JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 16:31:47 -0800, (UglyDan®©™) wrote:

(JohnH)wrote
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:30:15 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:23 am, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:21:49 GMT, "CRM" wrote:
wrote in message
...
I dunno, it looks like it has a pretty short barrel so unless someone is
a pretty good shot, my understanding is that a weapon like this is not
good for anything beyond a few feet.
----------------------------------------------
Here's a grouping free hand at 25 yards (75 feet for you backwoodsers)
http://www.dezendorf.us/photos/M2801.jpg
----------------------------------------------
Hard to handle too I would imagine, must have a hell of a muzzle lift
----------------------------------------------
For a little guy, maybe.
----------------------------------------------
but again, I don't know from firearms...
----------------------------------------------
Then why not STFU?
----------------------------------------------
And unlike my new troll CRM, I was not trying to pick a fight, but you
already knew that...
----------------------------------------------
Why should he "know" that?
----------------------------------------------
I am just a tool ........
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
I just thought other weapons would be better.
----------------------------------------------
Why? You already said you know nothing about firearms.
Scotty asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner. He wasn't
making any comments to or about you, so why the assinine response?
--
John H.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Didn't you know, he is the latest loser to troll for internet victories!
These guys must be complete failures at home. Let him have his fun,
maybe it will keep him from beating his wife or kids...
You know, I was astonished at the attacks by both crm and Harry. No
reason. Just need attention, I suppose. I've had it with Harry for a
while. I'll let other folks give him the attention he craves.
If I had had a choice, I would have taken a 6" barrel over the 4" barrel
because they are more accurate (contrary to what Krause says). But, they
are also more cumbersome. But like I said, this gun was a gift.


To a degree, Yes a 6" barrel is more accurate than the 4", What Harry
failed to mention is it all has to do with "Sight Radius"
Basically the distance between the front and rear sights, and there's
alot of variables that come into play, When I shoot a day long
competition I usually start off with my 6" barrel and end up switching
to my 4" barrel later in the day, and the reason is I'm just plain
tired.
What happens is the front sight gets wobbly in my eye due to the longer
sight radius in the 6" barrel. I'm no firearms expert, and would never
claim to be, but I do shoot a few matches a week, do all my own
reloading, and all the work on my own firearms. Among other things.
UD

[It's hard to respond to you 'cause your post disappears when I try to
follow it up. Is that a setting you've made? Anyway, I copied it here to
keep the idea flowing.]

I don't shoot nearly as much as you do. I'm lucky if I can get out once
every two or three months. I have a son-in-law who loves it, so I'll meet
him out in Bealeton every so often.

I understand what you are saying, and it makes great sense. Even the 4" Mod
28 gets pretty heavy after a while. The Glock 23 my SIL owns is about half
the weight of the Mod 28. After a few boxes of rounds through it, the Glock
feels like a little toy.


It would be interesting to see some of your 25-yard targets with the .40
S&W Glock 23. Do you hit the target at all?

The 23 is a concealed carry handgun, mostly. A very fine defensive
handgun, but not a usual choice for target shooters. With a *lot* of
muzzle flip.

What ammo are you running through that Glock?