CANIK TP9SA

By: B D
April 2016

The Internet back-and-forth on the Canik (pronounced Janick) TP9SA is so fierce I am actually hesitant to wade in with this review.  There seems to be a magical $300 price point in handgun market.  If the gun has a three after the dollar sign it is junk to some people, but $400 and up is acceptable.  The TP9SA not only comes in handsomely below $400, but has a unique feature that challenges the greatest failing of the Glock design; pulling the trigger to disassemble the gun.  Combine the price point and the trigger release button and the Internet has been stormed with opinions on the humble Canik.

Stats:

Length: 7.5 Inches
Height: 5.25 Inches
Width: 1.125 Inches
Weight: 26 Ounces (Unloaded)
Sights: 3-dot with rear center line
Barrel: 4.5 Inches


• Polymer frame, steel slide
• Single action trigger
• Decocker
• Cocked indicator
• Loaded chamber indicator
• Four slide finishes available, two frame colors
• Standard accessory rail
• Cerakote finish over phosphate
• Reversible magazine release

Canik

It is surprisingly difficult to find information online about the company.  Canik is based in Turkey and is a subsidiary of Samsun Yurt Savunma, a major Military contractor in Turkey.  Turkey has become quite the destination for outsourced gun manufacturing in the last decade and several major names, especially Italian names, have moved portions of their manufacturing to the country for better labor rates.  Canik holds some prestigious manufacturing certifications, including ISO 9001 certification, and their parent company is involved in aerospace manufacturing.  They also hold major Turkish police and military contracts.

Canik is mostly known for its all steel copies, or maybe interpretations, of CZ designs including the CZ 75 and SP series.  I say interpretations because Canik does not just make faithful copies of the CZ designs but offers variations it sees as improvements to the original designs.

Reputation of these designs has not been perfect.  Generally considered quite attractive on the exterior, once opened, and especially compared directly to an original, rough machining and tool marks have been reported and reports of inconsistent function have plagued the company’s products.  Double action triggers have generally been reported as gritty and sub-par, but single action function has largely been praised.

I recently came across a Tristar Arms booth at a show in Georgia where they had several of the Canik CZ style pistols on display.  I shot several of them and disassembled two.  No tool marks were in evidence and the triggers, in both modes, registered no complaints.  Garrett Bader of Tristar spoke glowingly of the Canik manufacturing facility and cited the work the company does successfully in Aerospace and for the military.  

TP Series

The TP series obviously has its roots in the Walther P99 and the follow on collaboration between Walther and Smith & Wesson, the SW99.  It is impossible to look at the two and not see the family resemblance.

The P99 is perhaps best known for an innovation on the double-action/single-action firing mechanism.  Many pistols with an exposed hammer fired in what is now generally called standard double action.  This meant the firearm was typically carried with the hammer down making the first shot a longer heavier double action pull.  Subsequent slide action cocked the hammer to the rear making all the rest of the shots single action until the user dropped the hammer, either through a dedicated hammer drop lever or a safety that dropped the hammer as part of the action of putting on the safety.

The Walther P99 looked like a double-action only pistol because it had no exposed hammer.  Instead, when the slide was released the pistol was in single-action.  A large button on the top of the frame could be depressed to safely release the firing pin placing the action into a double-action first shot firing mode.  An indicator on the rear of the slide told the user the current state of the firing action.

The original Canik TP9 used the same system incorporating the large button on the top of the frame to change to double-action mode.  It departed from the original in that it dropped the paddle style magazine release for the American standard push button release.  The original TP9 is no longer available, though a version 2 is available.

The original TP9 was followed up by the TP9SA, a single-action only version of the gun.  Rather than changing the design of the slide, Canik kept the button used to release the striker, but on the SA model pressing the button left the weapon with no way to fire until the slide was racked to reset the trigger.

The series now also includes the TP40V2 and the TP40SA.  These correspond to the models just discussed but in .40 caliber.  The line has also expanded to include TP9SF which does away with the push button on top of the slide altogether and the TP9SFx, a long-slide version designed for competition.  The V2 has six finishes available, the SA four the SF two and the SFx just one.  While the Canik website claims some of the TP models are available in .380 it does not appear they are being imported at this time.

Canik holds an ISO9001 manufacturing certification.  The company states the V2 and SA models have passed NATO certification testing including accuracy and function tests through 50,000 fired rounds.  These pistols are used by police and military forces in Turkey.  None of that influenced my evaluation.

TP9SA Drama

The TP9SA has created quite a stir on the Internet for two main reasons: Price and the striker release button.

The price point of $300 in firearms is like a siren song to me.  At that price I can go out on a limb and try something and if I end up unhappy with my purchase I don’t beat myself up too much.  Despite good labor rates in Turkey I have no idea how Canik can make a profit on these guns.  I bought a TP9SA from Prepper Guns, www.preppergunshop.com, on sale for $289.00.

