TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
TARA Aerospace TM-9X (image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com)
Previous Post
Next Post

Out of Montenegro, TARA Aerospace has introduced the newest version of their striker fired polymer framed duty gun, the TM-9X.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

What gets most of the media attention on the TM-9X is the trigger, which is a little different than most. This is a striker fired system that also allows for restrikes like a traditional DA/SA firearm. TARA bills it as the “DARE System.” standing for Double Action Rapid Engagement. Think of it less as DA/SA and more of a double action trigger with a short reset.

The TARA website bills the TM-9X’s DARE trigger as breaking at 7.7lbs. Using a Lyman digital trigger scale, I found that to be correct, on average. There was, however, a 4 oz wide extreme spread among the five pulls to make up that average.

The first trigger pull is going to travel a fairly long and squishy 18mm, then you’ll run into a hard wall that breaks at 7.7 lbs. After the slide travels back and resets forward, the trigger will then have short travel of only 3mm before you’ll feel a very hard and obvious reset.  Pull back another 7.7 lbs and it breaks again. Let the trigger go all the way forward and pull it back 18mm, and it will break again at 7.7 lbs. Have a misfire? Just pull the trigger back again, and it will break at 7.7 lbs, after 18mm of travel.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

The break is always going to feel the same and be the same weight no matter what. The only difference in feel is the amount of travel you experience prior to that break. Given the weight of the trigger, regardless of whether it’s the first or any consecutive round fired, and given that it’s a relatively lightweight pistol without much weight up front, it takes some disciplined practice to learn to move the trigger fully through its cycle while keeping the sights on target.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

That said, this is a full-sized/duty-sized gun, with plenty of real estate to get a solid grip.  An undercut trigger guard and a full beavertail ensures the shooter gets a high grip on a gun with a low bore axis.  That’s a combination for great control and low perceived recoil.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

Textures abound.  The TM-9X sports deep angled cuts on both sides of the front and back of the slide, so finding a grip on it with or without gloves is no issue.  The frame also features scale-like texturing just forward of the squared trigger guard for the placement of the support hand thumb, or the trigger finger when not firing.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

The arched grip includes a variety of textures on all sides.  The backstraps are interchangeable, allowing for a shorter or longer grip to accommodate hand and finger size. The beavertail portion of the grip is integral to the backstrap itself.  Most shooters will want to spend the time it takes to find which backstrap works the best for them. Whereas finger placement is always important, a too short or too long “length of pull” on this particular trigger will result in fatigue and unnecessary muzzle movement that’s going to be challenging to correct.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

The ambidextrous magazine release is textured and angled well, so the firing hand easily finds it to drop the magazine.  Anyone used to firing polymer framed modern pistols should reach it instinctively.  There’s plenty of pressure ejecting the magazine as well, and I never had any need to pull an empty magazine free.  However, if a magazine was stuck for some reason, and just banging the gun hard on your knee didn’t drop it, the front of the grip has the familiar half-moon cut out at the bottom for gripping the magazine baseplate, just in case.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

The sights are your standard three white dots. The front and rear are both steel sights and they are both drift adjustable. They work just fine, and pop up in the line of sight just like they should. I was surprised that the rear sight was angled back on the front edge instead of forward. TARA missed an opportunity there, as that one simple change would have allowed the slide to be manipulated by racking it off the rear sight.

The external extractor also serves as a loaded chamber indicator, and sticks out just enough to see, or more importantly feel, if there is a round in the chamber.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com.

I was pleasantly surprised that a firearm at this price point comes with three quality 17-round metal magazines. Each one is capacity marked at rear witness holes, and includes a plastic base plate.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
TARA TM-9X left, GLOCK 19 right. (Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com.)

Take a look at the frame compared to a GLOCK 19.  Note that on the TM-9X, only a small portion of the forward rail is integral to the polymer frame, and there is no metal sitting on top of these portions. The rest of the rail, just behind those portions, are all metal, and look closer to what we see on chassis style guns like Sig’s P320.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

The TM-9X feels pretty good in the hand, and pretty good to shoot as well.  The full beavertail grip, the overall size of the platform, and the low bore axis make this a 9mm that is very easy on the hand.  Expect very minimal recoil and fast follow up shots.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com.

