Floridian Hospitality
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:30:59 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 11, 2:10*am, jps wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:58:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"jps" *wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 05:19:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"jps" *wrote in message
. ..

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:04:45 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:41:30 -0700, jps wrote:

William Pettry had flown from Milwaukee to Jacksonville, Fla., for
the
Bears game against the Jaguars with his best friend, looking for a
good time.

(rest of story snipped)

Yup we need better knife control here.

It's not a weapons problem, it's a mental health problem further
exacerbated by easy access to guns. *But I guess 10,000 gun deaths a
year is an acceptable figure to you. *The CDC doesn't agree with you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be it mental health, drugs or whatever .... *there were 806,843
aggravated assaults in the USA *in 2009. *"Aggravated assault" *is
defined as the unlawful attack by one person upon another for the
purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury and
involves
the display of or threat to use a gun, knife, or other weapon.

26.9 percent were committed with hands, fists, and feet; 20.9 percent
were committed with firearms; and 18.7 percent were committed with
knives or cutting instruments. The remaining 33.5 percent of
aggravated assaults were committed with other weapons.

Note that the 806,843 number does not include simple assaults,
battery
or break-ins. *I suspect the inclusion of those would triple or
quadruple the number.

When I was a younger man with children in the house I never wanted
firearms in our house. *But now as a "young", 63 year old senior,
kids
gone and it's just my wife and I ... *I *have often thought about
"what would I do if" *type scenarios. * News reports of assaults
(including the many that you like to repeat here in this newsgroup in
your anti-gun crusade) *do nothing to convince me to become an
anti-gun advocate. * To the contrary, they reinforced my decision to
get the necessary permits to own and carry a firearm (when
appropriate) *for personal defense and for that of my wife.

To *me*, not doing so is irresponsible.

Because your gated community is so very often under attack? *Do you
wear hoodies while black and wander the neighborhood?

People are driven to paranoia by the news but it's more often those
who have guns that become the victims. *Gonna go to your safe and
unlock it when the giant black men burst through your door to pistol
whip you and take your wife's precious jewelry? *Or will you keep it
under your bed or in your nightstand for when someone comes into your
home when you're not there to steal your stuff and find your gun?
That's how most guns make it to the street.

The people I worry about are the crazy assholes in movie theaters,
mcdonalds, malls and such that get a hold of caches of weapons and
unleash their frustrations against whomever in a random event. *Or the
recently fired employee who has no life outside of work.

Just like this guy who killed his workmates. *Got a lot of hostility
at the Music Shoppe? *Disgruntled employees? *Better get a gun.

-----------------------------------------

I have to admit. *You live in a strange world.

First of all, we do not live in a gated community. * We *did* during
the winter months in Florida for three winters, but we sold that
property back in 2004 and no longer winter there.

No, I am not paranoid. *I am realistic. *My state (MA) *has some of,
if not *the* toughest gun control laws in the nation that have been
further modified and updated to be even more restrictive in recent
years. *The standard *"For all lawful purposes" *does not apply here
anymore. *You must have specific reasons to be issued a LTC class "A"
license. *The police departments (town and state) have determined that
I have sufficient specific reasons.
For purposes of responding to you, that's all the information you
need.

The bulk of your post is a bunch of *goofy gibberish, typical of the
ultra-left who spray lies and oblique innuendos, including the race
card, hoping something will stick to support their ultra-liberal
views. *No, jps, I do not have visions of "giant black men" *floating
in my head nor am I concerned with "disgruntled employees" *(mainly
because I don't have any). * * I thought you were brighter and more
mature. *Guess I was wrong.

Eisboch

Anyone who says that my post do more to convince them to get a gun has
some strange ideas rolling around in their head. *I post about
lunatics who go off in pubic or take out their own families. *The
number of home invasion robberies are so few, that the potential for
anything to touch you or your immediate family are ridiculously low.

I thought you were more circumspect and thoughtful. *I was wrong.

You post that foolishness because that's really all you want to see.

We're still waiting to hear your solution to these shooting problems.
but you stay silent.

Talk about narrow minded.

It's so ****ing obvious. We need to have some intersection between
gun ownership and mental health, at the very least.

Currently, there's no such thing. It's hard enough to keep guns out
of the hands of felons who are, by law, not supposed to possess.

