Walther PPQ/P99 Q CO2 pistol: Part 1

by B.B. Pelletier


The new Walther PPQ/P99 CO2 pistol looks like the other CP99s, but it’s very different.

Today, we’ll begin our look at Walther’s P99 Q CO2 pistol. This is an Umarex pistol, and they’re one of the best-known names as far as realistic airguns are concerned. Their CP99 has long been a favorite of air pistol shooters, just as the P99 has been popular with European law enforcement agencies and, of course, James Bond. But the P99 Q adds something new to the mix. Because, besides shooting 8 pellets, it’s also a BB pistol that can hold and shoot 8 BBs just as easily.


The silver clip holds pellets, and the black plastic clip holds BBs. The owner’s manual states that you load the BBs from the side of the ratchets. This is incorrect, and Umarex is reprinting their manuals. Pyramyd Air’s product page also cites this correction to the manual.

The secret
The clips are the secret to the P99 Q’s operation. The pellet clip is a standard Umarex metal clip that fits inside the gun at the midpoint on the slide. But the BB clip is a black plastic clip that uses three raised plastic ribs inside each BB chamber to hold the steel BBs in place before the shot. The barrel is, indeed, rifled, so pellet accuracy should be good; but they designed this gun to shoot steel BBs, too, so you need not worry about damaging the barrel with them. Naturally, I’ll test accuracy with both types of ammunition.

DAO
The trigger is double-action only, which is pretty realistic because more and more law enforcement agencies are choosing it over single-action guns for the extra safety it affords. With DAO, the trigger is harder to pull and must be pulled intentionally, while a single-action trigger is light and can result in accidents if the shooter isn’t safety conscious at all times. As far as accuracy goes, Mac shot football-sized dirt clods at 50 yards yesterday with my Micro Desert Eagle .380 ACP which is not only DAO but also has a barrel length under three inches. So, if the trigger is good, the pistol can still be accurate.

Ergonomics
This is a plastic pistol all over. Even the outside of the slide is plastic. So, the feel is warm, it’s lightweight and the finish is even. You will have to decide whether you like it or not, but the overall weight is reduced to just 1.37 lbs.

The pistol is mostly ambidextrous, except that the safety lever is only on the right side. In a strange twist of fate, left-handed shooters will have an easier time than righties. The thumb of the left hand goes right to the safety lever.

The grip is the most modern type of two-hand grip with a scalloped triggerguard for the left hand to grasp. There are subtle finger grooves on the front of the grip frame for the shooting hand. The overall grip has a very form-fitted feel, like a modern Luger.

Power and shot count
The rated velocity is 360 f.p.s. and there’s no blowback, so I would estimate an easy 80 shots per CO2 cartridge. I’ll test for that during the accuracy test, of course.

Sights
The rear sight is adjustable for windage only. It’s a huge notch that surrounds the square front post with plenty of room on all sides. It’s a tactical sight with one yellow dot in front and two in the back; but with proper range lighting, the dots can be made to diminish, if not disappear completely. Do that when you want precision sighting.

CO2 compartment
This pistol has a different kind of CO2 compartment. By swinging down what would be the magazine floorplate, the rear of the pistol grip kicks out and opens to reveal the CO2 compartment. This is the first time I’ve see one like this.


This is the first time I’ve seen a CO2 compartment open like this.

Price
I can’t review this pistol without commenting on the price, for this is a P99 that costs way less than half what a traditional CP99 costs, and it’s even less than a CP99 Compact, the BB pistol version of the gun. Yet, this one shoots both pellets and BBs. So, it’s a great value that puts the comments about the use of plastic into context. Now, if it turns out to also be a great shooter, Umarex will have a world-beater on their hands.

59 thoughts on “Walther PPQ/P99 Q CO2 pistol: Part 1

  1. Looking forward to how it shoots, including accuracy from both the pellets and the BBs (I know…not likely with BBs, eh?). But mostly I want to know if the trigger is smooth and light enough to allow at least good accuracy with the pellets. Thanks, B.B.