The TP9SA arrived in a foam-lined hard-plastic case with a push-button holster, two MEC-GAR 18-round magazines, two attachment systems for the holster, a bore brush and a loading tool.  While previous models have been rife with tool marks and poor machining inside the slide, the machining inside the gun I received looks sharp and deliberate with no issues.

Many have described the holster as a ‘range holster” rather than a carry holster.  That is a fair description as the gun has a lot of wiggle even secured in the holster.

The drama comes from the striker release button on top of the frame.  With the striker cocked this is a true single action handgun with the striker under spring tension and the trigger moving the blocks and releasing the spring.  If you push the de-cocker button the striker has no tension and requires at least a partial rear movement of the slide to reset.  Essentially, once this button is pushed you have a club rather than a gun until the slide is activated again.  The concern is that the button may be pushed inadvertently in the holster without the user knowing and the gun could be presented in an emergency situation unready to fire.

This is a valid point.  The problem is the de-cocker button on top of the slide is no push over.  You have to really want to push the thing.  I tried to activate the button with a trigger pull gauge that maxed out at 12 pounds.  Pushing the button exceeded the 12-pound tolerance.  In addition to the force necessary, the angle has to be correct to get the button all the way down.  Lastly there is an audible click when the button finally activates.

The upside is that to disassemble the gun for cleaning there is no need to pull the trigger.  Using the de-cocker button has the same effect as pulling the trigger with no possibility of setting off a round in the chamber. (I tried this extensively in a safe manner at the range).  Is this a significant safety enhancement?  Maybe.

I personally know of three negligent discharges at a major law enforcement organization over the past ten years in which a Glock was fired accidentally in the cleaning area when someone pulled the trigger to start the disassembly process.  One of those resulted in significant blood loss.  The odd thing is that many who would argue that pulling the trigger for disassembly is not a safety issue with proper training will also argue the TP9SA cannot be carried effectively with the de-cocker button regardless of training.  Go figure.

Several times over the years, especially while exiting the car, I have heard a faint click and found the twisting motion of my body pushed my carry gun against its holster enough to activate the magazine release.  For years many people carried handguns with a magazine disconnect (when no magazine was seated the trigger would not strike the firing pin) for a perceived gain in safety.  I think a magazine release button is far easier to accidentally activate than this de-cocker button.

The Trigger

The magic of the TP9SA is all about the trigger for the simple fact that it is a true single action.  Nearly all the striker fired polymer guns we are carrying and shooting these days are really in the double action category.  Many manufacturers would dispute this claim saying their striker is under partial tension from the slide action, and they are correct; that is why they have no second strike capability.  Still if the trigger action is providing any of the striker spring tension, the trigger is more than single action.

Not the case with the TP9SA.  This is a true single action trigger.  So what is the difference?  Consistency.  While a light trigger is nice and certainly lends itself to accurate shooting we can learn to shoot any trigger well as long as it is consistent.  When a trigger registers a different weight with each pull varying by pounds it is very difficult to shoot well.  This is where single action triggers shine.  The trigger is doing less with each pull making consistency easier to achieve.

To give this some context look at ten trigger pulls on three different guns.  First the Canik TP9SA, a single action striker fired gun.  Then a Glock 23 Gen 3, one of the most universally known partial double action triggers.  Just for comparison sake, we added a Para-Ordinance 14.45 1911.  The 1911 trigger has an unfair advantage being both single action and a slide trigger, but this is for comparison purposes.

Canik TP9SA Glock 23 Para 14.45
Pounds Ounces Total Ounces Pounds Ounces Total Ounces Pounds Ounces Total Ounces
4 13.2 77.2 6 14.5 110.5 5 14 94
4 12.2 76.2 7 0 112 4 15.2 79.2
4 12.3 76.3 7 15 127 5 3.5 83.5
5 0 80 5 8 88 5 5.5 85.5
4 10.4 74.4 5 14.5 94.5 5 3 83
4 8.5 72.5 8 1 129 5 8 88
4 6.8 70.8 7 11 123 5 3 83
4 9.2 73.2 6 4 100 5 8 88
4 7.8 71.8 7 6.5 118.5 5 7 87
4 12.9 76.9 7 2 114 5 6 86
Pounds Pounds Pounds
4.683125 Average 74.93 6.978125 Average 111.65 5.3575 Average 85.72
StdDev 2.872494 StdDev 13.7781 StdDev 3.985474
0.575 MaxDev 9.2 2.5625 MaxDev 41 0.925 MaxDev 14.8
 
The Canik enjoys an immediate advantage with an average trigger weight of 4.68 pounds.  That was even better than the 1911 with a 5.38 pound trigger.  The Glock 23 says on the box it came in that it has a 5.5 pound trigger.  I have found 6.98 pounds to be pretty average for a Glock with a factory trigger purported to be 5.5 pounds.  The trouble with the Glock is that the trigger is doing much more during the pull.