We've swung so far to the right in this country, not even the
president is willing to recognize the need and call for reform.


You are tilting at windmills. I'm not interested in the politics of guns
but I see no reason not to require first-time gun purchasers to take a
serious hands-on classroom and range training course that takes place
over several days or evenings so they earn a certificate that means
something before they exercise their right to buy a legal firearm. Maybe
gun owners should have to reprove their knowledge of gun laws and gun
handling every five years and get their certificate re-stamped.

The other issue of gun ownership is extremely complex.

Pay your taxes and your debts Harry!

Floridian Hospitality
 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43*am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028
@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 10, 9:44 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:41:30 -0700, jps wrote:

snippage

Still thinking about the Sig Sauer P226. This one, with a conversion kit:

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...lassic-22.aspx

Good idea, huh?

I carry for work, but not a SIG, usually a Glock 22 or a 1911, plus
another handgun for backup. The Sig P226 is a nice pistol, though. I'm
not sure what you are trying to gain by fitting it with a 22 slide and
works. The recoil, muzzle flip and noise will be totally different
between the two rounds and at distance at a target, so will the impact of
gravity, so you won't be gaining the shooting skills you want with a 40,
45 or even a 9 round in a defense pistol by running 22s through it. I've
tried a few of these combos at the range. They were fun but shooting 22
rounds isn't going to help you become proficient firing larger rounds in
the same basic pistol.

Wow, you have all the perfect weapons, for the perfect environment...
You sound a lot like a recent MIA poster here who always had the
perfect tool for the job... :)

I'm a federal cop. The Glock was issued to me. I encounter a lot of
firearms. I don't think the 22 slide kits are anything more than a
gimmick. What's your point?

The .22 kits (from what I understand,) were used for training purposes
as far back as WW 1 to conserve bigger caliber ammunition. Same feel
and break down as the .45 ACP but a whole lot cheaper to shoot on the
range.

I have a WW1 issue British .303 Enfield rifle chambered in .22 single
shot for that same reason.


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.

Floridian Hospitality
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43*am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028
@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 10, 9:44 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:41:30 -0700, jps wrote:

snippage

Still thinking about the Sig Sauer P226. This one, with a conversion kit:

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...lassic-22.aspx

Good idea, huh?

I carry for work, but not a SIG, usually a Glock 22 or a 1911, plus
another handgun for backup. The Sig P226 is a nice pistol, though. I'm
not sure what you are trying to gain by fitting it with a 22 slide and
works. The recoil, muzzle flip and noise will be totally different
between the two rounds and at distance at a target, so will the impact of
gravity, so you won't be gaining the shooting skills you want with a 40,
45 or even a 9 round in a defense pistol by running 22s through it. I've
tried a few of these combos at the range. They were fun but shooting 22
rounds isn't going to help you become proficient firing larger rounds in
the same basic pistol.

Wow, you have all the perfect weapons, for the perfect environment...
You sound a lot like a recent MIA poster here who always had the
perfect tool for the job... :)

I'm a federal cop. The Glock was issued to me. I encounter a lot of
firearms. I don't think the 22 slide kits are anything more than a
gimmick. What's your point?

The .22 kits (from what I understand,) were used for training purposes
as far back as WW 1 to conserve bigger caliber ammunition. Same feel
and break down as the .45 ACP but a whole lot cheaper to shoot on the
range.

I have a WW1 issue British .303 Enfield rifle chambered in .22 single
shot for that same reason.


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.


A purpose of a 22 is to be able to fire lots of round at a range or in
your backyard and just become more proficient at handling and shooting a
firearm. Using a conversion kit will help you do that for sure but
because of the differences in the rounds I don't think it will add much
to your proficiency in firing bigger rounds in the same handgun for the
reasons already stated. Another reasons to get an inexpensive Ruger is
the cost of magazines. Ruger magazines are around $10 I think. You can
buy a handful of them and load them up at the range and fire without
reloading every couple of minutes. Plus you can try out different rounds
in different magazines to see which work the best for you and the gun.
How much do spare mags cost for that conversion kit 22? I think the
Ruger or something like it would be a lot more fun than the conversion
kit. In fact unless you need the SIG for some other reason, a nice 22
may be all the gun you want or need.

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.

Floridian Hospitality
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43*am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028
@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 10, 9:44 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:41:30 -0700, jps wrote:

snippage

Still thinking about the Sig Sauer P226. This one, with a conversion kit:

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...lassic-22.aspx

Good idea, huh?