Precision wasn’t noteworthy, either for good or ill. The inexpensive Armscor 147gr FMJ cartridge actually shot the best, averaging 2 1/4″ groups at 25 yards.  The best defensive load was the Winchester PDX1 Defender 124gr +P cartridge.  The worst shooting round, and this rarely happens, was IMI’s 115gr Die Cut JHP bullet, averaging 3″ groups. All accuracy testing was performed untimed, seated off bags and each result is the average of 5 rounds over four shot strings.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

At the bottom of the grip, you’ll find a lanyard bar and/or a place to insert an armorer’s tool. An obligatory Pic rail sits at the front of the frame, and in case you were wondering, Safariland GLOCK 17 holsters fit it just fine.

When Jeremy handed me this gun, he asked that I take a look at some of the comments posted under his short video review of the firearm (video embedded above, though the comments are on the TTAG post). Many readers were concerned about the safety of the gun, due primarily to what appeared to be valid issues raised by a gunsmith on YouTube going by the handle of Mike Papa Kilo.

In his video, he shows what is essentially the firing pin sticking out after the striker drives forward. Even more concerning, he shows what appears to be the firing pin block failing as he is able to get the firing pin to drive forward enough to strike the primer of a round, simply by pulling back and releasing the striker itself.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com.

I was able to duplicate one of the issues demonstrated by Mike Papa Kilo. With the firearm field stripped, I was able to pull back on the rear of the striker, release it, and watch the firing pin poke right on out, where it stayed in place. The result was intermittent, but most of the time, the firing pin block did not block the firing pin from coming forward, and then the firing pin block actually kept the firing pin forward.

In the photo above, I’m not holding the striker forward. It’s stuck like that after I’ve pulled the striker back and released it. The firing pin block is holding it in place. That’s not what a firing pin block is supposed to do. I pulled several of my own striker fired pistols to see if I could duplicate the result with any of them. I could not.

The DARE trigger means the striker is at rest unless you are pulling the trigger. This is a very important fact to keep in mind. Unlike many other striker fired pistols, it is not cocked at any point until you pull the trigger. Remember, no matter if it’s the first, second, or 17th round fired, the trigger weight is exactly the same, since it’s cocking the striker every single time and it will fully cock and release the striker even if the slide doesn’t reciprocate (it’s a true double action).

The possible danger of the firing pin so protruding, and more specifically that it is held forward, is twofold. First, it may not be drop safe. Given how hard it is to pull the striker back, and the weight of the trigger pull, I find this extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible, much like a Series 70 1911 although in the TM-9X’s case, the sear also prevents the striker’s forward movement.

The bigger potential issue is that since the pin is stuck forward, it may strike the primer with enough force to set off a round, creating a chain reaction resulting in a full-auto pistol that empties the magazine. Even if it doesn’t run away on you, even a single slam fire is no small concern.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
TARA TM-9X right GLOCK 19 left (Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com.)

Don’t threaten me with a good time. But no, sadly, no chain fires (or slam fires) happened during my testing.

Over the course of a month and three trips to the Range at Austin, I put just over 600 rounds through this TM-9X. The first 500 were all Armscor’s 147gr FMJ. The next 100 were five different defensive loads and an assortment of random rounds leftover from past shooting sessions.

These loosies were simply loaded mix-matched together in magazines and shot purely to test the pistol’s reliability. I shot single-handed, both right and left, and with a traditional two-handed grip. I limp-wristed, and even fired it upside down a couple of times. I lubed the gun with CLP prior to shooting it and never cleaned it again until the review was done.

I had no malfunctions of any kind, with any round, in any shooting position, at any time.  No round failed to fire or eject. At no point did any round fail to feed. Zero thrilling chain fires. No magazine ever failed to load, lock in place, or drop free. The TM-9X’s reliability was nothing short of perfection.

To further test if the gun is drop safe…I dropped the gun. Simply enough, I pulled the projectile and powder from a commercial case, loaded it into the breech, and dropped the gun. First, I dropped it a few times on a concrete landing until I realized the slide was taking chunks out of my concrete landing. At that point, I kicked it up a notch.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol

Standing on my porch railing, I dropped the gun on a big rock. The total distance was 11 feet. For the first 20 drops, I made sure the gun landed on the back of the slide. After that, I did another 20 drops in a wide variety of positions. Finally, I put on a welder’s gauntlet and hammered the back of the slide into the rock a whole bunch of times.

The primer was never struck and the round never fired. The really surprising thing is that, after all of the abuse, I pulled the trigger and was rewarded with the primer being hit, and the gun going bang. That is very impressive.

