ravensword227
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
I hear the .45 ACP is made out of compressed American flags.
.45 caliber handguns
I hear the .45 ACP is made out of compressed American flags.
The Desert Eagle uses .50AE (Action Express), which is a less powerful .50. S&W .500 is currently most powerful hand gun.
Something like the .50BMG (same width, longer) which the Barrets use are very different. But if you are interested in large caliber.... How about 20mm?
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/ntw20_1.jpg
That's funny
The Desert Eagle may be large caliber but the H&K MK23 kicks it's ass anyday. And that's not just my HK bias speaking.
ravensword227
Active member
Kinection said:
The Desert Eagle and H&K MK23 are both IMO, ridiculously overpriced and overrated. They both have design problems.
The Desert Eagle, being a gas operated autoloader, has a gas tube that is necessary to cycle the action, but this is an almost impossible to clean gas tube. Lead or molly coated bullets are out of the question, and carbon will build up over time anyhow. Also, if you limp wrist the pistol, the brass will likely stovepipe causing a jam.
Any H&K product imported to America is ridiculously overpriced @ over $1500-$2500 for a freaking pistol. The MK23 is in particular not much different than the myriad of other polymer frame pistols. If you’re a fan of such a thing, Glock, Ruger, Springfield Armory are just a few companies that will offer a equal product. Personally, I don’t like these “Tupperware” pistols that are unbalanced (top heavy) and change point of impact going from a full magazine to an empty.
i admit the mk23 is a bit overpriced but it's a match grade accuracy pistol with the durability surpassing the 1911. the gun wasn't designed as a civilian weapon. it was designed specifically for special forces teams that needed a weapon that can endure extreme weather, be reliable, be accurate as a match pistol.
IMHO the comparison between the DE and the MK23 is like comparing apples and oranges. one gun was designed as a sporting weapon and the other as an assault pistol. there is a reason you don't see SF teams taking DEs into combat.
IMHO the comparison between the DE and the MK23 is like comparing apples and oranges. one gun was designed as a sporting weapon and the other as an assault pistol. there is a reason you don't see SF teams taking DEs into combat.
ravensword227
Active member
egoz said:
The 1911 is easier to customize and it has been around for such a long time that gunsmiths have refined and improved upon the pistol. I think you will find that more shooters prefer the accuracy of a good 1911 to any other *autoloading* pistol. Plastic frames are not the best for accuracy; although they are light, they are not well balanced when the magazines are not full.
Google IPSC and notice all the riced out 1911s and not much else.
http://images.google.com/images?q=IPSC&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wi
Chrome or Titanium coated steel is more durable than any plastic polymer of today.
Is there anything in particular that precludes this pistol from being a civilian weapon? In the U.S. almost all of our small arms are built in the private sector, and the majority of sells are to civilians – that’s what keeps the company in business long enough to sell to the military.
EDITED: for civility and minor spelling
It's my understanding that the 1911A1 has a 15,000 round service life before depot maintenance compared to the 30,000 round service life of the MC23. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But that is what I meant by a more durable weapon. Also the MK23 is a lot less prone to rust because of the Maritime Coating that HK has developed. When it comes to accuracy I was talking "out of the box" accuracy. I could make a Glock a match grade pistol after a few aftermarket parts. I'm not saying the 1911 is a bad weapon in anyway. It's proven itself time and again in combat, which is why the HK looked at guns like the 1911 to develope the MK23.
There are civilian variants of the MK23, like the USP Tactical (which is smaller), but it's not the MK23. The MK23 was designed for SOCOM. Which explains things like the extra large trigger guard (for shooting with arctic gloves on), the extended threaded barrel (improved accuracy and attachment of a silencer), heavy double action trigger (to prevent accidental discharge when your fingers are numb from sitting in the water all day), and stringent durability requirements. Only a few MK23 were offered to the public, I doubt HK was out to make a profit from those few sales. Sure the MK23 boosted the sales of the USP, but the USP and MK23 are not the same gun. In fact few of the parts are interchangeable between the two.
Now, I've never shot the MK23 so my accuracy comments are based on what I have read. But I don't doubt the fact that a polymer frame pistol will shoot differently when the magazine is not full. I've shot the USP with a near empty magazine and I do agree it does feel top heavy.
There are civilian variants of the MK23, like the USP Tactical (which is smaller), but it's not the MK23. The MK23 was designed for SOCOM. Which explains things like the extra large trigger guard (for shooting with arctic gloves on), the extended threaded barrel (improved accuracy and attachment of a silencer), heavy double action trigger (to prevent accidental discharge when your fingers are numb from sitting in the water all day), and stringent durability requirements. Only a few MK23 were offered to the public, I doubt HK was out to make a profit from those few sales. Sure the MK23 boosted the sales of the USP, but the USP and MK23 are not the same gun. In fact few of the parts are interchangeable between the two.
Now, I've never shot the MK23 so my accuracy comments are based on what I have read. But I don't doubt the fact that a polymer frame pistol will shoot differently when the magazine is not full. I've shot the USP with a near empty magazine and I do agree it does feel top heavy.
ravensword227
Active member
egoz said:
Almost assuredly, they pulled this figure out of their ass. I don’t buy it because if both are shot with the same ammo (+P within SAMMI standards) in a chrome molly lined barrel, then the only thing different is the action of the weapon. The 1911’s cast metal frame is stronger than the cheap stamped metal and plastic frame of the Mk23. Admittedly, some 1911s are made with cheap parts (Kimber) too, but SIG and Springfield Armory are milspec. Anyway, your “service life” numbers are way to low; you must be thinking about high velocity rifles. I would expect either pistol to easily last up to 100,000 rounds with a subsonic round like the .45 ACP.
This is a Marketing technique to profit almost exclusively from the military, and when they do sell to the public they use words like “military preferred” and “service proven” then jack up the price. Some people are fooled but I am not. Nothing is stoping a person with a FFL from geting as many as he wants to sell.
You would be surprised how much a writer will commend a gun, cartridge, scope, or any other accessory, without having actually tested it. I have fired the Mk23 (with a silencer) as well and the takedown looks almost exactly the same as the USP. I thought the trigger had too much creep, but of course, a SA is always smoother than a DA.
A 45 is very powerful. Actually, Id go for 9mm, but surely not 0.50. that is ridicules.godofthunder9010
Active member
My first choice would prolly be .44 Desert Eagle, but hey, if I want to put a big hole in something then .50 works too. With a 9mm, I'm prolly more likely to hit what I'm shooting at of course.