Upon reading the 1985 article. It is clear that Col. Cooper was confused on the purpose of a DA/SA gun. He clearly was a curmudgeon even in the 1980s. While Cooper and others laid the foundations of the modernistic shooting we have today. A number of his contemporaries were able to adapt and learn and understand that the era of the single stack SAO .45 was coming to an end and the Wonder-Nines were the future.
Jumping to 1986, you again see the same exact hatred for anything that wasn't his beloved CZ-75 pattern pistol or 1911 slab side .45 Auto.
The entire mindset behind a gun like the Model 645 is that the gun is carried with the safety off and hammer down. The DA pull makes it better for the shooter to bring the gun into action. Something that famed German Gunsmith and Designer, L.W. Seecamp learned in WWII.
Cooper really has no understanding of what modern defensive pistol shooting was evolving into being. Guns like the Beretta 92 and S&W 645 were never intended to be carried with a safety engaged. The safety is a decocker, something his beloved CZ-75 does not have and was a danger until B variants were made since a slip of the hammer while manually decocking the gun meant it could go off.
What's even funnier is his dismissal of the 5.56x45mm and the M16 in the 1985 Beretta M9 article but he praises the cartridge in his review of the Mini-14 ten years earlier in his 1975 article.
Now, we all know I have a soft spot for the Mini-14. But even I know that the AR-15 is its superior. Yet Cooper didn't think so. Why? The Mini-14 was familiar to him because he was wedded to the idea of wood and blued steel. He was fine with the 5.56x45mm there but he lambasted it and the 9mm in the other article. Yet he loved the CZ-75, which then was only chambered in 9mm.
Here is his opinion of the M16 from the October 1966 Guns and Ammo Magazine.
As Cooper got older, the Gravel Belly in him started to really come out. But even back in the late 1960s he was one."The celebrated AR15 was the most "far out" of the carbines considered. Neither Colt nor the Army is willing to call it a carbine; but, at 39 inches and 6 pounds 14 ounces, it falls right in with the other examples.
As everyone knows, the .223 military cartridge was conceived as a means of obtaining something for nothing, in this case killing power without recoil. (Remember those gun-shy little soldiers of ours.) Momentum of both rifle and cartridge ought to be the same (if we can believe Mr. Newton) and momentum is mass x velocity. If only a certain amount of recoil momentum is deemed endurable, we can use it to produce very high velocity by radically reducing projectile mass. Hence, a 55-grain bullet at a personally chronographed 3310 fps. This, as anyone who has used a .222 Remington Magnum knows, is a stinger. At short range its man-stopping properties, even with a hard, solid, spitzer bullet are impressive. At any great distance after its velocity has dropped off it naturally becomes just another .22. The Pentagon feels that our people can't hit anything at those ranges anyway, so who cares? And, of course, it doesn't kick.
To a conservative rifleman it seems odd to use what is essentially a varmint cartridge in a four-minute-plus combination, but the AR15 will stay on a man at 200 yards and it will strike a mean blow at that range. We clanged one little pill clear through 3/16 inch of cold rolled steel at 240 yards, right alongside a .308 military. That was all the .223 had left (the bullet was laying loose on the ground), but it's still a pretty good jolt.
As with the .30 U.S. Carbine, the sights on the AR15 are good and the trigger is terrible. I don't see any sporting potential for this piece, but I may be overlooking something. If one disregards its astronomical price ($200 by the time you've bought a couple of extra magazines) it seems a very nice arm for second-line combat or defensive use."
What is a Gravel Belly you ask? It is someone with an antiquated belief that a lone soldier can command a large chunk of ground with a rifle doing 1,000 yard shots from the prone at enemy soldiers that will stand tall and not in any way seek cover or be a hard to hit moving target.
I'm trying to find original period articles of him reviewing the GLOCK. So far all I've found are old quotes of him. But not the actual article.
"The Glock pistol seems to be doing what is necessary. It is not a weapon for the master, but it seems to work well and, of course, reliability is a major consideration with a defensive weapon. So we see more Glocks all the time in school and in competition. The marvelous 1911 and its clones continue to be the first choice of the expert, but only a few pistoleros have the intention or the ability to become truly expert."
He really was a one trick pony. He was not bad by any means, but he refused to accept positive change. Sure, I personally still carry a gun like the S&W Model 645 or a S&W J-Frame in today's era. But I do that out of choice, not because I refuse to accept that guns have dramatically advanced. That guns like the Sig P365 with an RDS and night sights is superior in every way to my lowly five .38 Special."The continued sales triumph of the Glock pistols demonstrates the virtues of skillful marketing. The Glock pistol is okay. It is generally reliable, it is comparatively inexpensive, and it is available in respectable calibers. Above all, its after-market service is superior. The great part of its sales comes from police departments where maintenance and quick service are of primary importance. It may not be the best choice for the private pistolero, but such people are not in the majority. For those who feel that only the police establishment should be interested in sidearms - which includes all of the socialist states of Europe - this is a major advantage."
If someone were to ask me what they should get as a carry gun. I sure as hell wouldn't steer them to what I personally carry. I'd point them towards the modern guns like the P365 or a GLOCK 43X with the aftermarket 15rd magazines.
I respect Col. Cooper and I am a fan of him. But even then he was outdated.
