featherman
Inactive
If so have you had any problems or know of any problems with this weapon?? For a cheaper 9mm weapon it looks ok and feels good. Appreciate all your help with this question... TIA
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Has anyone used a ..Talon T2oos 9mm
- Thread starter featherman
- Start date
railroader
New member
There is an article in the november 2001 combat handgun magazine. The gun looks fair at best. The author tested two of the 9mm pistols. They had about 15lb. triggers. The 1st one he tested had a bunch of jams and misfires and bullets keyholing. Talon sent another 9mm, it functioned better but it has a loaded chamber indicator that flew off after 25 rounds. The pistol might be inexpensive but if you have to repeatedly ship(about $30 a pop) it back to the factory it will no longer be inexpensive. Check out the article. Here is a search to click on for more info. Mark http://www.thefiringline.com/forums...id=52445&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
featherman
Inactive
Thanks ....
For all your good advice and URL's
For all your good advice and URL's
I think this one is a no-brainer...DON'T DO IT!@$#!
I owned two Standard Arms SA-9's that crapped out (cracked receivers) in the first hundred rounds. Now I own a Kel-Tec P11 that has worked flawlessly through 500 rounds.
What's the difference between the Talon, the SA-9, and the Kel-Tec P11? Well, I don't think you can make a polymer 9mm cheaper than a Kel-Tec P11 reliably. Why?....there are no corners left to cut!!!
My observations on how the Talon and the SA-9 have been made cheaper:
1) Receiver is not anodized! Without anodizing the receiver is very soft and wears quickly
2) Receiver is cast instead of being machined. Casting aluminum is a tricky job...the castings are frequently porous which results in CRACKING. The receiver should be machined!
3) Fit and finish is marginal...rough machining all over (slide, barrel, etc.) In addition, the SA-9 has a single recoil spring probably worth less than 5 cents...the single recoil spring is weak and unrealiable in this design which is why Kel-Tec uses two recoil springs.
In summary, if you want a cheap, polymer, 9mm --- get the Kel-Tec and save yourself the trouble.
I owned two Standard Arms SA-9's that crapped out (cracked receivers) in the first hundred rounds. Now I own a Kel-Tec P11 that has worked flawlessly through 500 rounds.
What's the difference between the Talon, the SA-9, and the Kel-Tec P11? Well, I don't think you can make a polymer 9mm cheaper than a Kel-Tec P11 reliably. Why?....there are no corners left to cut!!!
My observations on how the Talon and the SA-9 have been made cheaper:
1) Receiver is not anodized! Without anodizing the receiver is very soft and wears quickly
2) Receiver is cast instead of being machined. Casting aluminum is a tricky job...the castings are frequently porous which results in CRACKING. The receiver should be machined!
3) Fit and finish is marginal...rough machining all over (slide, barrel, etc.) In addition, the SA-9 has a single recoil spring probably worth less than 5 cents...the single recoil spring is weak and unrealiable in this design which is why Kel-Tec uses two recoil springs.
In summary, if you want a cheap, polymer, 9mm --- get the Kel-Tec and save yourself the trouble.