TargetTalk

solomon grundy wrote:

Nick is a person who has been and always will be in the background for many top shooters. You should ask the AMU who they had learned from on how to accurize their Beretta's.

Sams designed and built the AMU Berettas.

I've got nothing against Nick Abrishamian, people who own MCP pistols seem to like them. But I've heard so many crazy claims about him and his pistols that it causes me to wonder where these stories are coming from - e.g. he was a SF gunsmith?!?

I think Tony Kidd had a little to do with the development of the Beretta into an accurate ball gun.

Hmmm.

The "legend" I heard (circa 1998) was that David Sams did the original design work at the AMU and Tony kid came out with a very similar design right around the same time frame.

So Tony and David have gotten the credit for "inventing" the currently popular rails/buttons/bushing lockup design.

A bunch of people were experimenting with the M9 at the time though; so this could just be folklore. There are plenty of stories of inventors coming up with the same good ideas independently.

I will have to say my David Sams M9 will go about 1,000 rounds inside 3" (o-o) before it starts to slowly fade out to 5" (o-o) groups for another 1,000.

So I would have to "Ditto" the lack of durability issue for the M9 vs. the M1911 as far as match grade ball guns.

Steve Swartz

Steve, just out of curiosity, when did David Sams build your gun? What is the fix for the fade (although I personally find very little wrong with a 5 inch group at 50 yards.) When I got mine it would hold a 1.5 inch group in a ranson rest with AA&A ammo and does almost as well with the cheapie Winchester from Wal-Mart. When I do everything right at 50 yards, the shots are in the x ring. I fear it will be a long time before I shoot better than the gun does. :-) Isabel

Isabel:

The fix is to extend the little hex screws out of the frame rails a bit to "snug up" the barrel.

I have not seen any appreciable wear on the barrel bushing, and the rest of the frame-rails fit seems fine.

The hex screws seem to be the only part of the system that is prone to wear . . . this was explained as a desirable characteristic of the design when I bought the gun (built in 1999 IIRC).

I think the only (major?) difference between the Sams and Kidd designs are 2 sets of rails (Sams) vs. 3 sets of rails (Kidd)? But again I could be wrong on this; I'm not personally familiar with the Kidd design.

As to "the gun shooting better than you do" well then get out of it's way and let it shoot without you!

Steve

As to "the gun shooting better than you do" well then get out of it's way and let it shoot without you!
Steve, that is what I am trying to learn how to do. Unfortunately I do a much better job in practice of getting out of the way than I ever do in competition. :-) Isabel.

Anonymous wrote:

GOVTMODEL wrote:

Guest Twenty wrote:While the MCP pistols might be very good neither of the "gunsmiths" (can I REALLY call a Chiropractor a gunsmith?) have proven themselves yet.

You're quite right, I'm sure. Only after Brian Zins wins several more National Championships would I be confident shooting an MCP product <G>



Richard Ashmore

I would be no more comfortable buying a MCP product just because Brian Zins endorses it than I would a tennis racket just because Roger Federer used it. My results my differ. From what I have heard, the issue with both the MCP pistols and the David Sams pistols are the same. I say this as the owner of a David Sams 9MM. The question is: how long will they hold up when you have attached steel parts to a malable alumminum frame in order to achieve greater accuracy? Will the guns retain their accuracy as long as an all steel gun would? For Brian Zins I am sure that is no big deal. If the gun loses the ability to group, Dr. Nick will just send him a new one. Brian is after all, a paid endorser. For the rest of us, it may not be quite so simple. Time will tell. Kate

Steve Swartz wrote:Dwaine:

I still don't understand the webiste claims that Brian won nationals last year with an MCP M1911; which they don't really come out and say directly but imply? Or what that has to do with their M9/92FS product?

