|
So, gun guys?
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? |
So, gun guys?
|
So, gun guys?
On Dec 7, 6:02*pm, 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. |
So, gun guys?
UglyDan®©™ wrote:
(Boater)wrote UglyDan®©™ wrote: 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 Sight radius has to do with the shooter, not the firearm. Put identical 4" and 6" barrel revolvers in pistol rests and the results against targets at combat distances will be pretty much the same. For accuracy, though, I prefer semi-autos. Again, To a degree. May I suggest you take your pistols. put them in a vise, turn the handle 20 times (righty tighty), then go dryfire them all you want, Or you could take the womens handgun course I give every few months. Among other things. UD Please. I've taken courses and in fact I'm hoping to take an combat pistol course at the SigSauer Academy. What skills are you offering that I haven't learned? I love your "To a degree" bull****. It is meaningless. Sight radius is important when you are factoring in the optical error of humans, but it has nothing to do with the inherent accuracy or inaccuracy of a firearm. Put a firearm in a rest, sight it in properly, and if it is a decent piece of goods with decent ammo, you can put your rounds into a paper target with the holes touching each other, so long as you are within the firearm's best range for accuracy. Oh...and semi-autos tend to be more accurate than six-shooters. Surely an expert like you knows why... And it's not "To a degree." |
So, gun guys?
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 18:39:18 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
On Dec 7, 6:02*pm, 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. -- John H. I agree ont he accuracy. but If I can't service a target with the 4 then the 6 isn't going to help much. No, you're quite right. But, when you throw the damn thing at the person, the six inch will hurt more. -- John H. |
So, gun guys?
On Dec 7, 8:44*pm, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 18:39:18 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 7, 6:02*pm, 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. -- John H. I agree ont he accuracy. but If I can't service a target with the 4 then the 6 isn't going to help much. No, you're quite right. But, when you throw the damn thing at the person, the six inch will hurt more. -- John H. Granted, it would make a better handle! |
So, gun guys?
On Dec 7, 8:42*pm, Boater wrote:
UglyDan®©™ wrote: (Boater)wrote UglyDan®©™ wrote: 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 Sight radius has to do with the shooter, not the firearm. Put identical 4" and 6" barrel revolvers in pistol rests and the results against targets at combat distances will be pretty much the same. For accuracy, though, I prefer semi-autos. Again, To a degree. May I suggest you take your pistols. put them in a vise, turn the handle 20 times (righty tighty), then go dryfire them all you want, Or you could take the womens handgun course I give every few months. Among other things. UD * Please. I've taken courses and in fact I'm hoping to take an combat pistol course at the SigSauer Academy. What skills are you offering that I haven't learned? Well, in my case considerable training with an M1911A-1. If you can hit with one of those at 60m. then a sig 9m is a piece 'o cake. |
So, gun guys?
Tim wrote:
On Dec 7, 8:42 pm, Boater wrote: UglyDan®©™ wrote: (Boater)wrote UglyDan®©™ wrote: 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 Sight radius has to do with the shooter, not the firearm. Put identical 4" and 6" barrel revolvers in pistol rests and the results against targets at combat distances will be pretty much the same. For accuracy, though, I prefer semi-autos. Again, To a degree. May I suggest you take your pistols. put them in a vise, turn the handle 20 times (righty tighty), then go dryfire them all you want, Or you could take the womens handgun course I give every few months. Among other things. UD Please. I've taken courses and in fact I'm hoping to take an combat pistol course at the SigSauer Academy. What skills are you offering that I haven't learned? Well, in my case considerable training with an M1911A-1. If you can hit with one of those at 60m. then a sig 9m is a piece 'o cake. I don't shoot those distances. I shoot handguns at 25-yard targets, mostly. |
So, gun guys?
(Boater)wrote
UglyDan®©™ wrote: (Boater)wrote UglyDan®©™ wrote: 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 Sight radius has to do with the shooter, not the firearm. Put identical 4" and 6" barrel revolvers in pistol rests and the results against targets at combat distances will be pretty much the same. For accuracy, though, I prefer semi-autos. Again, To a degree. May I suggest you take your pistols. put them in a vise, turn the handle 20 times (righty tighty), then go dryfire them all you want, Or you could take the womens handgun course I give every few months. Among other things. UD Please. I've taken courses and in fact I'm hoping to take an combat pistol course at the SigSauer Academy. What skills are you offering that I haven't learned? I love your "To a degree" bull****. It is meaningless. Sight radius is important when you are factoring in the optical error of humans, but it has nothing to do with the inherent accuracy or inaccuracy of a firearm. Put a firearm in a rest, sight it in properly, and if it is a decent piece of goods with decent ammo, you can put your rounds into a paper target with the holes touching each other, so long as you are within the firearm's best range for accuracy. Oh...and semi-autos tend to be more accurate than six-shooters. Surely an expert like you knows why... And it's not "To a degree." I said, I'm not an expert "To a degree" but I do agree, you should take the SigSour academy course. maybe you can learn to shoot those Ruger Vaquero's you got last Xmas. UD BTW, WTF shoots bench rest? |
So, gun guys?
|
So, gun guys?
|
So, gun guys?
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:14:51 -0800, (UglyDan®©™) wrote: (Boater)wrote UglyDan®©™ wrote: (Boater)wrote UglyDan®©™ wrote: 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 Sight radius has to do with the shooter, not the firearm. Put identical 4" and 6" barrel revolvers in pistol rests and the results against targets at combat distances will be pretty much the same. For accuracy, though, I prefer semi-autos. Again, To a degree. May I suggest you take your pistols. put them in a vise, turn the handle 20 times (righty tighty), then go dryfire them all you want, Or you could take the womens handgun course I give every few months. Among other things. UD Please. I've taken courses and in fact I'm hoping to take an combat pistol course at the SigSauer Academy. What skills are you offering that I haven't learned? I love your "To a degree" bull****. It is meaningless. Sight radius is important when you are factoring in the optical error of humans, but it has nothing to do with the inherent accuracy or inaccuracy of a firearm. Put a firearm in a rest, sight it in properly, and if it is a decent piece of goods with decent ammo, you can put your rounds into a paper target with the holes touching each other, so long as you are within the firearm's best range for accuracy. Oh...and semi-autos tend to be more accurate than six-shooters. Surely an expert like you knows why... And it's not "To a degree." I said, I'm not an expert "To a degree" but I do agree, you should take the SigSour academy course. maybe you can learn to shoot those Ruger Vaquero's you got last Xmas. UD BTW, WTF shoots bench rest? Harry doesn't like it when someone obviously knows more about a subject than he does. Well, that wouldn't include Ugly Dan or you, except of course when it comes to being a slacker in the military. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com