The trigger weight is important, but not as important to accuracy as consistency.  Remember, accuracy is about doing each action in the shooting process the same each time the trigger is pulled.  This is where the Canik really shines.  The Glock had a maximum deviation between the highest and lowest weight trigger pulls of 2.56 pounds versus 9.2 ounces for the Canik.  

Even the 1911 showed a 14.8 ounce maximum deviation with a standard deviation more than an ounce greater than the Canik.  Now you see why even people who hate the Canik for its price point and the de-cocker button are impressed with the trigger.

Still, accuracy is more than the statistics from a trigger pull gauge.  This is where I stunned myself.  This is my first magazine of 18+1 from the Canik at 15 yards:

The embarrassing part is that this was not an accuracy test or even a drill.  This was the first try just to get used to the trigger and grip.  With a start like that I expected shooting supported groups would be amazing, but five shot groups averaged 2.09 inches over ten strings.  The TP series shines in grip ergonomics and trigger making it an excellent shooting gun.  Speed and combat drills were fantastic but it never showed me tiny group accuracy.  Given the choice I would take the gun that shoots well unsupported and moving over the bench rest tack driver.

Would I carry this gun?

The question that began this marathon of a review was whether I would carry the TP9SA.  Yes.  The gun has excellent ergonomics, points naturally has perfectly fine sights and an excellent trigger.  Were I to carry the TP I would find a much better holster and feel perfectly confident.  This gun has between 500 and 600 rounds through it without issue and I would not lose any sleep over the firing pin release button on the top of the slide.  I don’t understand how this gun sells at the price point it does, but so far the TP9SA seems to be a steal in the quality and features of the gun you get for the price.

UZI Build Project Part 1: The Receiver

By TP

In the search for a new and “different” firearm build project (e.g. “not an AR-type rifle”) I stumbled upon the ample number of imported, demilitarized UZI parts kits that are available for purchase at very reasonable prices. Additionally, there are many related articles around the web and quite a few videos posted to YouTube, many of which explain/show the entire build process from beginning to end. This convinced me that this was indeed an interesting and worth-while project. The one article that I did not find was one which fully compared the different receiver options that one might use to accomplish this build. In this article, I am setting out to do that.

Project Overview

Before we get into the receiver details, I want to provide a brief overview of the project. The UZI that I am referencing is a short-barreled machine gun chambered in 9x19 mm that was designed by Israeli Defense Forces Major Uziel Gal in the late 1940’s and was originally manufactured by Israel Military Industries. It is an open-bolt, fixed firing pin blowback-action firearm. In addition to the 9mm model, there are .45 caliber conversions available as well. There are many surplus and newly-manufactured parts for sale, and its status as one of the most iconic firearms ever made make it an interesting project. The remanufactured semi-automatic model is still blowback action, but uses a closed bolt, separate firing pin, and includes a number of ATF-required modifications necessary to prevent the easy conversion back to a select-fire firearm.

In the interest of fully-disclosing all of the necessary legalities, it is important at this point to understand the following:

If the parts are assembled exactly as the originally were prior to being demilled, you will have a machine gun which is illegal under the National Firearms Act, unless you happen to possess a license to manufacturer such weapon. The manufacturer (you) is responsible for ensuring that the firearm is fully modified to meet the ATF’s requirements of manufacturing a semi-automatic UZI. If the parts kit is manufactured with a “short barrel” (less than 16” in total length) and with a stock, it will require an NFA “Tax Stamp” as under current regulations (as of October 2016) it is considered a “short-barreled rifle.” If no stock is added, it can be considered a “pistol” and is therefore not subject to the barrel-length requirements. As a firearm constructed from imported parts, it is subject to US Code Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 922(r), which is usually just referred to as “922r”requirements. These require the use of a certain number of USA-made parts (this will probably not be a big challenge for you, as many of the parts that you will likely want to replace will assist you in meeting this requirement). There have been multiple cases of firearm owners being convicted of illegally manufacturing and/or selling an NFA firearm (machine gun) for selling UZI parts which failed to meet the ATF’s regulations regarding the conversion from full-auto to semi-auto. Please do your due diligence and if you have unanswered questions contact the ATF directly. They are very accustomed to being asked for further clarification and/or specific details of their requirements.

The Receiver

The typical parts kit ships with a number of parts, including a demilitarized receiver. The receiver is typically cut into three to four pieces by either a saw or a cutting torch. It is very unlikely that it can be reconstructed due to the state that it is in, which is the intent of the demilling process. There are usually a number of parts attached to the receiver which can be reused, if desired.

I’ll list the possible receiver construction methods below in order from most-simple to most-complex. The links to the manufacturers are located at the end of the article.

1.  Purchase a complete, semiauto receiver.

Cost:      $239.00 + FFL Transfer Fee (McKay Enterprises)

               $699.00 + FFL Transfer Fee (UZI HQ, Constructed by BWE Firearms)

This is the simplest, albeit most expensive, manner to construct an UZI. Fully-welded receivers are available from a few different manufacturers. Being a fully-constructed receiver, it must be transferred to you through a dealer (FFL License).

