![\"Pocket](\"https:\/\/www.gunsamerica.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Heizer-PAK1-PAR1-03.jpg\" "\\"Heizer's")
<\/a>Pocket rocket.<\/p><\/div>\n
[\/full_width]<\/p>\n
Read about the PAR1:<\/strong> https:\/\/heizerdefense.com\/category\/products\/guns\/par1-guns\/<\/a><\/p>\nRead about the PAK1:<\/strong> https:\/\/heizerdefense.com\/category\/products\/guns\/pak1-2\/<\/a>\n Buy one on GunsAmerica:<\/strong> https:\/\/www.gunsamerica.com\/Search.aspx?T=heizer<\/a><\/p>\n If you have clicked into this review, I bet you’re thinking one of two things–either you think the idea of a mouse gun firing a .223 round is bad ass, or you’re thinking it is a bad idea. Well we’ve been hammering our hands for two weeks now and are here to settle the score. Is the rocket-in-your-pocket a good idea, or just a gimmick?<\/p>\n [full_width] Some guns are so iconic that they need no contextualization. The 1911, for example, is what it is. I can write a review of one without explaining its taxonomy in graphic detail. But not the Heizer. This one deserves some ink on its origins.<\/p>\n Single-shot, break action pistols are nothing new. As long as guns have had break actions, there have been single shot break action pistols. Yet almost all of them are antiquated designs. Not the Heizer. The fundamentals of this gun are different.<\/p>\n This is not a derringer, exactly\u2014though it fits in that idiom. It is a super-flat (.7\u201d) gun that is designed to provide a last-ditch option for those in need of self-defense. The frame is steel, and the gun itself weighs just a bit more than your typical .380 pocket pistol. That’s to be expected from a gun designed to handle the energy of a .223 or a 7.62×39.<\/p>\n The thin design is accomplished by forming the frame in two distinct halves that are then bolted together. The frame can accommodate .45 Colt, .410, 7.62×39 and .223 barrels. Changing barrels is easy–just push out the pin and swap barrels. The additional barrels sell for $159 (for the .410 and .223) and $199 for the 7.62×39 (which only comes in ported) and the ported .223. 7.62×39<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half][one_half_last]<\/p>\n .223<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half_last] Chambered: 7.62\u00d739 Chambered: .223 When the rounds were loaded, the gun fired. There was only one type of round that wouldn\u2019t fire, and it was a steel-cased 7.62×39 round that had a hard primer. The indention on the strike was fine, it simply wouldn\u2019t pop. None of that batch would. I’d grabbed a few AK mags from my stash without considering what might be in them, and one particular make wouldn’t fire. No matter how many times the pin struck the primers, they all failed. Every other round worked flawlessly<\/strong>.<\/p>\n [full_width]<\/p>\n Can anyone identify the make of these 7.62x39s? They’ve got some hard-ass primers. Check out the dent in the one on top. They’ll pop from an an AK, but not from a PAK1.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/full_width]<\/p>\n Shooting the .223 is a breeze. It is as easy, or maybe even softer on the hand than your typical .380. I’d put it right up there with the recoil from a Kel-Tec P3AtT, and below that of the Beretta Pico<\/a>, which kicks like my first wife.<\/p>\n [one_half]<\/p>\n Easy to aim.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half][one_half_last]<\/p>\n Hardly any muzzle rise.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half_last]<\/p>\n The 7.62×39, though, isn’t fun. I did my part for science and pulled the trigger on 30 or more of these. And I hated every pull. I’m going to say that’s it akin to shooting a steel framed .44 Magnum. It pops and stings. The recoil hit the web of my hand and lingered in that swell of muscle below my thumb. Sam, who also helped out with this review, felt it in the bones in his palm. About four days after we’d done most of the shooting, he sent me a text asking if I could still feel it. I couldn’t–but he was still sore.<\/p>\n [one_half]<\/p>\n Driving the gun to the target. Like ripping off a band-aid.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half][one_half_last]<\/p>\n The recoil drives straight back.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half_last]<\/p>\n So it isn’t fun. So what?! This isn’t a rimfire. It isn’t a gun you’d used to teach someone how to shoot. It is meant to serve one purpose. And when your adrenaline is pumping, as it would be when you would use a PAK1 for self-defense, I doubt you’ll even notice the kick.<\/p>\n So how well did we do with these monsters? As the section above might imply, shooting the .223 was easier than shooting the 7.62×39. When you are flinching like a mad man becasue all you can focus on is the hand-shock that’s about to come, your shot placement suffers. But the PAK1 is still easy to aim and hits were consistent.