The same semi-scientific test the Sig P320 failed years ago, the TM-9X passed, and then it passed a whole lot more. Not only did the original P320 fail the drop test, but it was quickly disabled after a few drops of only 5-1/2 feet. This TARA TM-9X never fired when dropped, and was still running after intentional abuse.

I expected to return a completely broken gun. I did not. I was insanely, unrealistically hard on the gun, but at no point did the primer ever ignite until I pulled the trigger.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com.

So why didn’t anything go wrong, when I could duplicate the issue so many times with the slide off? Well, first of all, the slide was off. Although the firing pin would protrude when the slide off, any jostling would cause the spring to pull it back in.

In essence, any rearward movement of the slide itself was enough to keep the firing pin block from holding the pin stuck forward. Next, in the real world, if a cartridge is there, the firing pin has the primer to bounce back against.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

I thought perhaps the firing pin was striking the primer, just not with enough force to set it off. However, loading another primer-only case into the breech and racking it and reloading it over and over again proved no marks on the primer whatsoever (photo above).

There may be other reasons that behavior with the slide installed on the frame isn’t the same as the behavior with the slide off the frame. For instance, how the trigger interacts with the firing pin block and the important fact that the sear itself provides a forward travel stop for the striker.

While that early SIG P320’s striker would slip over the sear, rendering the trigger dead after reasonable drops as I mentioned earlier, even after an insane amount of abuse the TM-9X’s trigger was still functional. This means the striker never passed the sear.

Regardless, the end result is that what looks bad on the bench wasn’t duplicated on the range…and I tried really dang hard.

TARA Aerospace TM-9X 9mm Pistol
Image courtesy JWT for thetruthaboutguns.com

With the ongoing scarcity and subsequent costs of handguns in the United States, I’m welcoming anyone who can introduce new products to the market. TARA Aerospace has done just that, providing an affordable duty-sized pistol with most of the features you’d expect.

The TM-9X’s true double action trigger system with its trick short reset makes it a stand out in the striker fired pistol market. To be truly competitive in 2021, though, TARA should offer a threaded barrel, an optics cut, and most importantly, a firing pin block that works as it should.

SPECIFICATIONS: TARA Aerospace TM-9X

NATO Stock Number: 1005-77-000-0001
Caliber: 9X19mm NATO
Length: 187mm
Width: 30mm
Height: 139mm
Weight: 800 grams
Barrel Length: 113mm
Rifling: 6 groove right hand
Magazine Capacity: 17
Magazines included: 3
Sight Radius: 165mm
Trigger System: DARE
Case: Lockable Soft Case
Backstraps: 3 interchangeable
MSRP: $529

Ratings (out of five stars):

Style and Appearance  * * *
Industrial and fairly utilitarian. The TM-9X is clearly a duty gun, and there’s not much style to it.

Customization  * *
Multiple backstraps and you can swap the sights out fairly easily with the standard dovetail.

Reliability  * * * * *
The TM-9X ran perfectly with a wide variety of loads, including after what I expected to be destructive testing.

Accuracy  * * *
Solid 2½” groups out to 25 yards, or thereabout, with a variety of loads.

Overall  * * * and also zero
The TARA TM-9X is clearly reliable and reasonably accurate. None of its features other than the DARE trigger system really stand out, but like many polymer framed striker fired pistols, that’s kind of the point. It’s a good, fast shooting duty pistol at a reasonable price. But the firing pin block that doesn’t seem to block concerns me a bit too much. No, there didn’t seem to be any issue in the real world. I tested it fully, and have come away not only sure it won’t fire until you want it to, but also seriously impressed with the pistol’s durability. That said, the firing pin block is a basic safety device that isn’t performing its function as it should, and the manufacturer should seek to immediately remedy this flaw. If you’re going to have a firing pin block, it should, you know, block the firing pin whether it’s a redundant safety or not.

 

Previous Post
Next Post

51 COMMENTS

  1. Ummm…my lowly Taurus’s have had a quite similar trigger for years. Restrike capabilities. And lighter. My G3 is pretty great. Good review.

  2. No failures for out of the box is very good. Think what it could be like after leaving the hands of a good Gunsmith. The lockable “soft case” doesn’t help compete with most other polymers. The 3 mags help. The Glocks I own and nothing seen so far moves me off my Sar9 mountain…Next Contestant.

  3. “The same semi-scientific test the Sig P320 failed years ago”

    “semi-scientific” implies there was some partial form of actual science testing – just dropping it or banging on it to see if something happens or does not happen is not “scientific” or “semi-scientific” testing, its curiosity.

