HKPRO Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

A Tale of Two P7M13's - Original H&K and Updated Model

1 reading
Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
#23 ·
I am really looking forward to trying this. I am Para curious, because I like the double stack without a separate polymer grip module as a concept, better. I was reading a review of the old Para 14-45 1911s that focused on the grip. The Para, double stack .45 had a grip thickness of 1.35" and generally the author of the review, who had big mitts, was fine with that, himself, but it was clear that that was too thick for many or most people. He was comparing it to the 1.27" grip of a double stack Glock 21 .45 (not sure which Gen,) that can work out for more people, but is not universally loved. Converting the 33mm thickness of original HK M13 to inches, that's 1.3" . If it can be comfortable and everything in reach, grip thickness is not inherently a bad thing.
Greater surface area on the backstrap helps manage recoil, if only you can grip/hang onto it. It's interesting on the 1911, how the manual safety changed and evolved into a comfortable thumb rest. That sort of relates to this, a little.
The Para was another pistol that deserves another chance to be improved on, it seems to me. There are so many brilliant guns that just need a little more love.
 
#24 ·
Tangodave said:
I am really looking forward to trying this. I am Para curious, because I like the double stack without a separate polymer grip module as a concept, better. I was reading a review of the old Para 14-45 1911s that focused on the grip. The Para, double stack .45 had a grip thickness of 1.35" and generally the author of the review, who had big mitts, was fine with that, himself, but it was clear that that was too thick for many or most people. He was comparing it to the 1.27" grip of a double stack Glock 21 .45 (not sure which Gen,) that can work out for more people, but is not universally loved. Converting the 33mm thickness of original HK M13 to inches, that's 1.3" . If it can be comfortable and everything in reach, grip thickness is not inherently a bad thing.
Greater surface area on the backstrap helps manage recoil, if only you can grip/hang onto it. It's interesting on the 1911, how the manual safety changed and evolved into a comfortable thumb rest. That sort of relates to this, a little.
The Para was another pistol that deserves another chance to be improved on, it seems to me. There are so many brilliant guns that just need a little more love.
Click to expand...
Not to threadjack, but your post made me recall my thought experiment on what I'd consider the perfect carry pistol. And just to explain why this is relevant to a P7Pro thread - Upon hearing of Brett's "other designs" he's kicking around, it got my gears turning...

Basically a SAO P7-style squeeze cocker, but where squeezing the grip cocked a hammer (internal or external), and defeats the FP safety - yielding a 1911-like SA trigger pull and reset (using a sliding trigger instead of a pivoting trigger). Releasing the squeeze cocker would lower the hammer to half cock and reenable the FP safety. The gun would use some OEM's existing "stack and a half" design mags, to give a ~13 to 15 round capacity while keeping the grip width to ~1". Probably an aluminum frame, but polymer would be OK too.

I know some guys reading this will be disgusted by this abomination! It's like when Homer Simpson was given creative oversight of the car company, and the end product was "The Homer."

Image
 
#27 ·
The P7 is famously the best pistol for a gunfighter, the fastest into action from uncocked and unlocked. Some of its advantage was due to it being born in an era when going cocked and locked was against U.S. military regulations, and other militaries rules and forbidden by many law enforcement agencies. When the rules changed and cocked and locked was more the rule than exception, then the P7 lost some of its thunder. So many guns, cocked and locked, resulted in the firing pin safety being imposed on the industry, although I think today a pistol could be about as safe without one. Firing pin safeties are part of the lower popularity of 1911s since that excellent trigger gets somewhat compromised. The Caraville Double Ace seems to bring the hand too far down the grip and would make handling recoil and muzzle lift more difficult, but it makes it possible for a 1911 to get into the fight, uncocked and unlocked, as fast as a P7.
I have my own ideas, as we all do, but the squeeze cock mechanism of the P7 is complicated and opens a can of worms to mess with in anything but superficial ways. The future of triggers is probably separating them completely from the mechanical operation of the gun, and making the release of the firing pin electronic, with a solenoid or motor. They are doing this in airsoft, mostly. Then you can have any trigger you want, or even just ask your phone to release the firing pin. Questions about reliability seem to be slowing down the development of electronic triggers.
Now, people have done a few things to try to improve the P7 trigger, which is one of the best striker triggers as it is, but a little "Mushy." Usually this has been limited to a couple of kinds of overtravel stops. The safest was a screw in the frame behind the trigger, preventing it from going further back than necessary. But, some eminent armorers would put a stop in the spring, a controversial method that (In Glocks, not the P7,) was associated with the trigger not resetting and allegations that uncontrolled automatic fire could result. Maybe Brett has seen some trigger jobs on P7s.
 
