http://www.washingtontimes.com/multi...uns-under-500/

Interesting little reviews.

On 4/29/15 7:15 AM, Tim wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multi...uns-under-500/

Interesting little reviews.



Feh. All semi-autos, not a great choice for uber-reliable handguns, and
nothing very special in the bunch.

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 7:40:03 AM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
and
nothing very special in the bunch.

Just like you, ****.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 7:15 AM, Tim wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multi...uns-under-500/


Interesting little reviews.



Feh. All semi-autos, not a great choice for uber-reliable handguns,
and nothing very special in the bunch.



Your narcissism is showing, deadbeat.

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 4:40:03 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 7:15 AM, Tim wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multi...uns-under-500/

Interesting little reviews.



Feh. All semi-autos, not a great choice for uber-reliable handguns, and
nothing very special in the bunch.

For less than $500. a piece I'd take any of them. Of course in my hands they'd get limited use. I dont' go to a range just to burn up boxes of ammunition and see how soon I can wear one out.

But I really don't need one. In my small bore line My Hungarian Mak.9mm does the job. And I haven't run through 300 rds. in 20 years . Gave $150 for it new, then. I still think I got a bargain.

On 4/29/15 11:27 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 4:40:03 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 7:15 AM, Tim wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multi...uns-under-500/

Interesting little reviews.



Feh. All semi-autos, not a great choice for uber-reliable handguns, and
nothing very special in the bunch.

For less than $500. a piece I'd take any of them. Of course in my hands they'd get limited use. I dont' go to a range just to burn up boxes of ammunition and see how soon I can wear one out.

But I really don't need one. In my small bore line My Hungarian Mak.9mm does the job. And I haven't run through 300 rds. in 20 years . Gave $150 for it new, then. I still think I got a bargain.



There literally are dozens of pretty much better handguns you can buy
for $500 or less than those depicted, including some top drawer or near
top drawer revolvers, which is what I would pick these days for a
conceal carry or nightstand pistol.

As for shooting a pistol, well, I don't see how you can become adept
with a particular one unless you practice with it at the range. It takes
an awful lot of ammo to "wear out" a decent firearm. Plus, you can
almost always replace a barrel.

Aren't you a Mosin fan? Those military surplus rifles pretty much have
clapped out barrels before they get into your hands, right?

On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 3:46:48 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 11:27 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 4:40:03 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 7:15 AM, Tim wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multi...uns-under-500/

Interesting little reviews.



Feh. All semi-autos, not a great choice for uber-reliable handguns, and
nothing very special in the bunch.

For less than $500. a piece I'd take any of them. Of course in my hands they'd get limited use. I dont' go to a range just to burn up boxes of ammunition and see how soon I can wear one out.

But I really don't need one. In my small bore line My Hungarian Mak.9mm does the job. And I haven't run through 300 rds. in 20 years . Gave $150 for it new, then. I still think I got a bargain.



There literally are dozens of pretty much better handguns you can buy
for $500 or less than those depicted, including some top drawer or near
top drawer revolvers, which is what I would pick these days for a
conceal carry or nightstand pistol.

As for shooting a pistol, well, I don't see how you can become adept
with a particular one unless you practice with it at the range. It takes
an awful lot of ammo to "wear out" a decent firearm. Plus, you can
almost always replace a barrel.

Harry, I don't have to consistently 'practice' to prove I can 'shoot'- and shoot the guns I have.

Aren't you a Mosin fan?

No, John is a Mosin fan. I'm a Lee-Enfield fan

Those military surplus rifles pretty much have
clapped out barrels before they get into your hands, right?

No. And even so. I have an Enfield made in 1906 by BSA which shoots extremely well up to 200 yards. incidentally the first few inches of the rifling is shot out on it.

On 4/30/2015 6:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 11:27 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 4:40:03 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 7:15 AM, Tim wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multi...uns-under-500/


Interesting little reviews.



Feh. All semi-autos, not a great choice for uber-reliable handguns, and
nothing very special in the bunch.

For less than $500. a piece I'd take any of them. Of course in my
hands they'd get limited use. I dont' go to a range just to burn up
boxes of ammunition and see how soon I can wear one out.

But I really don't need one. In my small bore line My Hungarian
Mak.9mm does the job. And I haven't run through 300 rds. in 20 years .
Gave $150 for it new, then. I still think I got a bargain.



There literally are dozens of pretty much better handguns you can buy
for $500 or less than those depicted, including some top drawer or near
top drawer revolvers, which is what I would pick these days for a
conceal carry or nightstand pistol.

As for shooting a pistol, well, I don't see how you can become adept
with a particular one unless you practice with it at the range. It takes
an awful lot of ammo to "wear out" a decent firearm. Plus, you can
almost always replace a barrel.

Aren't you a Mosin fan? Those military surplus rifles pretty much have
clapped out barrels before they get into your hands, right?


I have a different opinion on revolvers vs pistols. I actually prefer
revolvers and it is what I keep on my nightstand beside my bed at night.
It's ready to fire in an emergency, either in double or single action
but it's not being handled, carried or subject to being caught in a
holster or clothing.