    Your “Sig P320” test also starts with a flawed premise, this:

    “Objects have mass, and mass has inertia. That’s an object’s propensity to fight acceleration (any change in velocity). An object in motion wants to stay in motion. An object at rest wants to stay that way, too.”

    Pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

    1. “inertia” is NOT “an object’s propensity to fight acceleration (any change in velocity)”. Inertia is a property of matter (an object in this case) by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.

    2. Its not “An object in motion wants to stay in motion” or “An object at rest wants to stay that way, too.” …”unless that state is changed by an external force”

    Newton’s First Law of Motion: An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it. Similarly, if the object is at rest, it will remain at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it. Newton’s First Law of Motion is also known as the Law of Inertia.

    A. tends vs “wants” – these are not the same thing. In inertia “tends” means the characteristic of an object to maintain its state of motion, not that it “wants” to be in motion. Its maintaining what already is, not “wants”. “want” says there is a choice here to either be in motion of not in motion (at rest), there is no such choice. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it, not “wants” to be in motion unless an external force acts upon it.

    B. An object at rest doesn’t “want” to stay at rest. It stays at rest until its acted upon by an unbalanced force. “want” says there is a choice here to either be in motion of not in motion (at rest), there is no such choice – an object at rest will become an object in motion if acted upon an unbalanced force, period. (“unbalanced force” is not necessarily external, it can be internal to the object)

      • You seem to be really struggling with literary devices in the English language. In this particular case, it’s Jeremy’s use of the poetic device of personification. Writers will often use these literary devices to add meaning, context, or emphasis on particular words or phrases.

        • I’m not struggling with anything.

          Butchering what is plainly written and available from many sources and known and written and proven time and time again, to apply in some aspect in which it does not belong is not “use of the poetic device of personification.” – its use of ignorance trying to make something appear “authoritatively scientific” as something that it really isn’t.

          for example; “Oh look, Jeremy said – Objects have mass, and mass has inertia. That’s an object’s propensity to fight acceleration (any change in velocity).” – that is 100% false, Inertia is a property of matter (an object in this case) by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, not fighting acceleration but rather to continue, to maintain, what already is in either state. Its is not a “literary device” to butcher a plainly written law of physics making the “literary device” 100% false then try to present it as though its real science, its ignorance not “literary device”. Its ignorance expressed in pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, period.

          Don’t try to excuse falsehoods with some flowery excuse of “literary device” so it must be my or someone elses’ fault the 100% falsehood is misunderstood. Science is science, if you are going to present science then present science and apply it properly and not some butchered pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo version of it. If that can not be done then keep away from presenting science as the premise foundation for stuff to attempt to make it seem “scientific” and “authoritative” – its deceptive and assumes the audience is stupid.

        • I ask this without judgment, and in a real desire to communicate with you better.
          Have you ever been diagnosed with autism or Asperger’s syndrome?

        • “I ask this without judgment, and in a real desire to communicate with you better.
          Have you ever been diagnosed with autism or Asperger’s syndrome?”

          Have you ever been diagnosed with autism or Asperger’s syndrome?

          I’ve been doing physics for many years, ever since I got my masters degree in physics.

          I assure you the incorrect and false psuedo-science I referenced and pointed out previously is ignorance expressed in pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, period.

          If you want to learn how to “communicate” with me “better” on this subject then at least learn basic high school science because that’s all it took to see the many flaws and recognize it as pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

        • Once again, I’m not struggling with anything. I recognize false hoods when I see them, because you want to use “English” to obscure them with an excuse of “literary devices” when they are pointed out does not mean they do not exist.

          You’re trying to say and imply I don’t understand the English language, or I’m autistic or have Asperger’s, so I must be wrong. Its a crude cheap low life childish deception tactic by trying to discredit with those. But the facts are as I pointed them out and anyone can look it up them selves.

          Its not like Newtons laws of physics are not known and written down some place so I gotta think you you are struggling with English because they are pretty clearly written along with their explanations in English many places. Heck, they could even be copy and pasted from hundreds of places on the internet but nope, we get, for example, “Objects have mass, and mass has inertia. That’s an object’s propensity to fight acceleration (any change in velocity).” that is 100% false. So I gotta wonder about your ability to understand the English language, and to make the ignorant pseudo-science worse you try to cover for the false hoods by calling it “literary devices”.

          Is it normal for you to deceive and insult your readers as being stupid even though some of them may not realize they are being insulted or lied to due to “literary devices”?

