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.