      • Yes, please talk about the trigger. I love my CPSport in my Walther Nighthawk, and my only difficulty is the trigger. Sometimes for reasons that I can’t quite figure out, it chafes my trigger finger very badly. And at its best, that long double action pull is not ideal. Great accurate gun otherwise though.

        Matt61


  2. BB,

    Is this a cousin to the Walter CPSport? Looks very similar but the CPS did not have a magazine for bb’s.

    The one I had featured a very stiff DAO trigger pull. Hence real accuracy was difficult at best. At 25′ it was about “minute of soda pop can”.



    • I also had the CPS Sport and found the trigger, though heavy to be quite predictable and at least fairly smooth. At 10m it was easy (I found) to unload a mag of 8 shots fairly quickly and keep them in a 2″ circle. I’d say a bit better than minute of pop can…but in the real world no ones really using the ‘big brothers’ of these to punch out 10’s in a 10m ISSF target anyhoo.
      Really…minute of pop can means you can put all your shots into the vital organs of the bad guy, right πŸ˜‰
      Before Christmas I purchased the Colt. I actually find that I use the single action far less than I thought I would. I don’t find it that much more accurate (maybe I’m just used to heavy triggers) and it seems to me (and it very well could be my imagination as I don’t have a chrony) that it shoots with less power on single action.



    • Chris,

      If the rifling is correctly designed, steel BBs won’t hurt it too much. Manufacturers have been doing it (pellets and BBs in the same rifled barrel) since the 1960s.

      B.B.


  3. Is James Bond using a P99 now? I lose track. For awhile, his gun of choice was the Walther PPK. (I just learned that this is the pistol that Hitler used to commit suicide with which was also the very same pistol his niece used to kill herself many years previously, an act which was supposed to have a significant effect on changing Hitler for the worse.) And in earlier versions, Bond was even using a Beretta. I believe that the P99 is a common police pistol in Europe but it doesn’t seem to have caught on here. Incidentally, it is ironic that the most recent Bond, Daniel Craig, is the toughest looking but he personally doesn’t drive manual shifts or like guns–“I don’t do gears or guns,” he says. Certainly works out though. As the villain said in Casino Royale, “You take good care of your body, Mr. Bond. What a waste.”

    Victor, yes, I originally had an exaggerated hip extension for standing but have gotten away from that. For kneeling, the elbow on knee sounds like a bad idea; I’ve heard that you want surfaces meeting not points. My sitting position has my forearm against the inside of my thigh but is probably illegal.

    Mike, you’re probably right. I have an active imagination but not quite active enough to reproduce the experience of a shot. And there is also the history of those rifles. Watching WWI videos on YouTube, I’m newly astonished. There’s a reason why they called it The Great War. I’m not in a position to say but I would bet that of all the horrible fighting environments in the 20th century or even throughout history whether it is Stalingrad or Iwo Jima or the Chosin Reservoir that the Western Front of WWI would be hard to top. As one of the British war poets wrote: “I died in hell/They called it Passchendaele.” Makes me want to buy an Enfield rifle. In the meantime, though, I am gaining a new appreciation of the sensation of shooting springers. That pop and jump against the shoulder and the shot on target (with the aid of the artillery hold) is like magic. I first thought of springers as a cheaper and simpler alternative to pcps, but now I like them for their own sake.

