Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Semi-Auto Handguns (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f15/)
-   -   VIDEO: Shooting the World's Largest .45ACP Semi-Auto Handgun (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f15/video-shooting-worlds-largest-45acp-semi-auto-handgun-72067/)

Amsdorf 09-08-2012 01:35 PM

VIDEO: Shooting the World's Largest .45ACP Semi-Auto Handgun
 
It's a brick. It's the world's first and perhaps only crew-served .45ACP. You have to be about seven feet tall and weigh 400 pounds to conceal carry it. When you run out of ammo you can use it as a battering weapon.

It is, the one, the only, the world's largest .45ACP semi-automatic handgun, I present, the HK MK23!!

Anyone use one before?

http://youtu.be/-bsR-8ckQdI?hd=1

dog2000tj 09-08-2012 02:14 PM

Why would they make it so big? :confused:

SSGN_Doc 09-08-2012 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog2000tj (Post 932844)
Why would they make it so big? :confused:

They made it for Special Operations folks to give them an "offensive pistol" Made to be hig capacity, standard to long barrel, large bore for better stopping power with FMJ, and ability to mount a supressor, which also meant iti needs high sights.

HK really pursues military and law enforcement contracts. A contributing factor to their high prices, and what is largely found to be horrible customer service if you aren't a department, or other contract purchaser (have heard that they may have improved.)

They make good stuff but the MK23 borders on ridiculous. After it was made the SEALs decided it ws really on the large side to be practical as a pistol, and for teh weight of ammo and weapon they could use a short barreled upper on an M16 lower and get a light weight compact firearm that actually hit harder. (MK18)

Very cool looking gun. Fun to shoot. The size and polymer frame make it pleasant to shoot. Trigger is nice. The ambidextrous mag release is nice too.

FN makes a similar beast of a .45 as well.

I think the SEALs enjoy jerking firearms manufactureres around to see what they can get them to make. And manufacturers will jump on it because a government contract is guaranteed money. Saying it is made for the SEALs guarantees mall ninjas will be all over the guns too, in the commercial market, like mud on a hog. Look at the sucess of the sales and prices of the MK 23, and the Sig 226 Navy model (Mk25). The SEALs actually do like the Sigs though, because they are a normal sized pistol that really does function well in the type of environment they work in.

dog2000tj 09-08-2012 09:47 PM

I would have thought just the opposite ... that SF operators would want a pistol to be small and compact. I can understand a minimum size/weight to help with recoil and controlability but that thing is huge! :eek: reminds me of the DE .50 - sure looks cool ... until you have one in your hands and try operating it, then you realize how silly it is :p

Thinking that SF would only use pistols in CQB or as a last resort I wonder why they just don't opt for a modular rifle system. One where they can change uppers to meet mission specific needs. If they know they are going to be entering a compound and going room to room why not just pop on a 9" suppressed upper chambered in the same caliber as their battle rifle? I mean, how short does a firearm really need to be?

Picture a soldiers size standing with 2 hands on a pistol taking aim - then compare that to the same soldier operating a 9" supressed upper rifle ... off hand about the same size, maybe even a better profile while carrying the rifle :confused:

SSGN_Doc 09-08-2012 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog2000tj (Post 933309)
I would have thought just the opposite ... that SF operators would want a pistol to be small and compact. I can understand a minimum size/weight to help with recoil and controlability but that thing is huge! :eek: reminds me of the DE .50 - sure looks cool ... until you have one in your hands and try operating it, then you realize how silly it is :p

Thinking that SF would only use pistols in CQB or as a last resort I wonder why they just don't opt for a modular rifle system. One where they can change uppers to meet mission specific needs. If they know they are going to be entering a compound and going room to room why not just pop on a 9" suppressed upper chambered in the same caliber as their battle rifle? I mean, how short does a firearm really need to be?

Picture a soldiers size standing with 2 hands on a pistol taking aim - then compare that to the same soldier operating a 9" supressed upper rifle ... off hand about the same size, maybe even a better profile while carrying the rifle :confused:

Your reasoning is sound and is similar to teh reason that they are not widely adopted for SF use. The idea was to give them a replacement for a rifle in pistol form. Turned out it wasn't so brilliant.