But for concealed carry I prefer a pistol for a couple of reasons.
First, they can be smaller and slimmer. Second, and you can call me
overly cautious, but on the few occasions that I carry I think a pistol
is safer. There's no exposed hammer (at least on the ones I own) that
can get hung up and inadvertently cocked. I also don't
carry with a round in the chamber making it very unlikely that a round
could ever go off accidentally. I know many disagree with this practice
but it is my feeling that I can afford the extra second or two required
to rack the pistol if I ever had to use it ... which, we all know is
very unlikely.

I think not having a round in the chamber along with the gun's safety
offsets the slight but still possible potential of an inadvertent
discharge.

On 4/30/15 7:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 3:46:48 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 11:27 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 4:40:03 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 7:15 AM, Tim wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multi...uns-under-500/

Interesting little reviews.



Feh. All semi-autos, not a great choice for uber-reliable handguns, and
nothing very special in the bunch.

For less than $500. a piece I'd take any of them. Of course in my hands they'd get limited use. I dont' go to a range just to burn up boxes of ammunition and see how soon I can wear one out.

But I really don't need one. In my small bore line My Hungarian Mak.9mm does the job. And I haven't run through 300 rds. in 20 years . Gave $150 for it new, then. I still think I got a bargain.



There literally are dozens of pretty much better handguns you can buy
for $500 or less than those depicted, including some top drawer or near
top drawer revolvers, which is what I would pick these days for a
conceal carry or nightstand pistol.

As for shooting a pistol, well, I don't see how you can become adept
with a particular one unless you practice with it at the range. It takes
an awful lot of ammo to "wear out" a decent firearm. Plus, you can
almost always replace a barrel.

Harry, I don't have to consistently 'practice' to prove I can 'shoot'- and shoot the guns I have.

Aren't you a Mosin fan?

No, John is a Mosin fan. I'm a Lee-Enfield fan

Those military surplus rifles pretty much have
clapped out barrels before they get into your hands, right?

No. And even so. I have an Enfield made in 1906 by BSA which shoots extremely well up to 200 yards. incidentally the first few inches of the rifling is shot out on it.



Oh. I practice to improve my skills.

I had "Steelie," my Henry .357 lever action rifle out at a place where I
could shoot targets at 200+ yards, and I was pleased with the results
using the iron sights. Haven't tried my .22LR rifle at that distance
yet. I've now shot my AR-15 at 300 yards, using a scope.

My buddy with the Swedish Mauser got that rifle about 10 years ago, and
though it was manufactured in the 1800s, it was "as new" inside and out.
It's a really sweet shooter.

On 4/30/15 8:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/30/2015 6:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 11:27 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 4:40:03 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/29/15 7:15 AM, Tim wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multi...uns-under-500/



Interesting little reviews.



Feh. All semi-autos, not a great choice for uber-reliable handguns, and
nothing very special in the bunch.

For less than $500. a piece I'd take any of them. Of course in my
hands they'd get limited use. I dont' go to a range just to burn up
boxes of ammunition and see how soon I can wear one out.

But I really don't need one. In my small bore line My Hungarian
Mak.9mm does the job. And I haven't run through 300 rds. in 20 years .
Gave $150 for it new, then. I still think I got a bargain.



There literally are dozens of pretty much better handguns you can buy
for $500 or less than those depicted, including some top drawer or near
top drawer revolvers, which is what I would pick these days for a
conceal carry or nightstand pistol.

As for shooting a pistol, well, I don't see how you can become adept
with a particular one unless you practice with it at the range. It takes
an awful lot of ammo to "wear out" a decent firearm. Plus, you can
almost always replace a barrel.

Aren't you a Mosin fan? Those military surplus rifles pretty much have
clapped out barrels before they get into your hands, right?


I have a different opinion on revolvers vs pistols. I actually prefer
revolvers and it is what I keep on my nightstand beside my bed at night.
It's ready to fire in an emergency, either in double or single action
but it's not being handled, carried or subject to being caught in a
holster or clothing.

But for concealed carry I prefer a pistol for a couple of reasons.
First, they can be smaller and slimmer. Second, and you can call me
overly cautious, but on the few occasions that I carry I think a pistol
is safer. There's no exposed hammer (at least on the ones I own) that
can get hung up and inadvertently cocked. I also don't
carry with a round in the chamber making it very unlikely that a round
could ever go off accidentally. I know many disagree with this practice
but it is my feeling that I can afford the extra second or two required
to rack the pistol if I ever had to use it ... which, we all know is
very unlikely.

I think not having a round in the chamber along with the gun's safety
offsets the slight but still possible potential of an inadvertent
discharge.


If I were carrying regularly, I'd get a Ruger LCR DA revolver, the
"hammerless" one. Five .357 MAG rounds should be sufficient.

I've seen enough FTFs and other problems with semi-auto pistols at the
range I frequent to wonder if they really are reliable enough for
self-protection for a shooter who doesn't practice a lot. There's very
little that goes wrong with a decent revolver.