    Herb and Pete, now we come to it! So a human being can be described as a statistical phenomenon, how interesting. (By the way, I’ve heard that the path of a drunk person follows the pattern of Brownian motion which, for those not familiar with it, is the random motion of molecules. Won’t pass a breathalyzer test that way….) However, if your curve deviates from the classic normal distribution does that mean you are deviating from the assumptions behind the central limit theorem and that the validity of this model is undercut? Sure you can use statistical methods to describe your skewed distribution and even with logarithmic transformations and other techniques massage it into a normal distribution but I wonder if that has the same force. Does a 95 percent confidence interval on a badly skewed distribution count the same as for a standard normal curve? As a related question on non-ideal statistics, I know that there are statistical methods for dealing with sample sizes less than 30–the student’s T test and such. (I met a statistician who scoffed at the n=30 threshold as the stuff of introductory courses.) But surely the T test is not as good as 30+ data points. If that’s true, is it possible to say how much quality you lose as you go below 30? Anyway, the larger point here is that once you start deviating from results that look like the ideal normal curve, could it be that you are receding from the assumptions behind the statistical model so that even though the calculations can be precise, they are no longer as accurate (to use our other terminology)…

    Herb, regarding the measurement of x and y deflection, all the studies I’ve looked at including those from the Army’s Aberdeen proving ground assume a radial distribution with x and y equal. If x and y are unequal in a significant way doesn’t that prove that there is some systematic and non-random factor operating here which undercuts the value of statistical methods?

    Rikib, regarding your quote about searching hard through the universe for someone to love and not finding anyone better than yourself, I’m reminded of the words of a psychologist in describing Christie Brinkley’s ex-husband who ran around on her with an underage model: a narcissist with a bottomless ego. He he. Just kidding. I do see your point and it is a good one.

    Matt61


    • If the x and y distributions are unequal, but each is gaussian (or skewed gaussian or Poisson, etc) and X and Y can be related to one another by a simple scale factor there shouldn’t be any problem. But it’s easy to see why in offhand shooting they need not be equal. X-dispersion could come from pushing or pulling the trigger to right or left; Y-dispersion from front-back wobble. Both pretty random, but different sized standard deviations.

      Brownian motion is a simpler stochastic process than drunkard’s walk. See Wikipedia for a pretty garbled explanation.

      pete



    • Matt61,
      It’s really only the kneeling position that has this point-to-point potential contact, I think. In any case, shooting jackets do have nice long, no slip, rubber pads, for that surface-to-surface contact that you describe. The hip extension thing didn’t felt right for me, so I never really gave it much consideration. Sitting was my least favorite position. Looking back, I should have shot the sitting part of a 4 position match, using the kneeling position. I could be wrong, but I think you are allowed to substitute a “harder” position for an “easier” one, and most people find the kneeling to be harder than the sitting.
      Victor


  4. RE: X and Y deflection

    First the easiest assumptions are:
    (1) X and Y deflection are independent
    (2) X and Y deflections are equal
    (3) The X and Y deflections are normally distributed about some mean point of impact.

    You can reformulated different models using other assumptions. You then use the statistics appropriate to your model.

    There are different statistics that come into play even with the above assumptions. For instance I could:
    (A) Treat the X and Y deflections separately for each shot. So I calculate an average X and average Y. THen for each shot I get a X and a Y deflection. I also calculate a std dev for X and a std dev for Y.

    (B) Since I assumed that X and Y deflections are equal I can measure the RMS distance from the average (X,Y) POI to where each shot hit. (Think hypotenuse of a right triangle). That “pools” the errors in X and Y into one pool instead of two. The distribution of the RMS distance isn’t generally denoted with +/- but generally handled as a positive quantity. It would have a distribution more shaped like a Chi-squared distribution than a normal distribution.

    (C) I could measure group size, which is another way to pool X and Y deflection. Although group size is a valid model, it is a very unusual method and is not typically included in statistical tables. So it is very hard to find good tables of the function.

    – – – –

    On a different note, let’s assume that I had a PCP. A shot string will vary in power due to the changes in the reservoir pressure. I assume three conditions as noted above, with a twist. I want to test the assumption that variance of the vertical deflection is no larger than variance of the horizontal deflection. Here I’m assuming that if there is excessive velocity variation, then I will see vertical stringing. So I’d use a F test to compare the ratio of the vertical variance divided by the horizontal variance.