This is certainly an effective way to complete the firearm, although the expense of this likely puts you closer to the cost of a newly-manufactured 9mm UZI than you would want to be on a firearm that you are manufacturing yourself from parts. They are, however, complete UZI semi-auto uppers, which only need the bolt assembly, the barrel, and the grip stick with trigger and sear assemblies to fully complete.

 

Photo of McKay Enterprises UZI Receiver                  Photo of UZI HQ Receiver

2. Purchase an “80%” (80-percent complete) receiver.

Cost:      $76.95 (RTG Parts)

               $94.99 + FFL Transfer Fee (D And D Sales)

               $109.00 (UZI HQ)

These are available from RTG Parts and D And D Sales. They are essentially a formed receiver minus the front trunnion (which retains the barrel and stops the forward motion of the bolt), the rear plate, the feed ramp, and the blocking bar (which must be welded in to prevent a select-fire bolt from being installed).

The welding involved is fairly minimal, and this method should allow you to complete a solid and attractive rifle. I have not had the opportunity to look at these pieces, so I cannot verify how close they actually are to the original design, however the manufacturer says that they are made to exact specifications. In addition to the 80% receiver, you will need to purchase a front trunnion, rear plate, and blocking bar.

Please note: D And D Sales requires their receiver to be transferred through an FFL, which is likely simply an abundance of caution.

Additionally, those familiar with “80%” AR15 lower receivers will find this to be quite a bit different, as you are not milling/drilling out metal, but are rather welding additional parts in.

 

Photo of RTG Parts 80% Receiver      




  













Photo of  D and D Sales 80% receiver repair














Photo of UZI HQ Receiver Channel                                                                                                                      (Closer to the 80% receivers than                                                                                                                                                                          the channels below)                                    

3. Purchase a constructed UZI receiver repair-channel

Cost:      $89.95 (US Barrel Shrouds)

                $112.00 (UZI HQ)

US Barrel Shrouds and UZI HQ both sell a full constructed repair channel with is a “U”-shaped metal piece designed to be welded between the original front and rear sections included with your parts kit. I liked this method as it reused original parts (and if you are better at welding than I am, may mean that you can keep the original markings of “UZI SMG” (small machine gun) which may be desirable to you from an authenticity standpoint. You will need to purchase a feed ramp.

I tried this method, and found that welding the front piece was quite easy, but welding the rear piece in proper alignment proved challenging.

 

 Photo of US Barrel Shrouds Receiver Channel            

     

Photo of UZI HQ Repair Channel

  

4. Purchase a “Repair Flat”

Cost:      $18.00 (The Flat Spot)

                $69.00 (RTG Parts)

This is essentially the same method as #3, except that you assemble and weld the receiver repair section. These “flats” come in two forms: a flat piece of steel with laser perforations that allow the parts to be separated easily and rewelded, and a flat piece of steel designed to be bent into the proper shape.

I initially tried the first variation, from The Flat Spot. It was not overwhelmingly difficult, but as I was an inexperienced welder, I became concerned that the final product, while functional, would not be up to my expectations in terms of appearance. If you have some welding experience and perhaps some more-professional welding equipment, this may be an option for you.

I avoided the second type of receiver flat (the one that you bend into shape) which is available from RTG Parts. There is an outstanding YouTube video where a builder constructs a jig to properly bend the channel with a hydraulic shop press. He appears to get good results, although it is very clear that he is in the metal working/fabrication profession, and I am not sure that I could get the same results, especially when I could purchase a properly bent channel for $25.00 more. This may be a nice challenge (or an easy build) for you if you have the experience, tools, and materials to do this correctly.

Photo of The Flat Spot receiver flat                                                  

 

Photo of RTG Parts receiver flat  

Parts Availability/ Distribution

I feel that it is worth mentioning that there is a limited market for these parts, and pretty much all of these businesses (especially the ones exclusively specializing in UZI parts) are small businesses. Obviously, these parts are usually produced in smaller production runs than, for example, AR-15 parts and availability will vary. The good side of this is that you are dealing with businesses that will answer their phone without you having to work through a lengthy customer service menu, and thus you will very likely get a “real person” who is happy to assist you.

