I don't know how much tolerances an H&K P7 needs, relatively speaking, but I'll take your word for it. As a pistol, however, it has some attraction, novelty aside. But if you've never owned a Colt Government Model or one of a dozen copies, there's plenty of novelty there.
Now tolerances in manufacturing can be a funny thing. Old army .45 autos were known for their looseness, which was probably due more to their age than to their design or manufacture. What they were like when they left the factory is an interesting question. However, they certainly had a reputation for reliability, if nothing else. Any reputation for being a good fight stopper is due to the cartridge, not the pistol. But anyway, when a .45 auto is used for target shooting and many have been, they are generally tightened up, that is, if the shooter is to be really competitive. But they invariably become less reliable, not something of much importance on the range but rather a serious matter at other times.
What happens when a pistol that is made with fine tolerances becomes, well, "broken in?" I am referring here to both the P7 and other finely made pistols from the Luger to the P210. Lugers at least saw lots of hard service and I also know the P7 did ride in a lot of police holsters for a while (and still does in places) and even the P210 managed to see some active service. Chances are, and this is just a guess, that they are none the worse for the experience, provided reasonable care is exercised for a pistol (which presumably does not get the same amout of combat use that other weapons do). Chance are, possibly, a pistol manufactured with fine tolerances may not be any better on active service than one that was made a little rougher. This isn't referring to the outside finish, either. But I will also admit that looks can be deceiving. A typical AK or AKM usually has the fine finish of a well used hammer and inside, what looks like the technology of a toaster crossed with a bench vise but it has a chrome lined bore.
I guess not everyone has the same idea of what is good and worth having.
Now tolerances in manufacturing can be a funny thing. Old army .45 autos were known for their looseness, which was probably due more to their age than to their design or manufacture. What they were like when they left the factory is an interesting question. However, they certainly had a reputation for reliability, if nothing else. Any reputation for being a good fight stopper is due to the cartridge, not the pistol. But anyway, when a .45 auto is used for target shooting and many have been, they are generally tightened up, that is, if the shooter is to be really competitive. But they invariably become less reliable, not something of much importance on the range but rather a serious matter at other times.
What happens when a pistol that is made with fine tolerances becomes, well, "broken in?" I am referring here to both the P7 and other finely made pistols from the Luger to the P210. Lugers at least saw lots of hard service and I also know the P7 did ride in a lot of police holsters for a while (and still does in places) and even the P210 managed to see some active service. Chances are, and this is just a guess, that they are none the worse for the experience, provided reasonable care is exercised for a pistol (which presumably does not get the same amout of combat use that other weapons do). Chance are, possibly, a pistol manufactured with fine tolerances may not be any better on active service than one that was made a little rougher. This isn't referring to the outside finish, either. But I will also admit that looks can be deceiving. A typical AK or AKM usually has the fine finish of a well used hammer and inside, what looks like the technology of a toaster crossed with a bench vise but it has a chrome lined bore.
I guess not everyone has the same idea of what is good and worth having.