    So a mathematical model can be created for just about anything that you want to test. The standard technique is to explicitly state you assumptions, then build the model around those assumptions. If one of the assumptions later proves to be invalid, then you develop a different model incorporating the correction, or you somehow work around it.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    For instance the normal distribution isn’t the only statistical distribution. There are probably hundreds of statistical distributions that have been created. Truthfully a normal distribution is traditional used in situations when it is known not to be be true because it is good enough. In other words it would be practically impossible to get enough data to show that the data wasn’t normally distributed.

    – – – – – – – –
    RE: Applicability of the normal distribution

    For instance let’s just look at horizontal deflection of shots. It would be a good assumption that the errors in horizontal deflection would be normally distributed. But a normal distribution goes infinitely to the left and infinitely to the right. Let’s assume that the standard deviation of the horizontal deflection is 1 inch. We can easily calculate the probability of a shot landing between 35 and 36 inches to the left. Or we can calculate the probability that a shot will land between 1 and 1.1 miles to the left. Obviously no pellet gun is going to shoot more than 1 mile to the left so the distribution of shots can’t TRULY be a normal distribution. Here I’m weighing a physically impossibility against a statistical improbability. So a normal distribution is good enough even though it isn’t the truth.

    Like the line from few good men “You can’t handle the truth.” If we don’t assume a normal distribution then we left without any toehold to tackle the problem. In other words, the difference between the true error distribution and the normal distribution would be so small that I’d wear the rifle out before I would get enough data to invalidate the normal model.

    If we did invalidate the normal model, then we’d simply pick a slightly modified distribution and assume that that was the proper model. As we got more data we could move to a third distribution and so on. So it isn’t that the situation is hopeless, it is just about how important is it to know the exact distribution?

    – – – – –

    To go off on this in a different direction. a 95% confidence interval is typically used in scientific investigations. If the true distribution is within about 1% of a normal distribution, then it won’t change the conclusion of the experiment. So “good enough” is the key rather than “perfect.”

    Hope this helps instead of just confusing the situation…
    Herb


    • They don’t make those 12-bull targets in 25yard size, do they? Shooting 10m target at 25 yards may be difficult with iron sights, but passable with a 4+X scope (a 3X would make them appear as they would at 10m)…

      Properly doing this experiment/test is going to be rather tedious as I envision recording the following data:

      ShooterID
      Type of hold (hard gun rest, sandbags, hand on sandbag, bipod, etc.)
      Position of support (just in front of trigger, mid way on fore-end, near the tip of the foreend)
      Left or Right handed

      Rifle maker
      Rifle model
      Type of propulsion system (spring, CO2, PCP, “Nitro Piston”)
      Caliber

      Pellet maker
      Pellet model
      Pellet style: wadcutter, domed, flat hollow point, domed hollow point, pointed, cylinder
      Mass mode: Random (as found in tin), Measured/sorted for match
      Mass: Nominal package value for “random”, actual measured value for sorted
      Head mode: Random, Measured
      Head size: Nominal package value, actual measured
      Lubrication: As is from tin, hand oiled

      Shot/target number (explained later)
      Velocity
      Vertical deviation
      Horizontal deviation

      Shooting procedure: Using a 12 bull target. First a three shot group at upper sight-in bull; adjust sights to center of group; verify with three shot group on lower sight-in bull.

      Then, from upper left, going clockwise, ONE SHOT at each bull; recording target position, velocity and V/H deviations.

      Will use a thick pad of these targets as one sheet is used per 10-shot “group” (plus 6 sight-in shots).

      Now, with a large stack of these data sets…
      A good statistics program should be able to produce plots correlating group size (computed from individual deviations), any bias based on target position, position deviation by velocity, group size vs fore-end support position, group size vs pellet type, etc. (In effect, one could plot any pair of parameters — shooterID vs vertical spread, say).

      Determining which combinations are significant would be part of the analysis needed — it may turn out that one can remove the target position as the angular changes to sight around the sheet have an insignificant effect… Or it may discovered that shooters tend to have a bias toward the center of the sheet regardless which of the edge bulls is shot at.


