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.

JohnH wrote:

I've had it with Harry for a while.


Doubtful. You lie about this all the time.

(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.

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

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.

(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

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."

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.

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.

(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?

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?




Not me.