[jyl]

“45” does not mean “1911”. We need a clean sheet CCW design.

Browning wasn’t trying to design a CCW, he was designing a war weapon, with the material technology of the time (no polymer).

His design was adapted to CCW starting with the first micro-1911s like the Detonics Combat Master (which I have). With success, but CCW needs have changed. Clothing is less formal, women carry, the weather is hotter. All that drives the need for smaller and thinner pistols.

The easy route is smaller calibers, 9mm, .380 and .32, with the same basic Browning “format” (slide over barrel) and much of the concept (slide mass and movement integral to function). I think that route has been taken as far as it can go.

If Browning were here today, designing a CCW pistol, he wouldn’t take the easy route and copy a century-old design. He’d look at the 1911 and think “I can do better”. He’d think different, like he did in 1900.

So imagine John Moses Browning is here today, designing the slimmest possible CCW pistol, with a clean sheet and today’s materials, and the challenge of using an existing major caliber.

The Luger toggle design was very good, by the way. I have one, shot it a lot since 1985 or so. Most accurate pistol I have (ok, I don’t own any “target” pistols). It was superseded by the P38 mostly to save money. I don’t think it is a great design for sandy, muddy conditions, but a CCW pistol doesn’t face those. It’s also not suitable for hanging stuff on (red dots, lights), but again a CCW pistol doesn’t need that.

Anyway, carrying the Para P14 isn’t going to work. I might break down and carry the Detonics, which I’ve been loath to do because it is worth some money. I’ve been looking for a G26 but don’t like buying things at inflated prices.