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.

On 3/31/2013 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.

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.

"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.

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

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/

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

"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

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.

In article , says...

"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

I sure am glad I didn't move to Mass several years ago. You guys only get to purchase crap.

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


Nothing from Taurus? Do they have to apply to be included?