Discussion starter · #28 ·
While the P7 trigger is definitely good, and way ahead of its time, it does have "mush" to it. I'm definitely working on trigger improvements as part of the process. There are ways to maintain the safety of the P7 and get a better trigger pull. Overtravel stops can be put into the trigger mechanism itself vs the screw in the back as well.
Image
Image
 
#29 ·
JoeyBones215 said:
Not to threadjack, but your post made me recall my thought experiment on what I'd consider the perfect carry pistol. And just to explain why this is relevant to a P7Pro thread - Upon hearing of Brett's "other designs" he's kicking around, it got my gears turning...

Basically a SAO P7-style squeeze cocker, but where squeezing the grip cocked a hammer (internal or external), and defeats the FP safety - yielding a 1911-like SA trigger pull and reset (using a sliding trigger instead of a pivoting trigger). Releasing the squeeze cocker would lower the hammer to half cock and reenable the FP safety. The gun would use some OEM's existing "stack and a half" design mags, to give a ~13 to 15 round capacity while keeping the grip width to ~1". Probably an aluminum frame, but polymer would be OK too.

I know some guys reading this will be disgusted by this abomination! It's like when Homer Simpson was given creative oversight of the car company, and the end product was "The Homer."

View attachment 447784
Click to expand...
Oh! The magazine issue becomes timely, because of Brett considering making M13 Mags. The idea of just making a P7 that uses a popular, existing, economical magazine has doubtless occurred to many of us. The grip angle has to be matched, so I think that rules out using most magazines on the market. Another problem is that it separates new P7s from the ecosystem created by HK. I mean there are three magazines already, or more if you consider a few very rare models, but its an issue. Definitely possible are extended magazines, as HK and others have done before, or modernizing the inside of an old magazine with newer flat springs, dual springs, and new followers that may not require an extended mag at all, and allow maybe two more rounds in an M8 Mag, making an 8+1 into a 10+1 or a 13+1 into a 15 or 16+1. That's in the realm of the possible, but maybe not a money making idea..
 
#32 ·
Putting it all together, the P7 seems to be taking a big step forward with this M13. A great deal of work is going into this particular pistol. It seems to be about more than survival of the legacy P7, but a real jumping off point to a future P7.
 
Discussion starter · #33 ·
Tangodave said:
Putting it all together, the P7 seems to be taking a big step forward with this M13. A great deal of work is going into this particular pistol. It seems to be about more than survival of the legacy P7, but a real jumping off point to a future P7.
Click to expand...
That's been the goal. I wanted to keep the original pistols alive and show that they can be maintained for those that want to shoot them. However, to truly keep the P7 platform alive it has to be updated. In order to make a modern P7 that's competitive in the world of the P365 X Macro, G43X, etc it needs to:

  • Increase magazine capacity - that's why I'm starting the new P7 iterations based of the M13's. (along with decreasing the size as shown above)
  • Deal with the heat associated with the gas retarded blowback system
  • Deal with the weight - 7068 aluminum deals with this and the above nicely
  • Use modern materials, metallurgy, and finishes to minimize the wear prone parts and elongate the service life and intervals between cleaning - I'll have many more announcements regarding that as the M13's near release.
 
#34 ·
P7Pro said:
I've been prepping the P7M13's since earlier this year to finalize any changes needed before moving into machining. Similar to the Titanium-framed P7 run earlier this year, this started with slight modifications to the trigger guard and the addition of a picatinny rail. The factory trigger guard on the P7M series is too large to allow any practical length of a picatinny rail to mount even a compact light, so this has to be shortened to allow even a compact light such as a Surefire XSC or Streamlight TLR7.

Several 3D models were made to verify the dimensions, etc.

View attachment 446443
View attachment 446442

View attachment 446432

I also tried 3D printing titanium and then doing post treatments with electropolishing to see if that was a route to go

View attachment 446649
View attachment 446647

After several iterations on the model, there were still a few issues that were intrinsic to the M13 that my model shared:

1 - Blocky grip - even with the updated checkering on the backstrap and several iterations of a mild to moderate beavertails, the grip wasn't very comfortable. Overall thickness was the same as well as the curvature of the backstrap.

Width of the original H&K is 33mm for reference.

