Short-recoil vs. blowback

[TMan]

While cleaning and examining the CZ-83 (from AIM) I noticed something: it would be more difficult to take a pistol away from someone if that pistol was of the blowback design.

With a short recoil operated pistol, like the 1911, if someone is holding a gun on you, and you drove the heel of your hand into the front of the barrel you can drive the gun out of battery and then by gripping the slide and front of gun, you can prevent it from going into battery.

Not so simple with a pistol having blowback design. The heal of your hand hitting the front of the pistol will not drive it out of battery - the barrel doesn't move backwards. So you would have to come over the top and grab the slide to move it backwards, the person holding the gun would likely move backwards, and you don't have a grip on the slide and frame to hold it there.

My conclusion is that a blowback operated pistol would be a better self defense pistol at close quarters than a short-recoil operated one.

[MLB]

+1 for the little ppk/s!

That should only be part of the plan though. Disabling the gun doesn't disable the attacker. Go to the source, then the gun is not threat...

[TMan]

mlb said:

... Go to the source, then the gun is not threat...

I wouldn't do that. It is too easy for someone to pull a trigger. My first thought would be to go for the gun, and then get the knee to work. The person's first attention will go to their gun, but then they will quickly forget about the gun unless they are wearing football equipment.

While they are distracted, would be the time to pull my own gun. Even if I was in possession of their gun, I wouldn't rely on it, or of my knowledge of how to use it.