          And now yet another excuse that some way or another because I pointed out falsehoods and pseudo-science being used to lend “authoritative weight” to an article, I am “clearly struggling with English” or maybe I’m autistic or have Asperger’s. I’m not the only person here with a physics degree that’s laughing at the pseudo-science in the article.

          Gun owners look for facts in articles, the articles here. A lot of them put faith in what authors write because they either don’t know better, or view the author as a reliable authoritative source, or just want information, and a lot of them do not have physics degrees and may not be up to speed on the math and stuff or up to speed on other subjects. That’s not a slam against them, its just fact that some will be that way and there is no shame in it. So they might not recognize when they are being lied to with pseudo-science or being insulted with “literary devices” and ignorance put forth as “authoritative science ’cause the author said so”. Authors have a responsibility to make sure the facts are correct in their articles, and that includes presenting the science factually as it really is and not some false pseudo-science ignorance they try to excuse it as “literary devices” when they get caught doing it.

        • I really meant what I said, and that I had no intention of being insulting by asking if you were autistic. That is not an insult. I know a couple of people with Asperger’s who are brilliant, but have a very difficult time expressing themselves and communicating with others. You sound a lot like them.
          This started with your first comment, “minimal compared to what?”
          This is the kind of know-it-all ridiculous comment someone says when they’re trying to be a jerk. So I ignores it. But then, when you seem to not understand how Jeremy used the word “want” in his article, and then went on such an expository, repetitive rant about it, that’s when I thought maybe there was something else going on here, and that maybe you had some social challenges or difficulty understanding expression, common with autism.
          Unfortunately, you just responded with more insults.
          This entire time you’ve been arguing about an article that I did not write nor is P320 test I was referring to. If you would have taken a breath, got off your high horse, and maybe just asked me about it, you might have realized that instead of repeatedly embarrassing yourself.

        • Yes, you are struggling with something, Booger: It’s called pedantry.

          The original explanation wasn’t part of an engineering class, a process definition, or a technical paper. All it had to do was convey, in a dirt-simple way, the basic reasons why a pistol may or may not fail a drop-safety test. And that’s what it did.

          The distinction you’re trying to draw just doesn’t matter in the context of a popular gun blog. Let it go. [insert Princess Elsa meme here]

        • i would see the pedantic reference and raise it to didactic.
          the multiple corrections are evidence, and clarify that which matters to an audience of one.

          they come and go.

          me, i miss a good joe r. rant about shoulder holsters.

      • “”…inertia. That’s an object’s propensity to fight acceleration (any change in velocity).”

        – that is 100% false, Inertia is a property of matter (an object in this case) by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, not fighting acceleration but rather to continue, to maintain, what already is in either state.”

        You’ve just repeated what I said but with more words. Velocity IS uniform motion in a straight line. That’s literally the definition of the word as it pertains to physics. Velocity can also be zero. Likewise, acceleration is defined as ANY change in an object’s velocity. You’re trying to argue that my statement was “100% wrong” by using the definitions of the words I used instead of the words. The first two sentences of Wiki’s page on inertia reads: “Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its velocity. This includes changes to the object’s speed, or direction of motion.” You know what you call a change in speed or direction (which is itself called velocity)? You call it acceleration.

        Also, TTAG is not a scientific journal. Our gun reviews are not peer reviewed academic publications. We write colloquially, intentionally. Casual and engaging, not stuffy and academic.

        And JWT’s testing WAS semi-scientific. He followed the scientific method of testing a hypothesis with an experiment, collecting data, and drawing a conclusion. And repeated the experiment. This is called science.

    • I get the feeling you would be a poor science teacher. Expressing the same concept in different language (which doesn’t meaningfully alter the fundamental truth behind it) is a core skill of educators. It also demonstrates real understanding of a concept, as opposed to mere memorization of a singular definition.

      If a student didn’t understand Newton’s First Law of Motion in the terms you used, would you just keep repeating those same terms ad nauseam, or would you have the ability and wisdom to express it in different ways, perhaps with literary devices, to facilitate understanding?

      The language Jeremy used may not match a particular textbook definition you favor, but saying it is “100% False” is an even more egregious distortion of reality than any semantic imprecision on his part.

  4. Wowwie-woahwie, just what we needed for Xmas – yet another foreign-made plastic nine from a company I never heard of. Well, it’s an aerospace company headquartered in the aerospace hotbed of Europe, namely Montenegro, so it’s gotta be good, right?