      • Must be time for lunch

        “””
        Determining which combinations are significant would be part of the analysis needed β€” it may turn out that one can remove the target position as the angular changes to sight around the sheet have an insignificant effect… Or it may discovered that shooters tend to have a bias toward the center of the sheet regardless which of the edge bulls is shot at.
        “””



        • Almost all shooters develop a bit of a bias towards one or another region of a multi-bull target. It’s why major matches are always shot on a single bull, frequently one shot per bull if the shooters are good enough.


          • pete,

            You said:
            “Almost all shooters develop a bit of a bias towards one or another region of a multi-bull target…”

            I have first hand experience to support this statement. In the Airgunarena 10m rifle bench-rest matches I shoot a 30 bull target. The bottom row is usually the worst. Especially if I have done very well in the previous 5 rows.

            -Chuck


      • Totally agree with you notions….

        However there are some practical considerations. For instance:

        * I don’t have any friends close by who shoot pellet guns. So it would be hard to test my RWS 34 with 10 different shooters.

        * I have a lot of different kinds of pellets, but not even 10% of all the types that are currently being sold. Much less all the types that were sold. I have a list of over a thousand different types of 0.177 pellets. Pictures of tins for most lifted from the internet too.

        * The other point that I’d make is that it is more work to do a multi-variable experimental plan than varying a single factor at a time type experimental plan.
        _ _ _ _ _ _

        So I grab my RWS 34, set up my targets and shoot two different types of pellets. Rifle is same, same shooter, I tried to use same hold, it is the same scope and so on. The major difference is just the pellets. As I said, this gives me a bench mark of sorts.

        – – – – –

        So all in all I think the better approach would be to help a shooter establish a benchmark against which he could test variations.

        This sort of approach does have a limitation in that factors can interact in ways that a single factor at a time doesn’t detect. For example I test to determine the best pellet, and say find out that RWS Hobby pellets are the best out to 10 meters. I test the Hobby pellet lubed and un-lubed and un-lubed is as good. So I start to shoot un-lubed RWS Hobby as the benchmark.

        However it may be that lubed CP’s shoot better than un-lubed RWS Hobby pellets. But I never tested lubed CP’s because I only tested one factor at a time.

        If you do the multi-factor testing there are ways to try to minimize the number of variables to consider. However looking for interactions between factors does simply requires a lot more work.


        • My idea wasn’t that every possible combination be produced by every person…

          With enough scattered participants doing a number of combinations and all the results submitted into one massive statistical data set there might be enough samples of various treatments to reveal things that seem to have a significant effect vs “wasted effort”. A second round could then be for each shooter to focus on just the significant processes. EG: Sorting hobby grade pellets by mass may produce a significant result, but sorting match grades may prove senseless…

          Heh… For all I know, such a study might show that lubricating pellets results in a drop in final velocity; if the pellet starts moving down the barrel before peak pressure is reached, it may then leave said barrel with less overall acceleration applied to it… OR it could be that the reduction in frictions means a smoother level acceleration/pressure instead of a hard kick in the skirts with degrading pressure curve once motion begins.

          Ah… A new factor to account for — barrel length: maybe lubed pellets work better in long barrels where this (hypothetical) flat pressure curve gets more time to act, but in a short pistol one needs the high initial kick to make best use of the available pressure before the pellet exits the barrel.

          {NOTE: I’m not volunteering to do the number crunching — while I do have a version of “R” installed at home, along with two or three textbooks on using that statistics program, I don’t have the experience to formulate/evaluate the test results; nor the time to enter the data collected}


        • Herb,
          We are still talking about the GAT test here, aren’t we? Your pellet-lubing scenerio is correct except I think the GAT test is whether a GIVEN pellet acts differently if lubbed or not. Not if lubbed pellet A acts differently than lubbed (or un-lubbed) pellet B. Although it would be nice to know since it brings up a good question. I definitely would want to know if lubbing has ever caused any pellet to perform worse.
          -Chuck


    • Have to assume normal distribution until you have data to show it doesn’t work. For a perfect shooter it ought to work, as it should (must?) for a bench-rest PCP because that’s how the Great Statistician decreed that inanimate things disperse.

