A reader recently asked me to give the low-down on magazine compatibility vis a vis the Jericho. I’ll go a step further for you, and finally put a bunch of Internet misconceptions to bed based on personal experience.
The Israelis mostly made two types of guns:
Tanfoglio full-size, small frame: BUL Cherokee (gen 1 and gen 2), BUL Storm, all full-size and semi-compact Jerichos
Tanfoglio compact-size, small frame: BUL Storm Compact, Jericho Compact
Read on for my findings, plus some information about BUL M5 magazine compatibility.
Continue reading Magazine Compatibility
According to The Firearm Blog, the Hartman MH1 reflex sight is now shipping in the USA. As you’ll recall from our previous coverage, the MH1 is the Israeli-made successor to the tepidly-received MSE-AQC. I am still skeptical that it will sell well at its specified price point ($650), especially in light of the competition from the popular Mepro Tru-Dot RDS, but perhaps street prices will surprise me.
I just saw that The Truth About Guns has reviewed the Magnum Research Baby Desert Eagle III (polymer frame) in .40S&W. You’ll recall that the polymer BDEIII is essentially the third-gen Cherokee, and the steel BDEIII is basically a second-gen Storm.
This is the first “trustworthy” review I’ve seen of the BDEIII in either form, so I felt it worth mentioning. Robert gives the gun a pretty good rating, but hates the slide-mounted safety/decocker – hardly a surprise, given the preferences in the US market.
One of the guns that I always assumed was a bit of a unicorn was the BUL Storm Compact. According to some information I had read on a previous auction of one, only 300 were ever produced. However, as I posted on the blog, about a dozen of the guns went on sale on Gunbroker over a short time period last year, and I was lucky enough to snag one.
Unfortunately, my state of residence takes forever to put a gun on our handgun roster. And what’s worse, the Storm Compact that I bought had an undiscovered broken magazine release, so it had to take two trips through that process. So, despite having bought the gun quite a long time ago, I’ve only really had it in my hands for a month or so, and I wasn’t even able to get the magazine that came with it.
That’s been enough time for me to formulate some thoughts on the gun, though. Read on for more.
Continue reading The BUL Storm Compact
Just wanted to apologize for the lack of posts lately – I’ve been dealing with some RL commitments, and I’ve had zero time to go shooting or write blog posts until recently.
As for the future:
- I have a BUL Storm Compact and an IMI Jericho FL that are awaiting review.
- I’d like to dig a little bit into an Israeli-modified 98k rifle.
- I’d like to do a two year retrospective on the IWI Tavor SAR.
- More accessory reviews! (Hopefully.)
I was looking at a review of the new IWI-US imported Jericho over on LooseRounds, and noticed that the author had a very interesting comment about it:
… the action and slide of the Jericho sit tight inside the frame and as a side effect, reveal little of the slide itself for weapon manipulation. Unlike say, my square Glock which gives me lots of real estate for racking and manipulation, the Jericho gives much less purchase. Consider this a negative if forced to manipulate the weapon when wet or in slippery conditions.
Fair criticism, of course. IMI apparently took this to heart when they designed the Barak, which has the large, easy-to-grab, and ugly rear sight “hump”.
But… this is also specifically a problem with the newest generation of Jerichos. The sights on the new imports are of the “snag-free” variety. However, if you look at the older IMI guns, they’ve got a much different design – very vertical, thick, and “snaggy”. The advantage is that the old style sights make the slide much easier to manipulate. You simply grab the top of the slide and push back against the rear sight.
Want to be a real operator and do a one-handed-against-the-table slide manipulation? The old-style sights were awesome for that. In fact, the old-style sights were pretty great in general, so I’m not sure why they changed them. Snag-free isn’t everything.
There have been some posts on ARFCOM alleging that the X95 has some accuracy issues out of the box, and is not measuring up to the 1-2MOA that people have been getting out of the original Tavor SAR. Groups with even high quality match ammo seem to be more like 3-4 MOA.
Accuracy testing on bullpups is notoriously tricky due to the problems of getting them properly bench-rested, but there’s enough data in the thread (including some from AUGs and Tavor SARs) that buyers should at least be concerned about the problem. Anyone know if the X95 barrels are from the US or Israel? One of the nice points about the Tavor SAR was that delightful Israeli-made barrel – you knew you were getting what the IDF was getting.