Image taken from Colion Noir's apparel page. I swear this is the last I will use that term but this final time I will put it into context. As someone who at one point was accused of such a level of obsession with firearms as to have "made out" with one perhaps I should not play into a sexual strawman connotation any further. It seemed at the time as strong a term as any to indicate how I had been taken fancy by certain things to the point that my rational thought process was not 100% in control, but so long as that is kept from prevailing in the end it is still OK, right?
Yet ironically the thought process I had when writing those previous posts has had a fruition of sorts just this past month...actually make that 2. The initial wave of excitement comes, sometimes I must hold off altogether for a while until I stop (figuratively, of course) drooling over the news, I start conducting some research from those who had time to test claims being made about this hot new thing and that is usually the point my mind cools off and I turn rational again. I tell you, that approach has served me quite well through life (particularly now as a frugal family man) because of how well it preempts impulse-buying.
This post is to evaluate those two pieces of firearms news that caught my interest and follow-up on other points addressed before. This is current as of the end of January 2022 and there are no plans to update or edit which is something not typically done with posts on this blog anyway except for some correction of factual errors. First is a follow-up on an older piece of news.
Springfield SA-35 Decision Point
The 2022 SHOT Show occurred this month as well as its requisite introduction of new products, some of which had already released (such as the SA-35) and others which were only leaked news about. One big point of irony is FN themselves reintroducing a product-improved High Power (yes, that is its official new name) but the original maker's branding puts the price at a bigger premium than the competition which includes Springfield. About all setting the FN model apart is availability of finish choices and design for a 17-round magazine over the more conventional 15 (or classic 13).
If this new one had been double-action/single-action it could have been a Type II Tactical contender but it remains the standard single-action only which would relegate it to a Classic, and I have concluded that for my purposes 9x19mm Parabellum is not a suitable caliber for Classic except strictly as a supplement in a caliber conversion capability. It is not like this has not been achieved numerous times before: CZ75 and Tanfoglio Witness are essentially Hi-Power clones, plus no less than Browning USA achieved likewise in the 1990s with their BDM and its derivatives: all of the above are double-actions. While there is viable market for such a thing I need more reason to part with that much money than just nostalgia.
A short while ago while weighing these considerations I came across this report. Not only are my Type II Tactical bases already well-covered with my SIG Sauer P226 (which I will write about someday), but it is clear enough that if I wanted 9x19mm covered in that realm I could take the more cost-effective route of just getting an upper half (such as that of a Navy MK25) thanks to P226's design in being able to swap calibers with a simple switch of components and be left with no loss in either accuracy or velocity for it. I love it when the less-expensive choice turns out better all-around!
New Caliber
Under a significant deal of justifiable criticism for rolling out such an endeavor during an ammo shortage Federal has plunged into the murky new caliber waters once again, this time with an autoloading variant of their previous effort .327 Magnum. Also worthy of criticism is the awkward name they chose for it: .30 Super Carry. Finally, there is the questionable matter of how it is being promoted as a "filler" of the gap that supposedly-exists between .380 ACP and 9x19mm.
It does not match the power of .327 Magnum in any manner like 9x19mm meets .357 Magnum, though .30 SC does at least achieve parity with .32 H&R Magnum while offering all the autoloading advantages thereof, chiefly greater capacity and better concealability. I find myself in a conundrum now because for months I had been considering a .32 revolver, not for myself but for my wife. As mentioned before, .327 Magnum is too much for snub use but with a decent loading .32 Magnum shoots about as powerful as .38 Special +P but a lower recoil and profile making it easier to handle. The big issue with .32 Magnum right now is it is difficult to find available for purchase at all, leading some commentators to speculate it is about to become one of those calibers that became quaint be reaching the end of its mainstream market life.
However this is not being marketed as .32 equivalent even though it technically is. Count me as among those questioning not just the awkward-sounding name but the reasoning behind it because with a .312 diameter bullet this not-actually-.30 caliber is more a Magnum/Super version of .32 ACP. This is another conundrum: not quite "Super" because the case is far longer than that of .32 however "Magnum" is not used for autoloader calibers even though it would be fitting due to the longer case. To top off that issue at least one significant commentator (not sure if Federal themselves) referred to it as like a .380 magnum which is even less correct because those are two totally different calibers.
Finally, and this is where rubber meets the road, is what it offers that is useful. Testing by Ian McCollum verifies felt recoil of .30 SC is equivalent to, not lower than, 9x19 which leaves greater magazine capacity as its sole redeeming factor. How valuable a factor that is depends on the platform, and right now none chambering the new cartridge look real promising on that front. Still, this is something new that has not been through its market trials yet, so hopefully it is a matter of time until something better does turn up. On that note...
New Type I Tactical Candidate
I have yet to acquire a handgun fitting this category, and much of the reason why (besides pricing in this crunch we are still not out of) is how all available options are too much of a compromise. I realized soon enough there was no such thing as a single-action/double-action metal-framed double-stack magazine model made new today in the US unless I were willing to ditch aesthetics and price considerations with a SIG Sauer P365 in Icarus Precision's prominently-branded alloy grip...and I am not because if I sacrificed that much from my wish list it would be too much to also go without a manual hammer. I considered the SIG Sauer P938 and Kimber Micro 9 for a while but research verified the 1911 design is still not bug-free with the semi-tapered casing of the 9mm Parabellum except in double-stack form, again too much of a sacrifice considering neither is a double-action. Kimber's EVO SP with its lighter double-action trigger was looking like the happiest available medium even though it lacked single-action and was still single-stack, clearly something meant to be a competitor to the Glock 43 rather than the P365.
Then this month came news of the latest of Smith & Wesson's Chief's Special legacy they call CSX (no, not the railroad carrier). While S&W is no stranger to the concealed carry 9mm realm this new model is unusual in that it is the first all-metal non-1911 they have crafted in decades. While the Kimber EVO SP is the all-metal alternative to the Glock 43, the CSX is likewise to SIG's P365.
Since I am averse to both polymer frames and striker mechanisms I welcome the CSX concept with open arms, but execution is a different matter. It is single-action only and I could live with that however such a trigger should be smooth and this one, as covered in the Nutnfancy review, is rough and "needs work." At 12 rounds of 9mm Parabellum and adaptable grip this may make for a great Type I Tactical if it could work like other handguns created with "special ops" in mind.
For that I would want a better trigger, and double-action on the first shot would be nice but not that big a necessity. The CSX is very new, will go through its paces, and some are already speculating customer feedback will result in an improved model down the line. In fact, since Smith & Wesson was involved in the development of both, what I may consider a real winner would be a CSX in that new .30 Super Carry caliber for 15 rounds in the magazine (though 14 would be acceptable if 15 proves infeasible).
I will be patient and wait to see if such a combination manifests in the coming months. Exciting days are ahead for those of us who enjoy guns and I know I personally appreciate how companies are adapting to the interests of us customers instead of trying to direct what our interests should be. Well, maybe .30 SC will prove otherwise as filling a gap that never actually existed, but if I was not clear enough before I still see a place for it even if not quite what Federal's marketing says it is meant for; time will tell if that is the case.
Comments