      And anyway, as Herb said, it’s good enough.

      I’m really unhappy with pooling data to a single value: radius from the center (whether of target or group) from X and Y data since that distribution has to be zero at the center. The area element for those who care is RdR and at the center R is zero.

      I apologize to those who are getting sick of endless chatter about distributions and gaussians and so on, but you have to understand that’s what some of us who are fascinated by the extraordinary accuracy of precision air guns get off on. But wait a few days and we’ll surely be talked out. BB started this with the Great Accuracy Test notion, and all of us piled on to figure out how it might actually work.
      d
      pete


      • I personnaly like the stuff (the parts I’m actually “getting” anyways) but you guys are making me realise that my english is actually a lot worse than I tought it was…
        Then again I’m not sure I would get more of it if it was in french.
        I should ask a family member who’s crazy about statistics and studied it for a long time to come read this, maybe he’d get a different point of view of airguns and guns in general.

        J-F



  5. RE: n=30 threshold

    Yes it is stuff for “simple” treatments, but it doesn’t make it totally invalid. The n=30 threshold is simply a convenient place to drive a stake in the ground to use as a benchmark.

    Less samples means the fudge factor built into the T distribution is larger.

    For larger samples the experimentally determined mean and standard deviation are very close to the “true” mean and standard deviation known to the oracle on high for the distribution under measurement.

    – – – – –

    There was a project method called 6-sigma that was in vogue a few years back. With 6-sigma you’re trying to drive the error rate to near 1 in a million times. In this case the n=30 wouldn’t probably be good enough.

    Regards,
    Herb


    • Herb,
      FWI, Caterpillar, Inc started using 6-Sigma about 15 yeasr ago and is still using it. When we started 6-Sigma, Cat was a $10 billion company. Within a very few years it was a $30 billion company. Today Cat is expecting 2011 sales and revenues to reach $50 billion. Hard to say how much is due to 6-Sigma but they are still using it.
      -Chuck


  6. Again, you can model and test practically anything.

    – – – –

    RE: One-armed Statistician

    I think it was President Harry Truman who wanted to hire a one-armed statistician so that the statistician couldn’t say “On the other hand…”

    LOL,
    Herb


  7. Hello BB, I am curious, where is this pistol made. I have two Walther Co2 pistols. One was built in Japan and the other in Germany. Both of them are well made and work great. Thanks! Toby


  8. Anyone,

    I have a question regarding general care of an air-gun. If wiping the metal surface shows a little bit of rust, is there anything wrong with wiping it down with WD-40, or would you recommend something else.

    Thanks,
    Victor



    • WD-40 is what you use after you’ve brought it in from the hunting session in the rain…

      The history of the name is “Water Displacement, 40th formulation”. It took the company 40 attempts to come up with a sprayable fluid that could displace water from surfaces (plain oil just floats away).

      After it’s moved the water away, some other compound may be better for long term coating… BreakFree CLP (or have they dropped the “Cleans, Lubes, Protects” abbreviation?), or even something like RWS spring oil (probably not the chamber oil, however).



    • Thanks guys!

      I use to use WD-40 in the way that some of you prescribed, namely, after shooting in the rain at Camp Perry. I’m no gunsmith, but it definitely took care of my rifles. They never rusted. I’ll see where I can find some of these other products mentioned.