<\/p>\n [full_width]<\/p>\n 7.62×39 in the black. Mostly.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/full_width][one_half]<\/p>\n Don’t shoot the gun like this if you don’t have to. The porting directs gasses up and out.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half][one_half_last]<\/p>\n Shooting about 5 feet from the target.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half_last]<\/p>\n I found myself pulling from the pocket and punching the gun out. At the end of this extension, I’d squeeze the whole gun in my fist. At contact distances, that would be devastating. From 5 feet, and 10 feet, and even 15 feet I could get effective placement on a torso sized target. And, as I’m about to show, precise placement is possible–if you can get over the anticipation of recoil.<\/p>\n [full_width]<\/p>\n One dead-on shot from 15 yards.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/full_width][one_half]<\/p>\n From 10 feet.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half][one_half_last]<\/p>\n Sam’s shot from 10 feet with the PAR1, aimed at the #2.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half_last]<\/p>\n The PAR1, which was easy to shoot, grouped incredibly well fro such a small gun. Check out these images.<\/p>\n After I’d done all of the realistic testing, I backed out to 15 yards and took a coupe of shots. I was most pleased. I’d expected erratic shot placement at best, but the PAR1 is spot-on. I wish all of the pocket guns I shoot were this easy to make pin-point hits with.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s talk numbers. The barrels on these two measure in at 3.75\u201d. That\u2019s measured in the typical manner of closing the barrel, running a post to the breech face, and measuring how far in it extends.<\/p>\n 3.75\u201d barrel\u2026. That’s measuring how you would measure an automatic, or a rifle or shotgun. A good bit of that distance is taken up by the rounds themselves. A typical .223 comes in at 2.26\u201d. The baseline for 7.62×39 is 2.2\u201d So you can do the math as well as I can\u2014maybe better. Assuming the rifling starts somewhere around where the bullet lines up with the barrel, this gives you about 1.49\u201d of good rifling with the .223, and 1.55 with the 7.62×39.<\/p>\n [one_half]<\/p>\n The rifling on the PAK1.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half][one_half_last]<\/p>\n The PAR1’s rifling is a bit deeper.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half_last]<\/p>\n These barrels aren\u2019t that short, of course\u2014the official 3.75 measurement still holds\u2014but you don\u2019t have much rifling to stabilize the round. What this means is that you\u2019ll see a decrease in accuracy at distance (which completely misses the point of these guns). It also means that the rounds may tumble. We saw some wicked keyholes from the 55 grain .223s. Those bullets were punching paper sideways. That\u2019s good news for terminal ballistics, as it will leave a more jagged wound and dump more energy in the intended target.<\/p>\n The PAR1 clocked in close to 1,100 FPS.<\/p><\/div>\n And while we\u2019re on the subject\u2026 let\u2019s talk velocity. The .223 is effective\u2014or most effective, rather\u2014when traveling fast. Fast, in this case, is a relative term. The 7.62×39 is also a fast round, though it sacrifices some serious speed for its extra mass.<\/p>\n From an 16\u201d .223 barrel, you can expect speeds near the 3,000 FPS mark. Heavier rounds will be slower, and lighter rounds more zippy. The Heizer spits out 55 grain .223 bullets at close to 1,100 FPS. That\u2019s a serious decline, but the result could still be effective.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s do a bit of comparison.<\/p>\n Foot-Pounds of energy are just one measurement we can look at. They serve to help show how the variables (in this case bullet weight and muzzle velocity) combine to determine the efficacy of a given caliber in a given design. How the bullet performs once it hits the target is also crucial. There are numerous bullet designs for both the .223 and the 7.62×39, so choose wisely. We’ll be running some gel tests soon and will bring back the results.<\/p>\n Did I mention the hand bite? This thing will\u2014if you aren\u2019t prepared\u2014leave you wondering about your life choices. It can hurt. The 7.62 x 39, even with the ported barrel, was not easy to shoot. After more than 100 rounds (mixed .223 and 7.62×39) through the gun, I’m ready to do a few rimfire reviews.<\/p>\n I\u2019d like to note, though, that I would trade some pain in my hand for the protection this gun can provide in a pinch. No questions asked.