I carry for work, but not a SIG, usually a Glock 22 or a 1911, plus
another handgun for backup. The Sig P226 is a nice pistol, though. I'm
not sure what you are trying to gain by fitting it with a 22 slide and
works. The recoil, muzzle flip and noise will be totally different
between the two rounds and at distance at a target, so will the impact of
gravity, so you won't be gaining the shooting skills you want with a 40,
45 or even a 9 round in a defense pistol by running 22s through it. I've
tried a few of these combos at the range. They were fun but shooting 22
rounds isn't going to help you become proficient firing larger rounds in
the same basic pistol.

Wow, you have all the perfect weapons, for the perfect environment...
You sound a lot like a recent MIA poster here who always had the
perfect tool for the job... :)

I'm a federal cop. The Glock was issued to me. I encounter a lot of
firearms. I don't think the 22 slide kits are anything more than a
gimmick. What's your point?

The .22 kits (from what I understand,) were used for training purposes
as far back as WW 1 to conserve bigger caliber ammunition. Same feel
and break down as the .45 ACP but a whole lot cheaper to shoot on the
range.

I have a WW1 issue British .303 Enfield rifle chambered in .22 single
shot for that same reason.


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.

Of course it does....

Floridian Hospitality
 

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:17 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43*am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.


A purpose of a 22 is to be able to fire lots of round at a range or in
your backyard and just become more proficient at handling and shooting a
firearm. Using a conversion kit will help you do that for sure but
because of the differences in the rounds I don't think it will add much
to your proficiency in firing bigger rounds in the same handgun for the
reasons already stated. Another reasons to get an inexpensive Ruger is
the cost of magazines. Ruger magazines are around $10 I think. You can
buy a handful of them and load them up at the range and fire without
reloading every couple of minutes. Plus you can try out different rounds
in different magazines to see which work the best for you and the gun.
How much do spare mags cost for that conversion kit 22? I think the
Ruger or something like it would be a lot more fun than the conversion
kit. In fact unless you need the SIG for some other reason, a nice 22
may be all the gun you want or need.

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.


New, the Sig magazines run about $40. From what I could see, quickly, the Ruger magazines are in the
$35 range, new. Maybe they're both available somewhere for a lot less, I don't know.

Now, back to the discussion. If the purpose in investing in a .22 pistol was for practice, then the
conversion kit would serve the purpose. It may not significantly improve performance when going back
to the .40 caliber (or whichever)l, but neither would a separate handgun.

Don't know and don't care who Nelson Muntz is.

Floridian Hospitality
 

On 10/14/2012 3:31 PM, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028
@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 10, 9:44 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:41:30 -0700, jps wrote:

snippage

Still thinking about the Sig Sauer P226. This one, with a conversion kit:

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...lassic-22.aspx

Good idea, huh?

I carry for work, but not a SIG, usually a Glock 22 or a 1911, plus
another handgun for backup. The Sig P226 is a nice pistol, though. I'm
not sure what you are trying to gain by fitting it with a 22 slide and
works. The recoil, muzzle flip and noise will be totally different
between the two rounds and at distance at a target, so will the impact of
gravity, so you won't be gaining the shooting skills you want with a 40,
45 or even a 9 round in a defense pistol by running 22s through it. I've
tried a few of these combos at the range. They were fun but shooting 22
rounds isn't going to help you become proficient firing larger rounds in
the same basic pistol.

Wow, you have all the perfect weapons, for the perfect environment...
You sound a lot like a recent MIA poster here who always had the
perfect tool for the job... :)

I'm a federal cop. The Glock was issued to me. I encounter a lot of
firearms. I don't think the 22 slide kits are anything more than a
gimmick. What's your point?

The .22 kits (from what I understand,) were used for training purposes
as far back as WW 1 to conserve bigger caliber ammunition. Same feel
and break down as the .45 ACP but a whole lot cheaper to shoot on the
range.

I have a WW1 issue British .303 Enfield rifle chambered in .22 single
shot for that same reason.


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.