      Thanks again,
      Victor



    • Fred PRoNJ,
      He should be, and he should be back. There are no hard feelings towards him by anyone here. Like family, stuff happens, but nothing needs to be permanent. Organizations, companies, or any kind groups, really, go through phases of a life-cycle, and one of those phases includes little fall-outs. If you make it past that phase, then you’re made it past the hard part.
      Victor




        • I hoped that the insanity would die down after a couple days, but it has gotten progressively worse. There is no need to make this whole thing so overly complicated that nearly everybody will say to hell with it.
          I stopped visiting a different website because I got tired of scrolling through miles of grandstanding posts by just one individual. He even talked to himself to bring terribly long threads that he started back to the top of the forum.

          I can put up with a lot, but there will come a time that I draw the line. It’s getting close.

          twotalon






              • Edith
                Some of the technical stuff sounds to me like pure bologna,or somone trying to impress someone with pure B. S.
                I will continue to read Tom’s excellent reviews.
                Loren


                • Loren,

                  I just ignore the stuff I’m not interested it. I scan each comment to see if there’s anything I’d like to read or comment on & then move on if there’s not. Don’t understand why others don’t do that. I assumed they did!

                  Edith


                  • Ditto here, Edith. I was just giving Herb, Pete and Victor a little “ribbing”. They obviously love to debate statistics and probabilities but I had that class 40 years ago and never really fell passionately for it. With my minimal recall from that class, the discussions between these guys is well beyond me now but they’re enjoying themselves and I have my scrolling wheel on my mouse.

                    Fred PRoNJ


                • Totally agree! But like fredPRoNJ said that is what the scroll wheel is meant for. I know mine is getting a lot of work-out lately πŸ™‚ with some people patting their backs so hard you’d think they wouldn’t have time to post πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

                  rikib πŸ™‚


    • Fred PRoNJ,
      Actually, I wasn’t really adding hardly anything to all the discussion about statistics and probability. Regarding B.B.’s accuracy tests, I think that my requirements are the most relaxed in the group. I say, if I see a 10 shot group, and 1 or 2 are outside of the group, then in my mind, that 1 or 2 shots are human error, and don’t tell me much for the purpose of B.B.’s experiment. In my limited experience, springers are hard enough to shoot that even a good shot will blow a shot or two, if trying to produce the tightest groups that they can. About the only thing that I said is that I would treat that 1 or 2 shots as “outliers”, but I wasn’t about to explain how I would go about determining why they were outliers.
      Victor


  9. I was weight sorting Crosman Premier heavy .177 pellets(boxed) today…..just to see how the other half lives.I found it odd,but out of nearly 100 pellets (my aprox. attention span) there were about 45
    that weighed 10.5 gr.,about 35 at 10.3 gr,a few weighed 10.6…..but not one pellet at 10.4 gr!
    I will run them for “effect” in a AA S410 at 50 yards tomorrow if the weather holds.This is tedius stuff
    that will NOT become my new thing.I will say that the S410 is everything Wacky Wayne ever claimed.
    Even a dolt like me can shoot well.


  10. I know I need to get my taxes done TODAY, but found these quotes to share, enjoy: πŸ™‚

    As the leader of twelve apostles, even Jesus had more executive experience than Obama.
    Ann Coulter

    Being noticed can be a burden. Jesus got himself crucified because he got himself noticed. So I disappear a lot.
    Bob Dylan

    rikib πŸ™‚


  11. I take issue with this line in the article:

    “With DAO, the trigger is harder to pull and must be pulled intentionally, while a single-action trigger is light and can result in accidents if the shooter isn’t safety conscious at all times.”

    It’s nit-picky, but EVERY firearm WILL result in negligent discharges if the shooter isn’t safety conscious at all times. This is true regardless of how hard the trigger is to pull.


    • derekb,
      You are correct! The wording should have included words such as “less likely” or “more likely”. Either trigger is susceptible to accidental discharge. I would say the DAO trigger is so much less likely to cause accidental discharge than the SA trigger. I also want to say that the revolver is so much safer than a DAO pistol in this regard, but I admit I don’t know this first hand and would enjoy some enlightening on the subject.
      -Chuck




Leave a Reply