Referenced Suppliers:

McKay Enterprises

http://www.mckay-ent.com

RTG Parts- Gun Parts and Militaria

www.robertrtg.com

D&D Sales

http://www.danddsales.com

US Barrel Shrouds- Gun Parts and Militaria

www.usbarrelshrouds.com

UZI HQ

www.uziparts.com

The Flat Spot

www.theflatspot.net    

Additional UZI Parts Resources:

Apex Gun Parts

www.apexgunparts.com

FTF Industries

http://www.ftfindustries.com/

Northridge Inc.

http://www.northridgeinc.com/

Numrich Gun Parts

www.gunpartscorp.com

Sarco, Inc.

http://www.e-sarcoinc.com

Hawes Firearms “Western Marshal” vs. Colt Firearms “Trooper Mk III”

Hawes Firearms “Western Marshal” vs. Colt Firearms “Trooper Mk III”

by Ian

  

This article is a comparison of revolvers, specifically an old single-action .357 magnum Hawes Firearms “Western Marshal” and a double-action .357 magnum Colt Manufacturing “Trooper Mk III.” While it may not be exactly “fair” to compare a single-action to a double-action, both are good revolvers with interesting histories, and different enough to provide an entertaining comparison. I enjoyed shooting and learning about them both.

“Western Marshal”

The “Western Marshal” that I shot was completely original, or very nearly. It had a blued finish with a 6” barrel, six shot recessed cylinder, original grips, fixed post sights,  and original trigger. On the right side of the barrel was stamped “Western Marshal .357 mag cal.” The left side of the barrel had “Hawes Firearms Co. Los Angeles, California Made in Western Germany by JP Sauer & Sohn.” The loading slot  Overall, the revolver looked like a classic cowboy gun that Clint Eastwood might have used in his westerns.

“Trooper Mk III”

“Trooper Mk III” had a dull, satin-nickel finish with a 6” barrel, 6 shot recessed cylinder, fixed post front sight, adjustable rear sight, large stock grip, and original trigger. The right side of the barrel was stamped with “COLT'S PT. FA. MFG. CO. HARTFORD, CONN. U.S.A.” The left side of the barrel was stamped with “TROOPER MK III .357 MAGNUM CTG.” The left side of the frame just below the cylinder release lever had a faded stamp of Colt's famous Rampant Colt Pony symbol. Overall, the gun looked like something you would see a police officer carrying in a 1970's shoot-em-up movie.

“Western Marshal”

I have had this old revolver for years, a gift from my great uncle when I was younger. It was the first gun that he ever gave me and I have great memories shooting it. But I never knew much about it, it was just a cool cowboy gun. When I decided to do a comparison of revolvers for this article, I learned quite a bit about my old revolver, the Hawes Firearms “Western Marshal.”

I discovered that the “Western Marshal” was not actually manufactured by Hawes, but by JP Sauer & Sohn, an old German company (Not to be confused with the Sig Sauer company). Hawes was a major American importer of European firearms during the 1950's,1960's, and early 1970's; and the first importer of JP Sauer & Sohn firearms into America. JP Sauer & Sohn (Est. 1751) is the oldest firearms manufacturer still active in Germany. (Justcollecting)

Hawes contracted with manufacturer JP Sauer & Sohn to produce a series of single action guns in several calibers known as the “Marshal” series. The most common calibers were .22, .357 magnum, and .44 magnum. These revolvers were mid-range quality firearms made cheaply in Germany, and sold to Americans under an American brand. They were used in a lot of “spaghetti western” movies since they were cheaper to buy than Colts. (TinCanBandits)

However, Hawes revolvers did not have a hammer block, and sometimes fired unintentionally if the chamber beneath the hammer was loaded. They were sued for this lack of a safety feature many times, and eventually stopped importing firearms into America.

“Trooper Mk III”

           

Manufactured between 1969 and 1982, the Trooper Mk III came into being as a result of Colt's concern with its declining market share. Designed to be a cheaper alternative to the Colt .357 and the Colt Python, the Trooper Mk III was the “working man's” gun. (Gun-tests.com) The Trooper Mk III was the first major advancement of Colt’s designs in the 20th century, and utilized a new ‘J’ frame with no interchangeabe with older models. The new revolvers were considered groundbreaking at the time since they were the first modern revolver designed to employ a transfer-bar lockwork system. This lockwork was far safer than the old hammer-blocking designs since the revolver could fire only if the trigger was deliberately pulled completely to the rear. (Wikipedia)

 The Trooper Mk III was also designed to be much more durable, and used sintered parts instead of forged parts, lowering the cost of the revolver significantly. The sintered parts also allowed for improved fabrication tolerances, and could be heat treated to create a harder, more wear-resistant composition. Production of the Mk III stopped in 1982 and was replaced by the Mk V.

For the comparison test, I took both of the revolvers to the range and shot at targets approximately 10 yards away. I used the same type of ammunition for both of the revolvers, 110 grain Remington JHP. I was not shooting for accuracy (I shot them both free-hand, standing) as much as I was shooting them to see how they felt and performed overall. Both revolvers were fun to shoot, and I quickly went through a box of ammunition. However, there were a few things about each revolver that I did not like.

I have large hands and the small grip on the “Western Marshal” made it difficult to get a firm grasp on the gun as I shot it (my pinky finger slid off the end of the grip at each shot from the recoil). Another issue with the “Western Marshal” was the sights. The front sight was a prominent post that is hard to lose sight of, but the rear sight is literally just a groove machined out of the top of the frame. This, and the small size of the groove, made it very hard to acquire a proper sight picture quickly without hours of practice. However, when the sights were aligned properly, it is incredibly accurate.

