Yo Tim!
 

On 7/29/2012 9:40 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/29/2012 9:17 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/29/12 8:48 AM, BAR wrote:
In article 5f25f29b-2433-4e89-9ce4-
, says...

On Jul 28, 5:44 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/28/12 5:06 PM, John H. wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:25:25 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/22/12 3:18 PM, John H. wrote:
Did you and your buddy ever come up with a suggestion of the .45
I'm going to buy? Tried to call,
but no answer.

CZ 97B if you are man enough.

I've qualified with the M1911A1 about a dozen times. You reckon
the CZ 97B requires more of a man?
How many times have you qualified with a .45, Harry?

I'm just a range shooter, John. I've never shot any Vietnamese people.
I've found the CZ's to be more accurate in 9mm and .45 ACP than the
run
of the mill 1911's.

The military still like the.45ACP.They just ordered a couple million
dollars worth of them

I saw that last night. The USMC is dumping the 9mm for the 1911 .45.

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...c-orders-4036-
m45-cqbp-pistols/




The logic of the choice escapes me. The new pistol has a capacity of
only seven rounds. If the marine corp thought it needed a pistol with
more stopping power than a 9mm (19-round mags easily available), it
could have gone with a pistol that fires .40. And it looks like the
taxpayers will be paying about $1800 a pistol...what a rip.

Oh, well, it's the military. Wasting money is a high priority there.

Under the watchful eye of the CIC.

So, which big donor owns the manufacturing rights, or is it another
Diane Feinstein (sp?) adventure like the millions to her husbands
weapons companies?

Yo Tim!
 

On 7/29/2012 9:38 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/29/12 9:28 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:17:27 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Jul 29, 6:42 am, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/29/12 7:07 AM, John H. wrote:









On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:07:54 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:35:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Jul 28, 8:00 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:30:12 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Jul 28, 5:44 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/28/12 5:06 PM, John H. wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:25:25 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/22/12 3:18 PM, John H. wrote:
Did you and your buddy ever come up with a suggestion of
the .45 I'm going to buy? Tried to call,
but no answer.

CZ 97B if you are man enough.

I've qualified with the M1911A1 about a dozen times. You
reckon the CZ 97B requires more of a man?
How many times have you qualified with a .45, Harry?

I'm just a range shooter, John. I've never shot any Vietnamese
people.
I've found the CZ's to be more accurate in 9mm and .45 ACP
than the run
of the mill 1911's.

The military still like the.45ACP.They just ordered a couple
million
dollars worth of them

They ordered the HK Mk23 tho I imagine. That is what the special
ops
guys carry

No, actually Gregg, it's the return of the 1911 Colt.only modified.

The M45

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...c-orders-4036-...


I am surprised they are going with the SA 1911. The only way it is
useful in combat is in condition 1.

OK, Gregg, I'll bite....What is 'condition 1'?

There's a round in the pipe, the mag is in place, the hammer is cocked,
and the safety is on. All you have to do to fire is thumb the safety
off
and pull the trigger. Obviously Condition One presumes your pistol
has a
safety.

I'm not sure what "condition" Glocks are in with a round in the
chamber,
the mag in place and the slide cycled. There is no safety. I guess you
could call it "Condition Shoot Yourself in the Foot."

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

Harry, to "qualify" with a side arm, you don't have to know a thing
about it,with the exception of pulling the trigger and hitting the
target.

You'd better be able to clean it also. Most armorers get ****ed when a
dirty weapon is turned in.

Harry's just being his usual.



Naw. Just surprised that in your many qualifications, you apparently
weren't taught much about pistols. The most basic safety course at a
good range includes a discussion of "conditions" as they relate to
semi-auto pistols.

You would have made a M-a-r-v-e-l-o-u-s soldier, even if you were
relegated to a job in the company clerk's office.

Yo Tim!
 

On 7/29/12 9:44 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/29/2012 9:40 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/29/2012 9:17 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/29/12 8:48 AM, BAR wrote:
In article 5f25f29b-2433-4e89-9ce4-
, says...

On Jul 28, 5:44 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/28/12 5:06 PM, John H. wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:25:25 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/22/12 3:18 PM, John H. wrote:
Did you and your buddy ever come up with a suggestion of the .45
I'm going to buy? Tried to call,
but no answer.

CZ 97B if you are man enough.

I've qualified with the M1911A1 about a dozen times. You reckon
the CZ 97B requires more of a man?
How many times have you qualified with a .45, Harry?

I'm just a range shooter, John. I've never shot any Vietnamese
people.
I've found the CZ's to be more accurate in 9mm and .45 ACP than the
run
of the mill 1911's.

The military still like the.45ACP.They just ordered a couple million
dollars worth of them

I saw that last night. The USMC is dumping the 9mm for the 1911 .45.

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...c-orders-4036-
m45-cqbp-pistols/




The logic of the choice escapes me. The new pistol has a capacity of
only seven rounds. If the marine corp thought it needed a pistol with
more stopping power than a 9mm (19-round mags easily available), it
could have gone with a pistol that fires .40. And it looks like the
taxpayers will be paying about $1800 a pistol...what a rip.

Oh, well, it's the military. Wasting money is a high priority there.

Under the watchful eye of the CIC.

So, which big donor owns the manufacturing rights, or is it another
Diane Feinstein (sp?) adventure like the millions to her husbands
weapons companies?



PyschoScotty made it to another Sunday! Oh, joy. The CEO of the Colt
military/police firearms company is a long-time defense contractor.

Hey, they're in the Hartford area...perhaps you could get a job there
mopping floors.

