know* it isn't loaded or charged etc.

  13. Ken 2

    .45 ACP lacks sufficient penetrating power?

    Your comment that .45 ACP does not penetrate well is curious. The .45 ACP in +P chambering is more than sufficient to penetrate standard outer-wear and human bodies, though it is not as powerful as .357 magnum or .38 Super. It is not good at penetrating hard cover such as vehicle bodies or walls though, nor against body armor. However, 9 mm is also not very good at penetrating modern body armor, though it is much better than .45 ACP at penetrating hard cover. Against soft targets (i.e. a human body) the edge is to .45 ACP in terms of tissue damage. The question, when shooting people, is not so much penetration as it is stopping power. Since both cartridges propel the bullet sufficiently well into soft tissue, the greater sectional density of the .45 cal bullet gives it a bit of an edge over a 9 mm bullet.

    This ballistics chart may be useful for you: http://www.ballistics101.com/45_acp.php

    The main reason that .45 ACP handguns are not common issue weapons is that they are typically bulkier than pistols chambering the 9 mm and the recoil from a .45 is such that smaller people have difficulty shooting them accurately, particularly for follow-up shots.

    Otherwise an informative and good read about Bond's movie weapons.

    1. Dana W

      Re: .45 ACP lacks sufficient penetrating power?

      I carry mine with +p ammo hollow points, The Glock 36 shows a .45 can conceal well, but I admit the small grip makes control something you have to learn. And its an odd duck, even the holster is special order.

  14. Dana W

    Choices.

    I carried a stainless PPK for ages. I liked it, but I had a hard time finding a rig that concealed it well.

    I traded it black in for a Glock 36, much easier to conceal and I prefer the .45 round to the relatively small .380 for stopping power.

    It is my sincere hope to never shoot anyone, but as they teach you in class, if you have to drop an assailant you want to drop them first hit.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Choices.

      "I carried a stainless PPK for ages....." Poser! :P "..... a Glock 36..." Oooh, a poser with money! But only six rounds in the 36? And a Glock.... well, it always felt a bit unsavoury, like I was shooting the equivalent of a BMW 3-series saloon. And Bond should drive an Aston Martin, not a BMW (we'll try and forget the BMW sponsored cars in the Brosnan movies). The problem with more modern guns is they all look rather ugly compared to the sleek little PPK. I suppose a purpose-designed close-quarters pistol like the Rohrbaugh R9S might do, with a grip extension like the old Walther PP's, if I can only work out how to pronounce it!

      1. Not_The_Droids
        Coat

        Re: Choices.

        I agree, Glocks are ugly guns, but my 27 is about the biggest gun my smallish frame can conceal. I lust after an elegantly machined full sized 1911 in .45 cal, but think "what practicality is it? I can't carry that monster.". My G27 isn't anything I want to show off (like said 1911 would be)... but for cost, reliability, simplicity, weight, and available aftermarket accessories... it's hard to beat an ugly Glock.

        I had a PPK at one time (traded it away)... it tended to jam a lot, but that may have been the ammo I was feeding it.

        1. Local G
          WTF?

          Re: Choices.

          "but that may have been the ammo I was feeding it"

          When I bought my PPK, I also bought 90 grain slugs. After some target practice I got a rush of testosterone, so I bought 92 grain ammo. The PPK jammed on the first shot so I went back to 88 grain just to be on the safe side.

          After all, you don't need a powerful bullet when you're standing over your wife's lover in bed with your wife.

  15. unwarranted triumphalism
    FAIL

    Look everyone

    The gun nuts have come out to play.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Look everyone

      Makes a nice change from banging on about phones.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Re: Look everyone

        And it's a Lewis article that doesn't mention Apocalyptic Global Warming! Oh crud, that will set the Greenpeckers off.

    2. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Mushroom

      Re: Look everyone

      "The gun nuts have come out to play."

      It's an article about guns. What exactly were you expecting Mr Unwarranted, sausages?

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  16. Local G
    Facepalm

    "The Walther Polizei Pistole Kriminal (PPK)"

    Really?

    All these years I thought I had a Walther Polizeipistole Kurz. (PPK). You learn something every day here at el reg. Kurz means short in German. As in " die kunst ist lang und kurz unser leben." (Goethe).

    I've have had mine for 40 years and haven't had to use it once.

    Although once there was a huge street party in the Southern California town I lived in and, minding my own business, I was menaced by a out-of-town gang. I went home, strapped my shoulder holster under my arm pit, put on a jacket and went back. The gang saw the bulge in the back of my jacket and was gone in less than 10 minutes. I had no idea the ppk was sticking out and could could have arrested for carrying a loaded gun.

    Phew.

This topic is closed for new posts.