On the other hand, the “Trooper Mk III” had a very large stock grip and fit very comfortably in my hands. The sights were also larger and had contrasting colors, which made it easier to acquire a good sight picture. When the proper sight picture was acquired, the “Trooper Mk III” was also very accurate.

Another issue with the “Western Marshal” was the trigger. The performed wonderfully, very light and smooth. It was almost a competition-level lightweight trigger. Some people prefer a heavy trigger on a pistol, but I am a big fan of the lightweight, competition triggers, having used them for years shooting in smallbore competitions. The problem lay with the trigger itself, it is tiny compared to modern triggers. It was barely more than a small rectangular bar with a slight curve. If I was not careful, the pad of my trigger finger would slide across the trigger and stop at my knuckle, where you do not want your trigger to be. Despite this, I like the smooth, light function of the “Western Marshal's” trigger.

The trigger on the “Trooper Mk III” was much larger and much, much heavier. Unfortunately, I did not have a tool to measure the exact weight of the triggers, but the “Trooper Mk III” trigger was incredibly heavy compared to the “Western Marshal.” The double-action trigger weight was easily over 10 pounds and the long travel made it difficult to control the muzzle and sight picture. The single-action trigger weight was much lighter compared to the double-action trigger weight, but it was still much heavier than the lightweight trigger of the “Western Marshal.” However, the trigger of the “Trooper Mk III” was much more comfortable. The trigger was much larger and wider than the skinny trigger of the “Western Marshal” and had a very good radius curve that fit the pad of my trigger finger very well. Unfortunately, the large, comfortable trigger did not make up for the heavy trigger weight.

Another factor was the weight and recoil of the revolvers. As a result of newer manufacturing methods, the “Trooper Mk III” was designed to be lighter and cheaper than most of the revolvers at the time. The “Western Marshal” had been around for almost 20 years by the time Colt came out with the “Trooper Mk III.” As a result, the heavier “Western Marshal” revolver was able to control the the recoil much better than the lighter “Trooper Mk III.” However, as a consequence of the heavy barrel and frame of the “Western Marshal,” it was more difficult to hold for longer periods of time, resulting in a lot of trembling that made it hard to maintain a good sight picture. Being lighter, the “Trooper Mk III” did not have this problem, although the recoil was more pronounced.

The hammers and cylinders on both of the revolvers worked beautifully. The “Western Marshal” loaded like a standard single-action revolver (one round at a time), with no hang ups on loading or unloading the rounds. The cylinder of the “Trooper Mk III” worked smoothly and I had no issues loading or unloading it, although it became rather sticky after it became dirty from some much shooting. The hammer on the “Trooper Mk III” was very good, with a deep and prominent cross-hatch to keep your thumb from slipping off. The hammer on the “Western Marshal” was good as well, although it arched up very high. Unless you have large hands with long fingers, you may have to shift your grip to reach it each time.

I like both of these guns and greatly enjoyed shooting them. Each has its own pros and cons for shooting. In this case, it would honestly depend on what you wanted to use them for. The slower and heavier single-action “Western Marshal” would be great for slow-speed precision shooting and cowboy reenactments, but not for rapid shooting or heavy-duty use. I would not want to carry it as a sidearm in any scenario either (although I would not want to carry either of the revolvers due to their size and weight). The slow reloading and heavy barrel do not lend themselves to shooting with more than 6 targets where speed counts. The “Trooper Mk III” would be much better suited for timed shooting with a higher number of targets. The lighter frame and double-action of the “Trooper Mk III” make it more ideal for heavy duty use, but the heavier recoil means that the shooter would have to have very good control of the revolver to keep it on target. The faster reloading ability also make the “Trooper Mk III” more attractive for most scenarios.

Unless you are doing a cowboy reenactment or shooting in an untimed precision competition, I have to give the edge to the Colt “Trooper Mk III.” It is the safer and lighter option. The sights are much better, the grip is comfortable, and it has a hammer-block (unlike the older “Western Marshal”). However, considerable hand strength is needed to control the recoil and pull the heavy trigger weight.

           

 Both revolvers are fun to shoot and come in several common calibers, from .22lr up to .44mag. The Colt “Trooper Mk III” averages $300-$500 and the Hawes “Western Marshal” averages $100-$400 depending on the condition and caliber of the revolver. Spare parts for them can be hard to find, but if you find yourself in a “too nice of a price to pass up” situation, I encourage you to consider it.