<\/p>\n The other criticism has more to do with how the gun runs. All of the 7.62×39 ejected fine. When you pulled the latch back, the barrel popped open. At times, I did have to reach in to tug the round from the chamber\u2014but most of the empties were pushed out far enough for me to pull them out. This is a single shot. There’s no easy way to do speed reloads, though that’s hardly the point.<\/p>\n And the .223? Not as easy. The pressure pooched out some primers and the gun would lock up, momentarily. This could be a lubrication issue, as we ran it hard and didn’t bother greasing it up as we went.<\/p>\n Is that a deal breaker? Hardly. This isn\u2019t an automatic. It isn\u2019t a revolver. The round leaving the gun is what\u2019s important. I can\u2019t imagine a scenario that would require a speed-reload (at least not one that would be filled by this gun to begin with).<\/p>\n The porting helps tame recoil.<\/p><\/div>\n As I researched this article, I kept finding people on the internet willing to dismiss this design outright. The Pocket AR and Pocket AK are<\/em>, they said, novelties. That’s it. There’s never a practical purpose for a gun like this.<\/em><\/p>\n Bogus.<\/p>\n Is it s a novelty? Yes. I know this because I picked it up at my FFL, an old fashioned gun store, where several people took turns holding it and fiddling with the controls. At the range, the Heizer received the same attention. People like to play with it. The idea of running a rifle round through a pistol makes some folks curious.<\/p>\n But I see something more. This is a great backup. I typically carry a compact 9mm, one with an ample supply of ammunition in its magazine (and the spare I also carry). There is no way that this would replace that. But there are times that I can’t carry a double-stack 9mm. I typically rely on a single-stack .380. This gun would fit nicely in the same pockets that one does. It would also be a great truck gun. This would fit easily in the console of any car. So when you sit down on your holstered carry gun, you still have something within reach.<\/p>\n The Liberator.<\/p><\/div>\n And I think the Heizer is the modern equivalent of The Liberator. The iconic pressed metal guns were dropped behind the lines for the French Resistance and anyone else who needed a gun. The idea was you use the cheap gun in an improvisational fashion to get another gun. One well equipped Kraut could fall to a Liberator, and his guns could be used to stay in the fight.<\/p>\n Having one of these in .223 and 7.62×39 (the two most common military calibers in the world we live in) could be a solid option for the survival minded, too. The Heizer isn\u2019t really meant to be used to to get another gun, but it offer a fighting chance in a made-for-television scenario.<\/p>\n However you look at it, the gun makes an impression. The Heizer is loud. It also has a tendency to spit fire. Between the assault on the senses provided by the deafening crack, and the potentially blinding flash of powder, and the impact of the round itself hitting home–the gun is much more than a novelty.<\/p>\n Prices start just north of $400. I’d highly suggest one frame and all of the barrels. We’ll get to ballistic testing soon, and I hope to get the .410 barrel in there, too, to see what it can do.<\/p>\n [one_half]<\/p>\n That front sight is just a nubbin.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half][one_half_last]<\/p>\n The sight radius is pushed to the limit.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half_last]<\/p>\n [one_half]<\/p>\n The frame of the Heizer accepts barrels in multiple calibers.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half][one_half_last]<\/p>\n Break action.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half_last]<\/p>\n [one_half]<\/p>\n The pocket pistol has mass. 23 ounces, empty.<\/p><\/div>\n [\/one_half][one_half_last]<\/p>\n<\/a>[\/full_width]<\/p>\nHeizer’s Hand Cannon.<\/h2>\n
\n[one_half]<\/p>\n<\/a><\/a>
\n[one_half]<\/p>\nPAK1<\/h2>\n
\nWeight: 23 oz
\nHeight: 3 7\/8 inches
\nWidth: .7 inches
\nLength: 6 3\/8 inches
\nFinish: Black or Silver
\nMSRP: $449.00 (with porting)
\nVelocity: 1,200 FPS
\nUSA Aerospace Stainless Steel Frame and Barrel
\n[\/one_half][one_half_last]<\/p>\nPAR1<\/h2>\n
\nWeight: 23 oz
\nHeight: 3 7\/8 inches
\nWidth: .7 inches
\nLength: 6 3\/8 inches
\nFinish: Black or Silver
\nMSRP: $399.00 (without porting)
\nVelocity: 1,400 FPS
\nUSA Aerospace Stainless Steel Frame and Barrel
\n[\/one_half_last]<\/p>\n<\/a>Shooting<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>Accuracy<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>For those of you who really want to geek out\u2026<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/a><\/a>\n
\n
\n
Criticisms<\/h2>\n
<\/a>Think of it like this<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>