Also that kind o reasoning went into teh MK18 short barreled upper, and then the SPR Mk12. The original concept of the Mk12 SPR was to give the SEALs a Special Purpose Receiver with 18" match barrel that they could pop on a carbine if it turned out that they needed a compact precision platform. This way they could pack the nice light M4 upper for CQB and have a midrange sniper upper if it was needed to convert over. Later the Mk18 came along with a shorter barrel than the M4.

The modular characteristics of the M16 platform just really hadn't been fully taken advantage of before.

dog2000tj 09-08-2012 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSGN_Doc (Post 933367)
Your reasoning is sound and is similar to teh reason that they are not widely adopted for SF use. The idea was to give them a replacement for a rifle in pistol form. Turned out it wasn't so brilliant.

Also that kind o reasoning went into teh MK18 short barreled upper, and then the SPR Mk12. The original concept of the Mk12 SPR was to give the SEALs a Special Purpose Receiver with 18" match barrel that they could pop on a carbine if it turned out that they needed a compact precision platform. This way they could pack the nice light M4 upper for CQB and have a midrange sniper upper if it was needed to convert over. Later the Mk18 came along with a shorter barrel than the M4.

The modular characteristics of the M16 platform just really hadn't been fully taken advantage of before.

I have to wonder why the military wouldn't adopt across the board the concept of modularization. I realize that all the branches feel they "need" role specific equipment but in reality I don't believe they do. How many different calibers of bullets does a military really need to kill an enemy? Do the Airforce, Navy, Army and Marines really need all these different aircraft - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft ?

Granted I realize that politics plays a major role in the Pentagons plans but wouldn't they be better served at focusing on optimization and uniformity of equipment across the branches? :(

clr8ter 09-09-2012 12:17 AM

Maybe it needs to be shown alongside another gun, but I don't find it to be obscenely huge......large, no doubt.

dog2000tj 09-09-2012 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clr8ter (Post 933544)
Maybe it needs to be shown alongside another gun, but I don't find it to be obscenely huge......large, no doubt.

The guy in the video is not huge but he is a decent sized fellow. When he first displays the pistol he has his trigger finger extended straight out. On a bigger person the distance between the back of the thumb and the tip of their trigger finger would be about 6", maybe 7". Based on that scale the pistol would have an overall length of about 10" or more :o

That's a pretty big honkin pistol if you ask me :eek:

SSGN_Doc 09-09-2012 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog2000tj (Post 933407)
I have to wonder why the military wouldn't adopt across the board the concept of modularization. I realize that all the branches feel they "need" role specific equipment but in reality I don't believe they do. How many different calibers of bullets does a military really need to kill an enemy? Do the Airforce, Navy, Army and Marines really need all these different aircraft - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft ?

Granted I realize that politics plays a major role in the Pentagons plans but wouldn't they be better served at focusing on optimization and uniformity of equipment across the branches? :(

Each branch does have some unique needs when it comes to aircraft and in some small arms.

Landing on an aircraft carrier is a lot different than landing on a land based runway. Arresting gear, tailhooks, landing gear upgrades, corrosion resistance all play a role in naval aircraft. An airframe goes through a lot more abuse in a seagoing version.

But you also see waste in the small things. Like my nice blue digital camoflage uniform. Why? Wouldn't any other camo uniform fill the role as a working uniform? Now the Navy is looking at replacing it with a woodland digital camoflage uniform. Each sailor gets a uniform allowance to pay for replacing worn uniforms each year. Most uniforms will last two to three years if taken care of. So the replacments that I bought a year ago will no longer be authorized, and I will have to replace them early with new uniforms.

the cost to the tax payer is in the research and contracts to obtain the uniforms initially.

We could put all the branches in Multicams and save a lot of money across the board.

SSGN_Doc 09-09-2012 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clr8ter (Post 933544)
Maybe it needs to be shown alongside another gun, but I don't find it to be obscenely huge......large, no doubt.

Here it is compared to a H&K USP Tactical in .45.

http://i48.tinypic.com/i1aems.jpg

Then you add the supressor, light/laser module, and it gets pretty chunky for a handgun
(both of these are obviously MK23s, early model and later model)

http://i46.tinypic.com/nbt43t.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:24 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.