    But wait, there’s more — this gun sets itself apart from the pack with a gimmicky trigger! Yessir, sign me up. I’ll pick it up somewhere in the Balkans.

  5. “I thought perhaps the firing pin was striking the primer, just not with enough force to set it off. However, loading another primer-only case into the breach and racking it and reloading it over and over again proved no marks on the primer whatsoever (photo above).”

    Wait a second… the only “(photo above)” that showing a primer shows an indented primer. How is that “no marks on the primer whatsoever”?

    Its is just a trick of the light?

    • .40 cal Booger,

      I had the exact same thought/question about that primer-only cartridge photo and I also concluded that the light reflecting on the primer is deceptive in that photo.

      Furthermore, firing pins usually produce relatively small indentations compared to the overall diameter of the primer cup. (The diameter of the indentation would typically be about 1/3rd the diameter of the primer cup.) With that fact in mind, what appears to be an indentation in that photo has WAY too large a diameter to be from a firing pin. Thus, I have concluded that the apparent indentation is an unintended optical illusion.

  6. JWT, I respect you’re reviews, but, really? After that Hawkeye review? Just what the world needs. Another plastic 9mm?

    • It was originally Jeremy’s review, but he ran out of time and I took it over for him. Turned out to be fun after all, as it is rare that I get to bash up a gun like that.

    • Leigh,

      With an MSRP of $529 it will probably sell at gun stores for around $450. My guess is that budget-minded people who want a handgun for basic home defense are the primary market. And those people will not typically be looking for extra magazines–the three magazines which come with it are good enough.

  7. JWT: Thank you for an informative review. For future reference, please note the difference between “breach” and “breech” when used as nouns, e.g., “The SWAT officer properly used his Halligan Tool, thus resulting in a successful breach” vs. “JWT loaded a new snap cap into the firearm’s breech.”

    See also, https://grammarist.com/usage/breach-breech-broach/

  8. Anyway, as the team grew, we went from a 10-year team of eight people to hundreds of full-time and part-time employees. We firmly believe that only quality service is the foundation of our business, we have more than 600 full-time experts online to help you.

  9. Our 10 years of development is based on the experience of systematically writing papers in various universities, and then developing and perfecting the ideas we discuss and the mastery of paper service products. We can discuss and coach through the unique way of paper writing of our excellent experts, which has been recognized by many overseas students’ parents and Mr. Liu’s customers. At the same time, we are also equipped with extremely strict quality control procedures, so that your thesis writing is closely monitored, monitored and controlled.

  10. It’s just not possible for me to get excited about yet another striker-fired polymer 9mm. They’re all more or less the same. My chief consideration ends up being: are they still going to be made 10 years from now? Will I still be able to get parts, magazines and accessories? That’s a strong argument for going Glock, Ruger, S&W, etc.

  11. Do I want to have a generally crappy trigger just to allow second strikes? No, I do not, and if I did I’d get a traditional DA/SA.

  12. Way too high an MSRP for a mostly generic Glock clone from a company no one’s ever heard of. I’m sure their US support network is impressive as well.

  13. A gun owner must need a tool is a pistol cleaning kit which he should regularly use to clean out his old or new felicitated pistols or revolver. One fancy user of this machine must be concerned about this. Now let’s get to the point, there are several brands in the market offering various cleaning kits which may or may not be able to satisfy or nourish your pistol/ gun using experience. So you should consider some key factors before buying any cleaning kits for your gun. The followings are the top 5 cleaning kits we recommend. 5 best pistol cleaning kit of 2022………

    https://www.retrohow.com/5-best-pistol-cleaning-kit-of-2022-reviews-and-buying-guide

  14. This gun is an innovation “ One step forward from Glock”… It carries Glock lay out and parts with a trigger as stretched to “Double action”… It also carries a lever to clear the sear out of way of firing pin path during disassembly.

    The gun has no single action lockwork… But… At ongoing shots it can be shot like single action if trigger is kept at back at “Short reset” position… Firing pin strikes with same power at both single and double action and with same trigger pull and weight… A novel feature which absent in known SA/DA pistols… No need to chance the position of trigger holding.

    The gun needs no firing pin block… The striker all the time remains uncocked at rest and the sear blocks its forward movement at that position… No need a drop safety… The firing pin block might be added to prevent accidents during field strip or to get along with rules of “BATF”regulations.

    In existing service pistols… Such a trigger action with this simplicity is possible only with “Glock type” single piece trigger bar with sear and sideward acting disconnector… No other service pistol lockwork can provide this.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here