Directly from Biran Zin's own website forum........SO looking at the dates of the postings I wonder what he was using when he was winning at perry?


http://www.brianzins.com/phpBB/viewtopi ... d7b89ff25a

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They have built the 2 guns (mm Centerfire gun and the .45 that I will be shooting this summer after I am retired. I have shot the .45 in few matches last season and the first 900 I shot it in I shot an 891 in Toledo, OH. The 9mm CF gun is equally impressive. He also nuilds 9mm Service Pistols.

Of course, now everyone will want to know who built Henderson's ball gun. That new national record is pretty awesome, and I don't overuse that word.

Misny wrote:Of course, now everyone will want to know who built Henderson's ball gun. That new national record is pretty awesome, and I don't overuse that word.

You don't overuse the word. Both Henderson's President's Match and EIC match scores are pretty awesome. I am betting on Jim to break Anderson's record for the 2700 in the next three years.

My guess is the AMU built Henderson's ball gun. I went to the Advanced Pistol Clinic where we were allowed to handle and ask questions about Henderson's and Sgt Park's guns. The guns are set up to the preferences of each individual shooter and tuned regularly along with being matched to lots of ammunition. I had a conversation with the AMU armorer when he weighed the triggers on my Sam's Berettas at Camp Perry. He recognized them immediately as Sam's work. I think the AMU is still using either the Sam's design or the Kidd design (three rails) on their guns. By the way, a close friend acquired an accurized Beretta that was done by Mountain Competition Pistols. He did not shoot it at Perry as he can not get it to reliably function. Realize that this may be only one individual case but still, the gun was brand new when received and he has not shot it in a match yet. Isabel

My Kidd Beretta underwent a short break-in period. After that it has functioned flawlessly. The only custom bullseye guns that I've seen shoot reliably right out of the box are Rock River pistols. They are very tight, but shoot light reloads fine from the git go. Sadly, they won't be producing them anymore. Tell your buddy to shoot the Moutain Competition Pistol gun for a few hundred rounds and I bet it will be fine. Of course that is as long as he feeds it good fodder. That being said, I haven't shot or even handled any MCP guns, so I can't really comment on their triggers, durability, accuracy or reliability.

IIRC the main difference between the Kidd design and the Sams design is the use of 3 rails (Kidd) vs. 2 rails (Sams).*

That then raises the ever present "But which is better?" question.

Of course, as a satisfied Sams customer, I am biased in that direction; however, a good point would be:

- You want the shroud to travel in a straight line
- Two points define a line
- Three points defines ?

Steve

*not sure if MCP copied the Sams or Kidd design or . . . ?

MCP uses wire rails like the familiar "accurails", only better.

[quote="Steve Swart as Guest"]- Three points defines ?

Steve

The answer is ... more hard contact between the frame rails and the slide.

Misny:

Actually, you have now introduced more variability into the system. Instead of having 2 pairs of rails that have to remain constantly aligned to the slide, you have 2 sets of three.

As the system wears, as the temperature changes, with different loads, etc. etc. you will have 6 contact/wear points that will be going in and out of alignment. Instead of four.

Think about it: what is the likelihood that all 6 points of contact will maintain uniform pressure? Compared to 4?

As a (no longer practicing, admittedly) machinist a "2x3 point system" is a heck of a lot less consistent than a "2 x 2 point system."

By adding the "extra" contact point on each sliding rail, you are creating what is referred to as an "overspecified" or "redundant" component in the system.

Anyhow, I know the Kidd-system acolytes will say "6 legs are better than 4" (that was Tony's whole marketing purpose) but I do believe the point is indeed arguable.

Any other machinists/engineers want to chime in?

Steve

Misny wrote:My Kidd Beretta underwent a short break-in period. After that it has functioned flawlessly. The only custom bullseye guns that I've seen shoot reliably right out of the box are Rock River pistols. They are very tight, but shoot light reloads fine from the git go. Sadly, they won't be producing them anymore. Tell your buddy to shoot the Moutain Competition Pistol gun for a few hundred rounds and I bet it will be fine. Of course that is as long as he feeds it good fodder. That being said, I haven't shot or even handled any MCP guns, so I can't really comment on their triggers, durability, accuracy or reliability.

