Sold my P-09...now what?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not even close to the beretta in feel or design.

Much more ergonomic, slides rides on the inside of the frame, uses a browning tilt barrel system of locking, and the decock is only a decock not a safety as well.

It is often called an updated Hi Power. And there is merit to that description.
 
Why no love for Ruger? I have mine and they are rock-solid reliable, simple to break down, AND MADE IN USA! I can't figure out why their auto pistols don't get the love their revolvers do. Ruger is obviously not a small-time operation, their quality is well-known, and many of their designs are state-of-the art. I'd like to be educated. Seriously, does anyone really believe (or better yet, have evidence) that [fill in your pet make] is empirically a better gun? Better steel, higher quality polymers, closer tolerances? I will definitely understand if the gun just "feels right". Thanks.
 
I've owned a Ruger 22/45 Lite before and enjoyed it. If I'm looking for a .22 rifle, a 10/22 is near the top of my list. But I don't have a fondness for their pistols as primary carry or home defense guns because they have safety features that I don't want. Rugers usually have prominent thumb safeties, magazine brakes, and magazine disconnects. I really don't want any of those things. Some of those things can be modified out, and that'd be fine for a range piece (I did that on my 22/45), but I don't like modifying safety features out of a gun that I might later have to defend in court if used in a defensive situation. I have nothing against Ruger as a company or their pistols in terms of build quality or anything like that...it's just that they're not setup with the features I like.
 
Ruger is high quality American made no doubt, had a single action revolver I loved but every pistol from them I have picked up had an absolutely horrid trigger on it. And they felt "clunky" to me for lack of a better word, but that's personal preference stuff.
 
Originally Posted By: 2cool
Why no love for Ruger? I have mine and they are rock-solid reliable, simple to break down, AND MADE IN USA! I can't figure out why their auto pistols don't get the love their revolvers do. Ruger is obviously not a small-time operation, their quality is well-known, and many of their designs are state-of-the art. I'd like to be educated. Seriously, does anyone really believe (or better yet, have evidence) that [fill in your pet make] is empirically a better gun? Better steel, higher quality polymers, closer tolerances? I will definitely understand if the gun just "feels right". Thanks.


I own Ruger handguns...they are reliable and built like a brick. However, sometimes they feel like a brick too. Hold a CZ75 and most of the time for people it is like someone sculpted it custom for your hand. I cannot say the same for my P89 at all.
 
Can't get a CZ but might get a clone just to feel the custom sculpture.
whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted By: kozanoglu
Can't get a CZ but might get a clone just to feel the custom sculpture.
whistle.gif



The Canik/Tristar ones are the closest ever since EAA/Tanfoglio upsized their frames to handle all calibers instead of having a small and large framed guns.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: kozanoglu
Atmaca 53 is said to be another clone although I am not sure if I can purchase one here.

http://www.ardesensilah.com/atmaca-53-beyaz-krom-kucuk-parcalar-altin.htm


That is a Browning Hi Power clone. The Canik's are super affordable and seemingly well built. Not QUITE up to the CZ, but close and a good buy for the money.


Maybe ? The Canik's I've seen are better finished inside than the CZ, CZ's have tooling marks and Canik was finished off. Cajon Gun Works will trick out Canik & Tri-Stars and they won't touch some the other so called clones that deviate from true CZ.
 
The Caniks I have shot are nicely finished as you said, but they did not seem to be quite as accurate as the CZ guns(canik kept shooting low) and while the triggers were good, they were not quite as good. Tool marks on the inside of a gun do not bother me to be honest.
 
I'll post some detailed pics of my new CZ tomorrow. It definitely looks rough under the hood in some places that aren't functional. The un-Polycoated areas on the inside of the slide, for example, look rough and rusty red. This is just the color of CZ's parkerizing, though, and the metal is protected 100%.

Then on the flip side, the feed ramp is beautifully polished, as are the areas under the slide that matter (like the round stripping lug...it's polished on the bottom to reduce friction against the top of the next round in the magazine.

Rain all weekend here, so no shooting. My buddy just got some steel for his backyard range, so I look forward to trying it soon! Pics tomorrow...
 
Academy Sports and Outdoors imported some Sarsilmaz (sp?) 9 mm that were a clone of either the small CZ 75 or the Tangfolio (again, sp?).

I picked up a bunch of them when they closed them out for $279. Very, very, nice little guns.

Edit: they were $278 on closeout, not $279 ....
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Win
Academy Sports and Outdoors imported some Sarsilmaz (sp?) 9 mm that were a clone of either the small CZ 75 or the Tangfolio (again, sp?).

I picked up a bunch of them when they closed them out for $279. Very, very, nice little guns.

Edit: they were $278 on closeout, not $279 ....


Sarsilmaz ST9?
Looks like a polymer gun. Great price.
Maybe it was Kilinc 2000? Any pictures?
http://www.sarsilmaz.com/tr-tr/mega/110/Page.aspx
 
The ones I purchased were the Sarsilmaz Hancer - all steel, compact, with a rubber grip. They were quite the deal for $278.

They also had another Sarsilmaz 9mm but I don't recall the name on it. I don't think it was Kilinc, but it might have been.

edit: I think the other model was the Kama. Definitely not the Kilinc. From looking at your link to their website, I didn't see either model that Academy imported.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top