References

https://www.justcollecting.com/miscellania/hawes-firearms-co-weapons

http://tincanbandit.blogspot.com/2015/12/featured-gun-hawes-western-marshal.html

http://www.gun-tests.com/gow/handguns/Colt-Trooper-357-Magnum-Python-revolver-used-Mark-III_11358-1.html#.VxQCSN9jPQo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Trooper#MK_III

MP-5 vs MP-4 (.22)

MP-5 vs MP-5(.22)

by BD

Firearm designs come and go but some few lucky ones get attached to images in our minds and become icons. The Winchester 94 to cowboys, the M1 Garand to Doughboys, the S&W k-frame to patrol officers and the Heckler and Koch

MP-5 to SWAT teams. In 1980, television brought images of SAS Commandos storming the Iranian Embassy in London with MP-5 submachine guns.

The raid was successful and Hollywood fell in love with the distinctive lines of the sexy little gun and all the cool guys in the movies had to have one. For me it was Die Hard in 1988. Hans Gruber and the bad guys carried MP-5s until Bruce Willis took one away and turned it to the MP-5’s true purpose of killing terrorists.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder and the MP-5, for Americans, was the gun you could not get your hands on. The reasons for the absence of the MP-5 on the civilian market have been debated endlessly in online forums, ranging from H&K is too great a snob to let civilians buy their submachine gun, to the ATF gave H&K the run around on the features that had to be removed until H&K just gave up.

Whatever reason you subscribe to, a real MP-5 usually sells for more than $12K and requires registration under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Copies of the MP-5 from foreign-licensed manufacturers have come on the market recently, as have copies built by specialty shops using various parts and receivers; all expensive and of inconsistent and unknown quality. For most of us, the MP-5 continues to be a dream built from unobtainium.

Thankfully, there is a solution licensed by H&K, built by Walther, and brought to us in the USA by Umarex.  It is the HK MP5 A5:

 

I bought my MP5 A5 for $369.00 two years ago and have had thousands of rounds worth of fun with the rifle killing paper terrorists and the occasional invading piece of fruit.  It has no perceptible recoil and enough cool-factor for any Call of Duty aficionado. It has become my go-to anytime a friend or relative wants to take their child shooting for the first time.  My only complaint is that the rounds must be disappearing somewhere between loading and inserting the magazines because 25 rounds can’t possibly go that fast. 

As much as I love this rifle, there has always been a nagging question: How close is it to the real thing?

To answer the question once and for all I simply asked the Lead Bunker editorial board to buy me an HK MP5.  Yes, they are still laughing.

But they did borrow an actual HK MP5/10 to test against.  This is a 10mm select fire version of the MP5 and came with a retractable stock to match my .22 caliber A5. 

So how do they compare?  First the stats:

	A5	MP5/10
Operation	Blowback	Roller-delayed Blowback
Caliber	.22 L.R.	10 mm
Barrel Length	16.1"	8.9"
Capacity	25 rds	30 rds
Overall Length	26.8–33.8"	19.3-27"
Front Sight	Interchangeable Posts	Interchangeable Posts
Rear Sight	Diopter Drum Sight	Diopter Drum Sight
Weight (with mag)	5.9 lbs	6.3 lbs

The A5 had to make some concessions to the regulatory environment causing the most obvious difference to be the .22 has twice the barrel length.  That is to maintain its status as a rifle in the eyes of the BATF.  The .22 does not require a particularly thick barrel and the extra eight inches of pencil thin steel sticking out past the front sight looked ridiculous.  While often maligned by Internet commandos, the nonfunctional faux suppressor creates a far better look than the basic barrel would have shown.

Similarities

Here are the two models together:

Other than the suppressor on the A5 and the flashlight hand guard on the 5/10, they are strikingly similar in appearance.  The A5 uses a curved magazine true to the original 9mm version, while the 10mm and .40 versions switched to a straight magazine, generally considered a better magazine for ease of use.  Walther kept the same grip, selector, slap-down bolt release, and excellent sights.  They are even within half a pound of each other. 

The magazine releases are the same.

As are the excellent sights, including the selectable rear peep sight:

                              

These sights provide four different sizes of rear peep sights.  The concept is, the larger the rear sight, the faster the target acquisition, but the less precise the aim.  Closer shots call for more speed and less accuracy as the target is closer, larger, and a greater threat.  When time allows for a longer more precise shot, the user would turn the turret and use a smaller aperture. 

Handling the two guns I was amazed just how similar they were.  The heft was about the same.  You would expect the A5 to be more front heavy with the 16-inch barrel and faux suppressor, but the .22 barrel has so much less steel than the 10mm, the two came out about even.  The MP-5/10 came to target faster – a function of the shorter barrel.  All controls were in the same places gun to gun, and even the triggers felt similar. 

Interchangeability

Looking at the two they appeared so similar I expected the accessories would even interchange, but I was in for some surprises.  The forends seemed to be identical except for the flashlight built into the 10mm. While the forend of the A5 fit perfectly onto the MP-5/10, the flashlight hit the faux suppressor of the A5 and prevented it from fitting correctly.  This was especially interesting because I had several times contemplated buying this exact hand guard with built in flashlight for my A5.  Glad I was able to test it before I bought it. 