Yo Tim!
 

In article , says...

On 7/29/2012 9:40 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/29/2012 9:17 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/29/12 8:48 AM, BAR wrote:
In article 5f25f29b-2433-4e89-9ce4-
, says...

On Jul 28, 5:44 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/28/12 5:06 PM, John H. wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:25:25 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/22/12 3:18 PM, John H. wrote:
Did you and your buddy ever come up with a suggestion of the .45
I'm going to buy? Tried to call,
but no answer.

CZ 97B if you are man enough.

I've qualified with the M1911A1 about a dozen times. You reckon
the CZ 97B requires more of a man?
How many times have you qualified with a .45, Harry?

I'm just a range shooter, John. I've never shot any Vietnamese people.
I've found the CZ's to be more accurate in 9mm and .45 ACP than the
run
of the mill 1911's.

The military still like the.45ACP.They just ordered a couple million
dollars worth of them

I saw that last night. The USMC is dumping the 9mm for the 1911 .45.

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...c-orders-4036-
m45-cqbp-pistols/




The logic of the choice escapes me. The new pistol has a capacity of
only seven rounds. If the marine corp thought it needed a pistol with
more stopping power than a 9mm (19-round mags easily available), it
could have gone with a pistol that fires .40. And it looks like the
taxpayers will be paying about $1800 a pistol...what a rip.

Oh, well, it's the military. Wasting money is a high priority there.

Under the watchful eye of the CIC.

So, which big donor owns the manufacturing rights, or is it another
Diane Feinstein (sp?) adventure like the millions to her husbands
weapons companies?

Actually, you need to look at the Bush administration for that answer!
Bet you wouldn't have mentioned it if you'd have known that!

Yo Tim!
 

On 7/29/12 12:05 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:


OK, Gregg, I'll bite....What is 'condition 1'?



There's a round in the pipe, the mag is in place, the hammer is cocked,
and the safety is on. All you have to do to fire is thumb the safety off
and pull the trigger. Obviously Condition One presumes your pistol has a
safety.

I'm not sure what "condition" Glocks are in with a round in the chamber,
the mag in place and the slide cycled. There is no safety. I guess you
could call it "Condition Shoot Yourself in the Foot."

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

A Glock is double action only so the hammer is down and I am not sure
they even have a safety. My Ruger doesn't. It operates just like a
revolver, that also does not have a safety. My Ruger just has a
"decocker" where the safety would be but I don't think a Glock is ever
"cocked".
The Ruger is DA on the first shot and just like a regular semi on the
rest if you don't decock it. The action is smooth enough that it is
really not that noticeable.



Actually, Glocks don't have hammers, per se; they have strikers.

When racked, the slide pulls the striker to the rear. As the slide
starts moving forward, the action catches the striker and holds it back
while the slide continues back into battery. When you pull the trigger,
the striker is released and it moves forward to strike the primer in the
round.

There's no thumb safety on the Glocks sold in this country. You can add
one or have a smith do it. In other parts of the world, the military and
police can buy Glocks equipped from the factory with thumb safeties.

I prefer single action semi-auto pistols.

Yo Tim!
 

On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.
Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just
for people who would not usually have a rifle.

If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume
officers get some training but from my experience the officer's
training is somewhat superficial too.
I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team
for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I
sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range
time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.



I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a
priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class
with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent
the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field
strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et
cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second
lesson.

Yo Tim!
 

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.
Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just
for people who would not usually have a rifle.

If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume
officers get some training but from my experience the officer's
training is somewhat superficial too.
I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team
for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I
sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range
time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.



I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a
priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class
with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent
the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field
strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et
cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second
lesson.

Maybe the instructor thought you were slow.

Yo Tim!
 

On Jul 29, 11:15*am, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man

wrote:
Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.
Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just
for people who would not usually have a rifle.

Gregg. That's exactly the point i was wishing to convey when I said:

"Harry, to "qualify" with a side arm, you don't have to know a thing
about it,with the exception of pulling the trigger and hitting the
target. "

Yo Tim!
 

On Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:47:38 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , dump-on-

says...



On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man

wrote:



Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol

"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it

include safe handling?



The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.

Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just

for people who would not usually have a rifle.



If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume

officers get some training but from my experience the officer's

training is somewhat superficial too.

I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team

for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I

sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range

time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.







I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a

priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class

with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent

the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field

strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et

cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second

lesson.



Maybe the instructor thought you were slow.

My dad taught me gun safety before I was 10 years old. Shot a .44 mag when I was 9. Started helping reload back then.

It's sort of weird to think about a 60+ year old needing gun classes. I guess some of those yanks grew up with lace on their underwear.

Yo Tim!
 

On Jul 29, 12:34*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:32:38 -0400, X ` Man









wrote:
On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.
Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just
for people who would not usually have a rifle.

If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume
officers get some training but from my experience the officer's
training is somewhat superficial too.
I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team
for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I
sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range
time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.

I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a
priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class
with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent
the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field
strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et
cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second
lesson.

The safety training is more range safety than anything else from what
I saw and unless you actually get tactical training, you will not get
formal training in clearing jams and such. Fortunately a hardball .45
doesn't really jam that much.
Guys who get issued a sidearm that they are expected to use (guards,
SPs and MPs) will get better training.
The officers I knew did not really know much about the pistol and they
really didn't have one unless they were in combat. We only had 6 or 7
on the ships I was on and the captain was the only one who had one out
of the armory.


FAIK, On some ships the US Navy still has M1 Garrands tucked away in
their armories . They never use them so why switch them out for more
modern arms?