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.