|
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/13 10:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/31/13 10:33 AM, 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 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/ Gosh, even almighty Kimber has safeties on its concealed carry semi-autos: http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911/ultra-carry-ii |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/2013 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. Kahr arms has models they specifically modified for Massachusetts. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ruger single 10 revolver that I have is single action only. The S&W "AirLite" 38 Special is double action but it is an older gun, made in 2002. I think the new versions sold in MA may be single action only or may have a lock. The Walther PPK/S is new and the manual describes the lever as being a "safety". It has the red dot that is exposed when in the firing position. The trigger will not pull if it's in the "safe" position. However, I think it's primary (and original) purpose was as a decocker. By preventing the trigger from being pulled in the "decocked" position in the new ones is what allowed them to remain MA and CA compliant. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/2013 10:33 AM, 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 Beretta calls their decocker a safety-decocking lever on the 92 series. Just because you won't leave home without your depends, doesn't mean everyone should wear them. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/13 10:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ruger single 10 revolver that I have is single action only. The S&W "AirLite" 38 Special is double action but it is an older gun, made in 2002. I think the new versions sold in MA may be single action only or may have a lock. The Walther PPK/S is new and the manual describes the lever as being a "safety". It has the red dot that is exposed when in the firing position. The trigger will not pull if it's in the "safe" position. However, I think it's primary (and original) purpose was as a decocker. By preventing the trigger from being pulled in the "decocked" position in the new ones is what allowed them to remain MA and CA compliant. If you can't pull the trigger, then, I presume, it qualifies as a safety. I wouldn't mind having one of these in 7.65: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6EGFtTbhY |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
|
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
"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 |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
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. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com