|
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/13 11:53 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 3/31/13 11:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... Here's a little CZ concealed carry pistol with several safety features, including an actual safety: http://www.cz-usa.com/products/view/cz-2075-rami/ ------------------------------------------- I've heard that CZ may be trying to get some of their handguns on the MA compliant list, but as of last month no CZ models are listed: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/firearms/approvedfirearmsroster03-2013.pdf Well, it sure isn't for lack of a safety, since all the Glock models seem to be compliant. In Europe, Glock supplies pistols to police departments *with* safeties, if the department wants them. But not here. There are some aftermarket safeties available for Glock pistols. I was shooting a high-priced SIG X-5 when at a match, I happened to swap pistols for a few mags with a guy shooting a much less expensive CZ. I was impressed with how much tighter the CZ slide locked up with its frame, and the "innards" on the CZ were at least as finely machined as those on the SIG. The SIG was "done up" in buff stainless steel, and that usually produces a good-looking firearm. But the quality of both pistols was pretty much a push. And, for me, the CZ outshot my SIG. That's when I decided to sell the SIG and get a CZ. -------------------------------------------------------- I think some Glocks have been recently added after Glock added another safety feature of some type. But, just because the gun is on the list in the link I provided, doesn't necessarily mean you can buy one. That's what is so screwed up here. There is a MA agency (forget what it's called) that tests guns submitted by the manufacturer for certification of being MA compliant. They test for safety, drop tests, etc. The manufacturer must submit something like five guns of each model for testing. But the MA Attorney General's office also has a say in what is "MA compliant" and it's a very subjective determination. In some cases a particular Ruger model was rejected because they didn't like where the serial number was put. In other cases, a stainless version of a gun model was rejected but the blued version was ok. As a result, many manufacturers have basically told MA to "KMA" and don't bother even trying to market their guns here. In order for a dealer to legally sell post-grandfathered guns, the model must be approved by both the testing agency and the AG's office. Politics, as usual, at play. Well, that all sounds like stupidity in action... :) |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:14:23 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 10:09 AM, J Herring wrote: ...yesterday at Gander Mountain. Haven't fired it yet, but it sure is a nice feeling pistol. My wife loves the size. While there I noticed one of these in the cabinet: http://tinyurl.com/cpkd7td Now I'm drooling. I don't have a .45, but think I need one for protection in case a grisly bear decides to break into the house. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Spend the money on spelling lessons. It's grizzly bear, not grisly bear. And I'm not surprised your wife likes the size. Yale degree / 4 tax liens / 2 bankruptcies |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:01:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 7:44 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 4:59 pm, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 9:09 am, J Herring wrote: ...yesterday at Gander Mountain. Haven't fired it yet, but it sure is a nice feeling pistol. My wife loves the size. While there I noticed one of these in the cabinet:http://tinyurl.com/cpkd7td Now I'm drooling. I don't have a .45, but think I need one for protection in case a grisly bear decides to break into the house. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Congrat's on the 250. But for bear you might consider a .44 mag. You're most likely correct. But, I can buy a kit that changes this thing from a 9mm to a .45. That might be interesting! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Look at the price of the kit and weigh out the option of another gun. Yeah. I wouldn't want to make this Sig a .45. I'd rather it be full size. On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. Now go out and have a great Easter Sunday! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. You really have trouble with language. SIG makes fine weapons. But the particular pistol you bought does *not* have a real safety. A real safety prevents the trigger from being pulled to the point where the weapon will fire. You and S&W define 'safety' differently, but, ESADAFOD, you are correct of course. I guess I'll just have to buy a couple CZ's and have a few thousand dollars worth of modifications done to them. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/13 3:19 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:01:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 7:44 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 4:59 pm, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 9:09 am, J Herring wrote: ...yesterday at Gander Mountain. Haven't fired it yet, but it sure is a nice feeling pistol. My wife loves the size. While there I noticed one of these in the cabinet:http://tinyurl.com/cpkd7td Now I'm drooling. I don't have a .45, but think I need one for protection in case a grisly bear decides to break into the house. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Congrat's on the 250. But for bear you might consider a .44 mag. You're most likely correct. But, I can buy a kit that changes this thing from a 9mm to a .45. That might be interesting! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Look at the price of the kit and weigh out the option of another gun. Yeah. I wouldn't want to make this Sig a .45. I'd rather it be full size. On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. Now go out and have a great Easter Sunday! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. You really have trouble with language. SIG makes fine weapons. But the particular pistol you bought does *not* have a real safety. A real safety prevents the trigger from being pulled to the point where the weapon will fire. You and S&W define 'safety' differently, but, ESADAFOD, you are correct of course. I guess I'll just have to buy a couple CZ's and have a few thousand dollars worth of modifications done to them. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. You spent less time picking out your new pistol than I would deciding whether I wanted a ham sandwich on rye or whole wheat. My statement about safeties stands. If you can pull the trigger and make the gun go bang, it isn't a safety. A stock steel CZ-75 out of the box will outshoot that P250 of yours. I had a highly accurate Sig X-5, and my CZ, which cost half as much, will outshoot it. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:58:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 3:19 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:01:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 7:44 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 4:59 pm, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 9:09 am, J Herring wrote: ...yesterday at Gander Mountain. Haven't fired it yet, but it sure is a nice feeling pistol. My wife loves the size. While there I noticed one of these in the cabinet:http://tinyurl.com/cpkd7td Now I'm drooling. I don't have a .45, but think I need one for protection in case a grisly bear decides to break into the house. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Congrat's on the 250. But for bear you might consider a .44 mag. You're most likely correct. But, I can buy a kit that changes this thing from a 9mm to a .45. That might be interesting! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Look at the price of the kit and weigh out the option of another gun. Yeah. I wouldn't want to make this Sig a .45. I'd rather it be full size. On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. Now go out and have a great Easter Sunday! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. You really have trouble with language. SIG makes fine weapons. But the particular pistol you bought does *not* have a real safety. A real safety prevents the trigger from being pulled to the point where the weapon will fire. You and S&W define 'safety' differently, but, ESADAFOD, you are correct of course. I guess I'll just have to buy a couple CZ's and have a few thousand dollars worth of modifications done to them. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. You spent less time picking out your new pistol than I would deciding whether I wanted a ham sandwich on rye or whole wheat. My statement about safeties stands. If you can pull the trigger and make the gun go bang, it isn't a safety. A stock steel CZ-75 out of the box will outshoot that P250 of yours. I had a highly accurate Sig X-5, and my CZ, which cost half as much, will outshoot it. Actually, it's a combination of the high quality CZ and the high quality CZ shooter! Your pistol, with or without modifications is undoubtedly the best made. Coupled with your demonstrated (several times by you) magnificent marksmanship, why the combination is simply unbeatable! There is no need whatsoever for you to toot your horn. We all know how good you are! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Sunday, March 31, 2013 2:58:29 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/31/13 3:19 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:01:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 7:44 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 4:59 pm, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 9:09 am, J Herring wrote: ...yesterday at Gander Mountain. Haven't fired it yet, but it sure is a nice feeling pistol. My wife loves the size. While there I noticed one of these in the cabinet:http://tinyurl.com/cpkd7td Now I'm drooling. I don't have a .45, but think I need one for protection in case a grisly bear decides to break into the house. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Congrat's on the 250. But for bear you might consider a .44 mag. You're most likely correct. But, I can buy a kit that changes this thing from a 9mm to a .45. That might be interesting! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Look at the price of the kit and weigh out the option of another gun. Yeah. I wouldn't want to make this Sig a .45. I'd rather it be full size. On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. Now go out and have a great Easter Sunday! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. You really have trouble with language. SIG makes fine weapons. But the particular pistol you bought does *not* have a real safety. A real safety prevents the trigger from being pulled to the point where the weapon will fire. You and S&W define 'safety' differently, but, ESADAFOD, you are correct of course. I guess I'll just have to buy a couple CZ's and have a few thousand dollars worth of modifications done to them. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. You spent less time picking out your new pistol than I would deciding whether I wanted a ham sandwich on rye or whole wheat. My statement about safeties stands. If you can pull the trigger and make the gun go bang, it isn't a safety. A stock steel CZ-75 out of the box will outshoot that P250 of yours. I had a highly accurate Sig X-5, and my CZ, which cost half as much, will outshoot it. Hatteras / 4 tax liens / 2 bankruptcies |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/2013 3:53 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. Run that point by us again. Most of us have ADD when it comes to remembering the points you make. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Mar 31, 5:51*pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " *wrote in message traweb.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. * Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. * The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. *The Bodyguard *also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. * But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. * Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/2013 6:51 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. The real point is under your hat, asshole. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/2013 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. He would dry fire it going "do you know what that sound is?" over and over again and again weather it had a safety or not. harry uses his guns to make himself feel safe and tough, he just won't admit it here.. LOL! |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/2013 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. It's obvious that you need to sign up for the Best In The World Harry N Krause Expert Gun Handling And Safety Course. You need to learn from the best John. Fergit everything you learned in the Army and let Krausie mold you into the gun happy schizophrenic paranoid, narcissistic, egotistical asshole clone of himself, that he wants you to be. Be all that you can be |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during his time in our war against the people of Vietnam. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/13 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. It is clear I know a hell of a lot more about semi-auto pistols than you do, and your arrogance will keep you ignorant. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during his time in our war against the people of Vietnam. How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as 'our war'. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:55:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/1/13 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. It is clear I know a hell of a lot more about semi-auto pistols than you do, and your arrogance will keep you ignorant. Then answer the question: Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/13 10:56 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during his time in our war against the people of Vietnam. How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as 'our war'. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. That war was not "my" war, it was the War of the Government of the United States Against the People of Vietnam. How I treat semi-auto pistols is *not* how you would treat them, so what I do with mine to stay safe is not relevant. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/30/2013 6:32 PM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 30, 4:59 pm, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 9:09 am, J Herring wrote: ...yesterday at Gander Mountain. Haven't fired it yet, but it sure is a nice feeling pistol. My wife loves the size. While there I noticed one of these in the cabinet:http://tinyurl.com/cpkd7td Now I'm drooling. I don't have a .45, but think I need one for protection in case a grisly bear decides to break into the house. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Congrat's on the 250. But for bear you might consider a .44 mag. You're most likely correct. But, I can buy a kit that changes this thing from a 9mm to a .45. That might be interesting! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Look at the price of the kit and weigh out the option of another gun. I would imagine it's like boats, any compromise, is well, compromise... |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:21:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/1/13 10:56 AM, J Herring wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during his time in our war against the people of Vietnam. How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as 'our war'. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. That war was not "my" war, it was the War of the Government of the United States Against the People of Vietnam. You're the one who used the phrase 'our war', and you supported the war effort. Thanks. How I treat semi-auto pistols is *not* how you would treat them, so what I do with mine to stay safe is not relevant. ESAD, you've expounded several times on your wealth of pistol knowledge. You've several times commented on the lack of 'safeties' on the P250 and earlier on the M&P. Here's your chance to demonstrate some of that knowledge - or you could just say, "I don't know." How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/13 11:40 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:21:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/1/13 10:56 AM, J Herring wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during his time in our war against the people of Vietnam. How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as 'our war'. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. That war was not "my" war, it was the War of the Government of the United States Against the People of Vietnam. You're the one who used the phrase 'our war', and you supported the war effort. Thanks. How I treat semi-auto pistols is *not* how you would treat them, so what I do with mine to stay safe is not relevant. ESAD, you've expounded several times on your wealth of pistol knowledge. You've several times commented on the lack of 'safeties' on the P250 and earlier on the M&P. Here's your chance to demonstrate some of that knowledge - or you could just say, "I don't know." How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. What's the point in enlightening you? It'll be more interesting to see what happens because of your ignorance. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/30/2013 5:54 PM, Hank© wrote:
On 3/30/2013 5:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/30/13 5:07 PM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 3/30/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote: Have you ever tried any of the sub-sonic ammo? I haven't and am curious how much they diminish the "crack" when they are fired. It's a noticeable difference, but they're still pretty loud rounds. I've seen demos of suppressors with subsonic rounds, and on a .22LR, the sound is still there, but it's very soft and does not sound anything like a firearm. ---------------------------------------- I bought a Ruger Air Magnum Pellet rifle a couple of months ago thinking I could use it for target practice on my property. The nearest neighbor's house is about 400 feet from where I'd be shooting and in the opposite direction of where I'd be aiming, so I figured it wouldn't be a bother to him. Boy, was I surprised. The damn thing is louder than the Marlin .22 lever action I have. Muzzle velocity is actually higher. 1200 fps for the standard lead pellets and 1400 fps for the light, alloy pellets. Very accurate, but it weighs a ton. http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/airgundepot_2254_185840498 Aging minds think alike. I'm interested in the suppressor because there's an area, a dry creek bed, on our property that is legally distant enough from neighboring properties, to be used as a target range. The creek bed is 15 to 20 feet deep where I'd like to set up a range, and it curves where the backstop would be. Ideal. Except...I don't want to disturb the neighbors and...the snakes...I am sure are down there somewhere. :) A suppressor would allow me to use my .22lr pistol and rifle down there. If it's not on an authorized range you are not allowed to fire a gun in Maryland. I suppose hunting is illegal in Maryland as well. It's a liberal thing.. as long as you don't think it will bother anybody, you can break the law in Maryland I guess. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/13 11:56 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/30/2013 5:54 PM, Hank© wrote: On 3/30/2013 5:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/30/13 5:07 PM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 3/30/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote: Have you ever tried any of the sub-sonic ammo? I haven't and am curious how much they diminish the "crack" when they are fired. It's a noticeable difference, but they're still pretty loud rounds. I've seen demos of suppressors with subsonic rounds, and on a .22LR, the sound is still there, but it's very soft and does not sound anything like a firearm. ---------------------------------------- I bought a Ruger Air Magnum Pellet rifle a couple of months ago thinking I could use it for target practice on my property. The nearest neighbor's house is about 400 feet from where I'd be shooting and in the opposite direction of where I'd be aiming, so I figured it wouldn't be a bother to him. Boy, was I surprised. The damn thing is louder than the Marlin .22 lever action I have. Muzzle velocity is actually higher. 1200 fps for the standard lead pellets and 1400 fps for the light, alloy pellets. Very accurate, but it weighs a ton. http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/airgundepot_2254_185840498 Aging minds think alike. I'm interested in the suppressor because there's an area, a dry creek bed, on our property that is legally distant enough from neighboring properties, to be used as a target range. The creek bed is 15 to 20 feet deep where I'd like to set up a range, and it curves where the backstop would be. Ideal. Except...I don't want to disturb the neighbors and...the snakes...I am sure are down there somewhere. :) A suppressor would allow me to use my .22lr pistol and rifle down there. If it's not on an authorized range you are not allowed to fire a gun in Maryland. I suppose hunting is illegal in Maryland as well. It's a liberal thing.. as long as you don't think it will bother anybody, you can break the law in Maryland I guess. Poor PsychoSnotty: mentally unbalanced and dumb enough to believe FlaJim/Hank/Mired, who only posts here to get a rise out of morons like...PsychoSnotty. Firing a gun on private property in Maryland is under the purview of local law, not state law, and the laws vary fairly widely. Calvert County is still mostly rural. "Code of Calvert County Title 15, subtitle 1. 15-102. Permission required. (a)Except for a law enforcement officer in the line of duty or as provided in Subsection (b) of this section, a person may not discharge a firearm: (1)Within 150 yards of a building which can be used as a residence, whether occupied or vacant; or (2)On any property owned by another person or by Calvert County without evidence of permission on his person." The part of the dry creek bed I'd like to use as an informal range is more than 150 yards from any neighbor's house. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/2013 3:19 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:01:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 7:44 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 4:59 pm, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Mar 30, 9:09 am, J Herring wrote: ...yesterday at Gander Mountain. Haven't fired it yet, but it sure is a nice feeling pistol. My wife loves the size. While there I noticed one of these in the cabinet:http://tinyurl.com/cpkd7td Now I'm drooling. I don't have a .45, but think I need one for protection in case a grisly bear decides to break into the house. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Congrat's on the 250. But for bear you might consider a .44 mag. You're most likely correct. But, I can buy a kit that changes this thing from a 9mm to a .45. That might be interesting! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Look at the price of the kit and weigh out the option of another gun. Yeah. I wouldn't want to make this Sig a .45. I'd rather it be full size. On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. Now go out and have a great Easter Sunday! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. You really have trouble with language. SIG makes fine weapons. But the particular pistol you bought does *not* have a real safety. A real safety prevents the trigger from being pulled to the point where the weapon will fire. You and S&W define 'safety' differently, but, ESADAFOD, you are correct of course. I guess I'll just have to buy a couple CZ's and have a few thousand dollars worth of modifications done to them. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Or you could read about them on google and pretend you have one too:) |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:56:06 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/1/13 11:40 AM, J Herring wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:21:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/1/13 10:56 AM, J Herring wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during his time in our war against the people of Vietnam. How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as 'our war'. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. That war was not "my" war, it was the War of the Government of the United States Against the People of Vietnam. You're the one who used the phrase 'our war', and you supported the war effort. Thanks. How I treat semi-auto pistols is *not* how you would treat them, so what I do with mine to stay safe is not relevant. ESAD, you've expounded several times on your wealth of pistol knowledge. You've several times commented on the lack of 'safeties' on the P250 and earlier on the M&P. Here's your chance to demonstrate some of that knowledge - or you could just say, "I don't know." How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. What's the point in enlightening you? It'll be more interesting to see what happens because of your ignorance. Tough question, huh? Perhaps "I don't know" should be your response, as it's obvious you can't answer a simple question. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:05:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
Aging minds think alike. How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/13 12:10 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:56:06 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/1/13 11:40 AM, J Herring wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:21:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/1/13 10:56 AM, J Herring wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during his time in our war against the people of Vietnam. How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as 'our war'. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. That war was not "my" war, it was the War of the Government of the United States Against the People of Vietnam. You're the one who used the phrase 'our war', and you supported the war effort. Thanks. How I treat semi-auto pistols is *not* how you would treat them, so what I do with mine to stay safe is not relevant. ESAD, you've expounded several times on your wealth of pistol knowledge. You've several times commented on the lack of 'safeties' on the P250 and earlier on the M&P. Here's your chance to demonstrate some of that knowledge - or you could just say, "I don't know." How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. What's the point in enlightening you? It'll be more interesting to see what happens because of your ignorance. Tough question, huh? Perhaps "I don't know" should be your response, as it's obvious you can't answer a simple question. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. No, not at all. My answer is, I have no interest either in enlightening you or in playing this moronic game of yours. I can answer, I simply choose not to do so. You'll have success pulling your ignorant son PsychoSnotty's strings. Have nice day. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/2013 10:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/1/13 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. It is clear I know a hell of a lot more about semi-auto pistols than you do, and your arrogance will keep you ignorant. It isn't clear at all. The only thing you demonstrated was your ability to Google features of various weapons. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/2013 11:00 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:55:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/1/13 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. It is clear I know a hell of a lot more about semi-auto pistols than you do, and your arrogance will keep you ignorant. Then answer the question: Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. You might have to give him some hints. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Monday, 1 April 2013 10:13:29 UTC-3, John H wrote:
snip.. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait Johnny, you spent almost your entire Easter.. the most important date in the church calendar, obsessing about handguns. What is wrong with you.... and to make matters worse you now have your wife excited about them. I can't see anything good coming from all this. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/2013 12:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/1/13 11:56 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/30/2013 5:54 PM, Hank© wrote: On 3/30/2013 5:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/30/13 5:07 PM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 3/30/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote: Have you ever tried any of the sub-sonic ammo? I haven't and am curious how much they diminish the "crack" when they are fired. It's a noticeable difference, but they're still pretty loud rounds. I've seen demos of suppressors with subsonic rounds, and on a .22LR, the sound is still there, but it's very soft and does not sound anything like a firearm. ---------------------------------------- I bought a Ruger Air Magnum Pellet rifle a couple of months ago thinking I could use it for target practice on my property. The nearest neighbor's house is about 400 feet from where I'd be shooting and in the opposite direction of where I'd be aiming, so I figured it wouldn't be a bother to him. Boy, was I surprised. The damn thing is louder than the Marlin .22 lever action I have. Muzzle velocity is actually higher. 1200 fps for the standard lead pellets and 1400 fps for the light, alloy pellets. Very accurate, but it weighs a ton. http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/airgundepot_2254_185840498 Aging minds think alike. I'm interested in the suppressor because there's an area, a dry creek bed, on our property that is legally distant enough from neighboring properties, to be used as a target range. The creek bed is 15 to 20 feet deep where I'd like to set up a range, and it curves where the backstop would be. Ideal. Except...I don't want to disturb the neighbors and...the snakes...I am sure are down there somewhere. :) A suppressor would allow me to use my .22lr pistol and rifle down there. If it's not on an authorized range you are not allowed to fire a gun in Maryland. I suppose hunting is illegal in Maryland as well. It's a liberal thing.. as long as you don't think it will bother anybody, you can break the law in Maryland I guess. Poor PsychoSnotty: mentally unbalanced and dumb enough to believe FlaJim/Hank/Mired, who only posts here to get a rise out of morons like...PsychoSnotty. Firing a gun on private property in Maryland is under the purview of local law, not state law, and the laws vary fairly widely. Calvert County is still mostly rural. "Code of Calvert County Title 15, subtitle 1. 15-102. Permission required. (a)Except for a law enforcement officer in the line of duty or as provided in Subsection (b) of this section, a person may not discharge a firearm: (1)Within 150 yards of a building which can be used as a residence, whether occupied or vacant; or (2)On any property owned by another person or by Calvert County without evidence of permission on his person." The part of the dry creek bed I'd like to use as an informal range is more than 150 yards from any neighbor's house. That rules your little 3/4 acre out. You still need written permission from the property owner. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/13 12:53 PM, True North wrote:
On Monday, 1 April 2013 10:13:29 UTC-3, John H wrote: snip.. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait Johnny, you spent almost your entire Easter.. the most important date in the church calendar, obsessing about handguns. What is wrong with you.... and to make matters worse you now have your wife excited about them. I can't see anything good coming from all this. Agreed. Nothing good will come of this. If I cared about Herring, I'd have a feeling of foreboding, but, since it's Herring, I don't give a ****. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:47:47 -0400, Hank© wrote:
On 4/1/2013 11:00 AM, J Herring wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:55:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/1/13 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. It is clear I know a hell of a lot more about semi-auto pistols than you do, and your arrogance will keep you ignorant. Then answer the question: Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. You might have to give him some hints. It's a pretty simple question, with a pretty simple answer. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:02:06 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/1/13 12:53 PM, True North wrote: On Monday, 1 April 2013 10:13:29 UTC-3, John H wrote: snip.. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait Johnny, you spent almost your entire Easter.. the most important date in the church calendar, obsessing about handguns. What is wrong with you.... and to make matters worse you now have your wife excited about them. I can't see anything good coming from all this. Agreed. Nothing good will come of this. If I cared about Herring, I'd have a feeling of foreboding, but, since it's Herring, I don't give a ****. How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:25:59 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... ...yesterday at Gander Mountain. Haven't fired it yet, but it sure is a nice feeling pistol. My wife loves the size. While there I noticed one of these in the cabinet: http://tinyurl.com/cpkd7td Over priced for a .45 ACP. You need to buy a Colt they are cheaper. Now I'm drooling. I don't have a .45, but think I need one for protection in case a grisly bear decides to break into the house. Everyone needs a .45. Held to your head. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com