My friend told me last night that he has fired more than 1000 rounds through his MCP Beretta. Still can't find a combination of ammo, and magazines either reloads or commercial that will reliably feed in gun. Needless to say he is looking for someone else to tweek it. My friend pretty much lost confidence in Dr Nick due to this incident and another one with a .45 that he sent in for work. My David Sams guns all have functioned flawlessly right out of the box. Isabel

Isabel (as guest) wrote:

Misny wrote:My Kidd Beretta underwent a short break-in period. After that it has functioned flawlessly. The only custom bullseye guns that I've seen shoot reliably right out of the box are Rock River pistols. They are very tight, but shoot light reloads fine from the git go. Sadly, they won't be producing them anymore. Tell your buddy to shoot the Moutain Competition Pistol gun for a few hundred rounds and I bet it will be fine. Of course that is as long as he feeds it good fodder. That being said, I haven't shot or even handled any MCP guns, so I can't really comment on their triggers, durability, accuracy or reliability.

My friend told me last night that he has fired more than 1000 rounds through his MCP Beretta. Still can't find a combination of ammo, and magazines either reloads or commercial that will reliably feed in gun. Needless to say he is looking for someone else to tweek it. My friend pretty much lost confidence in Dr Nick due to this incident and another one with a .45 that he sent in for work. My David Sams guns all have functioned flawlessly right out of the box. Isabel

If I paid over two grand for a custom pistol, I wouldn't suffer in silence. I'd send it back to the builder to get it made "right".

Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:Misny:

Actually, you have now introduced more variability into the system. Instead of having 2 pairs of rails that have to remain constantly aligned to the slide, you have 2 sets of three.

As the system wears, as the temperature changes, with different loads, etc. etc. you will have 6 contact/wear points that will be going in and out of alignment. Instead of four.

Think about it: what is the likelihood that all 6 points of contact will maintain uniform pressure? Compared to 4?

As a (no longer practicing, admittedly) machinist a "2x3 point system" is a heck of a lot less consistent than a "2 x 2 point system."

By adding the "extra" contact point on each sliding rail, you are creating what is referred to as an "overspecified" or "redundant" component in the system.

Anyhow, I know the Kidd-system acolytes will say "6 legs are better than 4" (that was Tony's whole marketing purpose) but I do believe the point is indeed arguable.

Any other machinists/engineers want to chime in?

Steve

With that theory, then a 1911 with just fitted slide and frame would have innumerable contact points. In the real world, it probably doesn't make any difference. There is a theory however that "more is better". For the same price, I'll take more.

Actually, the M1911 design offers two contact points . . . it's the number of "independent pieces" that matter.

Fewer "independent pieces" means "less variability."

With some caveats, a SINGLE rail or rail-slide combination would be even better (in theory).

In practice, feeding and chambering would be quite a trick with a single-contact design . . .

(Yes, I admit it is a little more complex than that; it depends on the "degree of independence of the independent parts, the rigidity of the parts with respect to each other, etc. BUT assuming we are talking about the same basic M9 frame under the same set of "Service Pistol" rules, overspecifying the relationships between the frame (rails) and slide would most likely have more costs in terms of variability than benefits in terms of durability.)

Anyhow, what is the actual evidence from actual use in the field? How do the two designs hold up against each other in field testing? That's the only thing that matters . . . oh, that and the placebo effedct . . .

The slide and rail fit aren't that important. What really matters is how the barrel locks up with the slide closed. As long as the barrel is supported in the rear and front well when the slide is closed, and the barrel is good, you will get good groups.

I would think that there is little difference in performance of the Kidd and Sams Berettas. They do use different barrel makes, but as long as one finds a load that groups in those barrels, there prolly ain't a frog's hair difference tween 'em. As always, the defining factor is the nut behind the trigger.

Spot on again!

Steve

Steve Swart as Guest wrote: *not sure if MCP copied the Sams or Kidd design or . . . ?

MCP holds a patent on it's design.