2 - Same gas cylinder area - significant amount of metal in the gas cylinder sleeve area resulting in the same heat issues shared with the factory M13.

I spent quite a bit of time addressing the two problems above as well as the general heft of the M13.

The result was the comparison you'll see of the two models below:

View attachment 446434
View attachment 446435
View attachment 446433

I received my custom run of 7068 aluminum earlier this year, so it's time for a prototype:
View attachment 446444
Click to expand...
@P7Pro Would a “Glock style” Universal attachment rail work better on the P7M series than the M1913 in regard to supplying more room on the dust cover while maintaining the original lines of other P7? Speaking from my own experience, I think it would be visually more appealing and not as abrasive to the hands when a light is not attached to the dust cover.
Kindest regards,
JimmyZ
 
Discussion starter · #35 ·
Appreciate the post. For heat mitigation purposes I actually like the 1913 rail as it acts with a much larger area to also aid in keeping heat down. I understand it’s relatively large compared to a slimline rail.
 
#36 ·
It's understood that other than aesthetics, which are definitely a factor for many owners, the Picatinny rail can potentially snag on something when drawn from concealed carry, if it is not properly holstered. However, there are other issues with the Glock Universal style, which does often involve having a single Picatinny or Weaver style notch under the frame. Most of the uses of the Glock style rail with the grooves on the sides, require an adapter for the accessory or the rail, to work with sight components and training aids. Depending on specifics, some of them might not remain zeroed when put back on, after being removed, if the rail is a Glock Universal style.
 
#37 ·
Hey @P7Pro congrats on the new YouTube collaboration with 1911 Syndicate! I am not sure if I am allowed to post a link here for members to check out the video, but hopefully that video gets tons of views and you get some new orders from folks who aren't on these forums and/or who had stashed their P7 in the safe years ago when parts dried up.

P7 Messiah!
 
#38 ·
I just watched it. The episode was perhaps among the most serious toned of 1911 Syndicate fare. It was great to hear part of the story of P7Pro, a real segment, instead of just gleaning a little here and there, from forums and news pieces. Some of it definitely went over my head, especially details of the Optic slide. Not too many jokes, but it was amusing that after declaring what a cool pistol it is, the pistol is placed on a crate with dry ice ? apparently underneath it.
I don't know a great deal about suppressors, but I sometimes wonder about B&T's gigantic suppressor is still the one you usually see, that or an actual HK. Just looking around, it seems like you can get something about half the size that does a decent job, even smaller if you are willing to deal with refilling petroleum jelly.
I was trying to follow the conversation on grip circumference of the P7Pro M13 Vs. the HK M13 and there was some comparison to how the P7Pro M13 compares to the standard M8. But, I didn't quite catch how close to the M8 the P7Pro circumference or thickness is, or is it even thinner and smaller? Looking at the P7Pro M13 frame, it seems like the grips protrude just a little, increasing grip circumference slightly beyond the absolute minimum limit determined by the frame. With some pistols, going with "Slim" type grips can reduce grip circumference by a few sixteenths. Maybe Brett can run off a slim grip option, perhaps made of steel or aluminum? Those require shorter grip screws. I ordered some aftermarket like that for my Sig 1911X
We are going to need holsters for the M13 and I am curious about whether Brett has something going in that department? Almost all HK P7 people seem to be black leather holsters and that's it. I wear my P7 while I am working and so, I use an OWB Kydex with high retention for the M8 that I took a dremel to, for the threaded barrel. Frankly, the pistol would be falling out almost daily, if not for high retention. (I don't like holster flaps) Probably the best way to go would be to just provide CAD files in common formats, for the pistol that will allow companies to print 3D holsters in polymer. Rails, threaded barrels and optics all have to be taken into account. Too many holsters for Brett to stock.
The non-3D option is to take the pistol to a traditional Kydex maker who would make the holster with his press, the old fashioned way.
 
#40 ·
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
About this Discussion
40 Replies
17 Participants
Last post:
German
HKPRO Forums
posts
2M
members
97K
Since
2000
Actually created in 1999 (the original posts from the first database were lost), we are a forum dedicated to and laser-focused on Heckler & Koch firearms, Heckler & Koch accessories and the owners and enthusiasts that love them! Come join the discussion regarding HK pistols, long arms, NFA arms, HK accessories, HK history and trivia and more.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
HK HANDGUN TALK HK CLONE TALK HK LONG GUN TALK HK NFA TALK HK TALK