Guns that are too big for what they are.

[paratroop]

Easy - the high point CF380.

and its uglier than i dont know what.

[Vin496]

Easy - the high point CF380. On the roster, can currently be bought brand new in CA.

To my mind, this is the worldwide champ for "bigger than it should be."

1) It's a polymer frame, but still weighs 29 ozs, UNLOADED. (The weight of a Glock 21 .45ACP)

2) It's nearly 7" of overall length (again, same length as a Glock 21 in
.45ACP) , and lets not forget....

3) All of that heft/weight/size....and it is a .380!!!

There are .380s that weight less than half this beast, and can fit in your front pocket.

DAMN, throwing that thing at someone is probably more deadly than shooting it. Talk about getting hit with the ugly stick.

[savasyn]

I'll add the Beretta 92. It's way overbuilt for a 9mm. From what I understand, all they did to make the 96 a .40 was increase the size of the bore, no extra anything needed.

The G17 is smaller, lighter and holds two more rounds.

I had a 92 for a while and yeah, it was nice, but it was so big and bulky IMO, so I sold it.

[Bug Splat]

1. beretta 92. damn big, heavy, and thick and im not just talking about me.

2. hi point. id rather look at a goatse to be honest. blah

[BigDogatPlay]

The Sig P239 for me...I realize it's single stack but I just wish it had a bit more...guess it just can't be done without going double stack.

Agree that the P239 is probably bigger than it needs to be, but considering that it more or less comes from the full sized guns it's easy to see how it came to be how it is. I like mine, but I'm a big guy and prefer a bit of heft. I've sometimes wondered if the P239 was some manner of a compromise in the design phase.

I'd also agree on the P230 / P232. Bigger than the average 380, but an absolute dream to shoot for me which completely offsets the size issue.

To me the Berretta 92 is way too big. I shot and carried first and second generation S&W autos which even full size were smaller and handier for me than the 92.

[scrat]

Walker




The Original OG

16 1/2 inches long
4 1/2 lbs

[aceventura]

+2 on the HK MK23. It also came with, what I think was a price that was to big for what it was when it first came out. I think it was near a Grand. Anybody remember?

[ST5MF]

+2 on the HK MK23. It also came with, what I think was a price that was to big for what it was when it first came out. I think it was near a Grand. Anybody remember?

Retail was over $2K on the HK Mark23.

[Tenchi]

What are some guns that you consider too big for what they are, if you were going to buy one today in California.

My 1st choice would be the HK USP 9mm. I used to have one and it's a good size gun, just doesn't seem to be worth it for 10 rounds of 9mm.

I know some will say the Desert Eagle, but for 8 rounds of .44 mag or .50 AE, I think the size is justified.

my sentiments exactly.

[HondaMasterTech]

.50BMG. Easily the most oversized gun. Honestly, the proper way to fire this round is to hold the cartridge in your hand and smack the primer with a tack hammer. Everyone knows this...

[tankerman]

Ruger Super Redhawk =

[Army GI]

I tend to divide handgun applications into three categories - range, home defense and concealed carry. For concealed carry it is important to have a smaller, lighter weight gun with adequate round capacity. But for the first two applications a larger gun is fine, and has the advantage of more mass to help handle recoil.

So the question of which guns are too large for their caliber and capacity seems to presume a concealed carry application, where size is more important.

For range and home defense I prefer a big, heavy gun. I like full size 1911s, S&W L and N frame revolvers, and full size USPs or Sigs. They seem best for calibers like .45 ACP, .357 magnum, .44 magnum and 10mm.

I agree.

For hunting or target shooting, I don't see anything at all wrong with revolvers that have 8-10" barrels. The longer sight radius gives you more practical accuracy and the longer barrel squeezes out the maximum power for the round that you're firing.

For duty work, a 4-5" barrel is preferable.

For concealed carry, anything 3" or smaller.

In my opinion, I don't think the M9 is too big for what it is. It is pretty much the same size as a 1911, but holds more than twice as many rounds. It's also full metal construction unlike the Glock. While it's true that it's outdated as far as handgun design materials, for me it's okay because that helps hold down recoil.

[JTROKS]

In CA any full size dual column mag 9mm pistol is too big when used with a 10 round mag. For USPSA use probably not since it's easier to shoot the full size or extended barrel/slide versions. For home defense you may as well get the compact.

[hybridatsun350]

Ruger Super Redhawk =

Hahahahahaha!

[smittty]

Now that we all know the 10 mag limit isn't going away for California I would love to see manufacturers designing some models with that in mind. A Glock 19 slimmed down to hold 10 rounds within the existing grip length would be sweet...the G19 slim!

I considered getting the Glock 26 because of the mag limit but decided it was too small and went with the G19 but I feel jipp'd because I know it can hold more.

It really peezzz me off to think about this and oh ya, thank you Mr. Ruger for ****ing us!