The extendable shoulder stocks looked like a perfect match – as long as they were on the guns. 

Once off their differences became apparent:

Once I saw the stocks off the respective guns I knew they would not transfer and sure enough they did not. 

While Bruce Willis only needed iron sights (on the rare occasion he used the sights at all), Aimpoint created a claw mount for the MP-5 series and their excellent red dot sight became the go to optic for SWAT teams and Special Operations teams using the MP-5 series of sub guns.

Here is the traditional Aimpoint with the claw mount:

I had every expectation of a perfect fit when we went from the MP-5/10 to the A 5, but this is as close as the mount got:

It is hard to see but the notches on the top strap of the A5 are just slightly bigger than on the MP-5/10, preventing the claw mount from getting purchase on the indentations of the receiver.

It is hard to imagine a reason why Walther would have purposely made these a different size to prevent using the claw mount in order to mount an optic.  Instead, I bought a three-inch section of 1913 rail with four small gripping arms for $10 from Amazon and mounted a cheap red dot.  Problem solved, but it doesn’t have the same visual panache of the traditional Aimpoint with the claw mount.

Inside

The two guns disassemble the same until you get inside.  For both, lock the charging handle to the rear, remove the magazine, and confirm the gun is unloaded.  Removing a single pin at the rear allows the shoulder stock to slide off the back and the trigger group to swing free.

After that, remove the pin at the front of the trigger group to remove the assembly.  That is as far as you can go with the A5.  It is cleaned from the muzzle end of the barrel or with a barrel snake and wiped down as well as possible in the small spaces allowed.  Any further disassembly of the A5 results in voiding the warranty so I won’t include pictures. 

Like most .22 clones of larger guns the A5 is blowback operated.  The bolt rides on rails inside the upper receiver and is a job to remove and even worse to get realigned for reassembly.  Or so I have heard. 

The MP-5/10 still needs the mainspring removed and the bolt assembly. While the MP-5 series is also blowback-operated, it uses the excellent roller block bolt assembly to help delay and slow the bolt, preventing the sharp recoil of a heavy bolt slamming the spring into the users shoulder and then slamming forward.  This is essentially the same bolt design used for the entire G3 line of H&K rifles and was originally used to help tame the 7.62 X 51mm recoil. 

Shooting Impressions

Shooting a 10mm from a system designed to tame much more violent recoil makes the MP-5/10 easy to shoot.  Though the 10mm is a serious pistol cartridge, it is still a pistol cartridge and the MP-5 platform is basically a big pistol with an 8.5 inch barrel, long sight radius and three points of contact.  The result is a pleasant-shooting, accurate pistol.  In fact, the MP-5/10 was so accurate we quickly became bored on the 50-yard range we had available.  If we had a 300-yard range we would have walked the targets down and tried 300-yard shots with every expectation of making them.

We got so bored making large 20 round groups we began trying to draw smiley faces in the head quadrants of the bottle targets.  Two eyes and a nose were easy, but getting the mouth to line up over the course of six to ten shots was brutal.  I have shot the MP-5 in the past with its large plastic stock that provides perfect eye relief and cheek weld for the iron sights.  The sight picture is harder to achieve with the collapsible stock, but a little practice makes it consistent.  With the Aimpoint installed the cheek weld did not matter and accurate shooting required barely any effort. 

The A5 feels surprisingly similar to the MP-5/10 but makes you think you are firing the same thing with an actual suppressor.  The miniscule amount of recoil is nearly duplicated by the blowback bolt of the .22.  The sound of the .22 compared to the 10mm is a mere crack.  With the similarity in controls, feel, and recoil it is difficult to remember this is a completely different gun rather than a suppressor screwed onto the end of an MP-5. 

The A5 was perfectly accurate on our 50-yard range, making large ragged holes from each magazine.  It was surprisingly ammunition tolerant for a .22, devouring magazines of Federal, Winchester, CCI, and Aquila ammunition.  The only complaint from testers was that, although we carefully counted 25 shells into each magazine while loading, something about the fit of the gun, ease of the trigger, and the feeling of shooting a suppressed rifle after the 10mm made the trigger finger work over-time and the ammunition disappeared.      

Conclusion

While I will probably always want an actual H&K MP-5, the Walther A5 .22 does a surprisingly good job meeting the bill.  The controls ape the real thing while the rifle is reliable and fun to shoot.  I was disappointed that the accessories did not transfer, but more and more accessories are becoming available for the A5 line.  The rail I added to the top of the A5 is far cheaper and infinitely more flexible than a claw mount.  At a cost of approximately 1/10 the price of a kit built MP-5 and ammunition cost of about 10 cents a round, the A5 is an excellent addition to the gun safe.  Shooters love the slap down bolt release and the chance to shoot a rifle they have seen only in movies and video games. 

I am quite happy with my A5 and expect it will always have a spot in the safe.

Parting Shot

Anyone else see a striking similarity between the MP-5/10 and the E-11 Blaster?