A purpose of a 22 is to be able to fire lots of round at a range or in
your backyard and just become more proficient at handling and shooting a
firearm. Using a conversion kit will help you do that for sure but
because of the differences in the rounds I don't think it will add much
to your proficiency in firing bigger rounds in the same handgun for the
reasons already stated. Another reasons to get an inexpensive Ruger is
the cost of magazines. Ruger magazines are around $10 I think. You can
buy a handful of them and load them up at the range and fire without
reloading every couple of minutes. Plus you can try out different rounds
in different magazines to see which work the best for you and the gun.
How much do spare mags cost for that conversion kit 22? I think the
Ruger or something like it would be a lot more fun than the conversion
kit. In fact unless you need the SIG for some other reason, a nice 22
may be all the gun you want or need.

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.



And I just googled Muntz and found it's a cartoon, and obviously your
reference was a derogatory shot at posters here... Thank *you* for not
being childish, and btw, welcome to rec.boats. You are now the object of
your own scorn. snerk

Floridian Hospitality
 

On Oct 14, 3:02*pm, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:17 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028

You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.

A purpose of a 22 is to be able to fire lots of round at a range or in
your backyard and just become more proficient at handling and shooting a
firearm. Using a conversion kit will help you do that for sure but
because of the differences in the rounds I don't think it will add much
to your proficiency in firing bigger rounds in the same handgun for the
reasons already stated. Another reasons to get an inexpensive Ruger is
the cost of magazines. Ruger magazines are around $10 I think. You can
buy a handful of them and load them up at the range and fire without
reloading every couple of minutes. Plus you can try out different rounds
in different magazines to see which work the best for you and the gun.
How much do spare mags cost for that conversion kit 22? I think the
Ruger or something like it would be a lot more fun than the conversion
kit. In fact unless you need the SIG for some other reason, a nice 22
may be all the gun you want or need.

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.

New, the Sig magazines run about $40. From what I could see, quickly, the Ruger magazines are in the
$35 range, new. Maybe they're both available somewhere for a lot less, I don't know.

Now, back to the discussion. If the purpose in investing in a .22 pistol was for practice, then the
conversion kit would serve the purpose. It may not significantly improve performance when going back
to the .40 caliber (or whichever)l, but neither would a separate handgun.

Don't know and don't care who Nelson Muntz is.

John, Carabela's has OE ruger .22 clips for $26.00 and free shipping.

Ables has aftermarket for $17- don't know about shipping though

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/ruge...457_15463.html

Buds-

$16.74

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/i...cturers_id/369

Floridian Hospitality
 

On 10/14/2012 3:41 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028
@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 10, 9:44 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:41:30 -0700, jps wrote:

snippage

Still thinking about the Sig Sauer P226. This one, with a conversion kit:

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...lassic-22.aspx

Good idea, huh?

I carry for work, but not a SIG, usually a Glock 22 or a 1911, plus
another handgun for backup. The Sig P226 is a nice pistol, though. I'm
not sure what you are trying to gain by fitting it with a 22 slide and
works. The recoil, muzzle flip and noise will be totally different
between the two rounds and at distance at a target, so will the impact of
gravity, so you won't be gaining the shooting skills you want with a 40,
45 or even a 9 round in a defense pistol by running 22s through it. I've
tried a few of these combos at the range. They were fun but shooting 22
rounds isn't going to help you become proficient firing larger rounds in
the same basic pistol.

Wow, you have all the perfect weapons, for the perfect environment...
You sound a lot like a recent MIA poster here who always had the
perfect tool for the job... :)

I'm a federal cop. The Glock was issued to me. I encounter a lot of
firearms. I don't think the 22 slide kits are anything more than a
gimmick. What's your point?

The .22 kits (from what I understand,) were used for training purposes
as far back as WW 1 to conserve bigger caliber ammunition. Same feel
and break down as the .45 ACP but a whole lot cheaper to shoot on the
range.

I have a WW1 issue British .303 Enfield rifle chambered in .22 single
shot for that same reason.


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.

Of course it does....

Please explain, Loogie. Why does the logic escape him? Be specific and
cite where appropriate.

Floridian Hospitality
 

On Oct 14, 2:31*pm, EmpacherFan wrote:

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.


agreed!

Floridian Hospitality
 

In article b74e943e-d7f4-42ba-8aa8-216b144b45f7
@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 14, 2:31*pm, EmpacherFan wrote:

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.


agreed!


I really do not understand the need of some posters on usenet to toss
insults at other posters with almost every post they write. I'm glad
someone agrees.