| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
#39
A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife.
Suck it, Donnie! |
#39
Alex
"A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. Suck it, Donnie!" If she's married to you she not only deserves that gun but probably needs it. |
#39
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:46:19 -0400, Alex wrote:
A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. === Why not a Sig Sauer P238? Darn nice gun. |
#39
On 9/29/2015 9:28 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:46:19 -0400, Alex wrote: A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. === Why not a Sig Sauer P238? Darn nice gun. I agree. I had a S&W Bodyguard .380 for a "carry" pistol. Didn't like it at all. Trigger pull was ridiculously long and with my state's requirement of a 10lb pull I'd end up pointing the thing at the ground by the time it fired. Also had jamming issues (stovepiping) although it may have simply been that I didn't have it long enough to properly break it in. I traded it back in for a Sig Sauer P238. Much nicer feel overall and no jams. |
#39
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:46:20 PM UTC-4, Alex wrote:
A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. Suck it, Donnie! Wish I'd a known! My wife loves her P938. http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...8-equinox.aspx Her sister has a Bodyguard. I sent them both to a firing course, each with their guns. They both ended up liking the P938. Now sister-in-law is wanting to sell hers. |
#39
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:17:12 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
Alex "A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. Suck it, Donnie!" If she's married to you she not only deserves that gun but probably needs it. Have you resolved your inner turmoil over RVs yet, donne'? It must be hell loving the idea of getting one but having to put them down for harry's sake. Let me know when you want more info on them. We can keep it hidden from YKW. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
#39
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:15:45 -0700 (PDT), "John H."
wrote: On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:46:20 PM UTC-4, Alex wrote: A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. Suck it, Donnie! Wish I'd a known! My wife loves her P938. http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...8-equinox.aspx Her sister has a Bodyguard. I sent them both to a firing course, each with their guns. They both ended up liking the P938. Now sister-in-law is wanting to sell hers. I don't pack but when I did it was my old 1934 Barretta. It was a little clunky but it fit my hand, I could hit things I could see and it went bang every time. The only time I packed in Fla, it was my KP90, but it was legal ;-) |
#39
On 9/30/2015 6:58 PM, Alex wrote:
True North wrote: Alex "A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. Suck it, Donnie!" If she's married to you she not only deserves that gun but probably needs it. Funny stuff! You spend all day wondering about other people's lives rather than living your own. He's waiting for wifey's permission. |
#39
On 9/30/15 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:15:45 -0700 (PDT), "John H." wrote: On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:46:20 PM UTC-4, Alex wrote: A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. Suck it, Donnie! Wish I'd a known! My wife loves her P938. http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...8-equinox.aspx Her sister has a Bodyguard. I sent them both to a firing course, each with their guns. They both ended up liking the P938. Now sister-in-law is wanting to sell hers. I don't pack but when I did it was my old 1934 Barretta. It was a little clunky but it fit my hand, I could hit things I could see and it went bang every time. The only time I packed in Fla, it was my KP90, but it was legal ;-) I haven't "packed" since I determined Ingerfool was not on his way down here with his lamebrained full patch buddies, but if I were still packing, it would be a small DA revolver, like the Ruger LCR in .357 MAG. I think the small revolvers are more reliable than the more complicated semi-autos. There's nothing you have to do with the revolver but aim it and pull the trigger. |
#39
True North wrote:
Alex "A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. Suck it, Donnie!" If she's married to you she not only deserves that gun but probably needs it. Funny stuff! You spend all day wondering about other people's lives rather than living your own. |
#39
Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:46:19 -0400, Alex wrote: A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. === Why not a Sig Sauer P238? Darn nice gun. The S&W is smaller. |
#39
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2015 9:28 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:46:19 -0400, Alex wrote: A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. === Why not a Sig Sauer P238? Darn nice gun. I agree. I had a S&W Bodyguard .380 for a "carry" pistol. Didn't like it at all. Trigger pull was ridiculously long and with my state's requirement of a 10lb pull I'd end up pointing the thing at the ground by the time it fired. Also had jamming issues (stovepiping) although it may have simply been that I didn't have it long enough to properly break it in. I traded it back in for a Sig Sauer P238. Much nicer feel overall and no jams. ..380's are notorious for needing a break in period. She will get plenty of range time. The deciding factor was the size. She has small hands. |
#39
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:06:45 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 9/30/15 6:36 PM, wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:15:45 -0700 (PDT), "John H." wrote: On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:46:20 PM UTC-4, Alex wrote: A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. Suck it, Donnie! Wish I'd a known! My wife loves her P938. http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...8-equinox.aspx Her sister has a Bodyguard. I sent them both to a firing course, each with their guns. They both ended up liking the P938. Now sister-in-law is wanting to sell hers. I don't pack but when I did it was my old 1934 Barretta. It was a little clunky but it fit my hand, I could hit things I could see and it went bang every time. The only time I packed in Fla, it was my KP90, but it was legal ;-) I haven't "packed" since I determined Ingerfool was not on his way down here with his lamebrained full patch buddies, but if I were still packing, it would be a small DA revolver, like the Ruger LCR in .357 MAG. I think the small revolvers are more reliable than the more complicated semi-autos. There's nothing you have to do with the revolver but aim it and pull the trigger. Revolvers, particularly 6 shooters are pretty thick. It is tougher to conceal. |
#39
On 9/30/2015 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:06:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/30/15 6:36 PM, wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:15:45 -0700 (PDT), "John H." wrote: On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:46:20 PM UTC-4, Alex wrote: A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. Suck it, Donnie! Wish I'd a known! My wife loves her P938. http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...8-equinox.aspx Her sister has a Bodyguard. I sent them both to a firing course, each with their guns. They both ended up liking the P938. Now sister-in-law is wanting to sell hers. I don't pack but when I did it was my old 1934 Barretta. It was a little clunky but it fit my hand, I could hit things I could see and it went bang every time. The only time I packed in Fla, it was my KP90, but it was legal ;-) I haven't "packed" since I determined Ingerfool was not on his way down here with his lamebrained full patch buddies, but if I were still packing, it would be a small DA revolver, like the Ruger LCR in .357 MAG. I think the small revolvers are more reliable than the more complicated semi-autos. There's nothing you have to do with the revolver but aim it and pull the trigger. Revolvers, particularly 6 shooters are pretty thick. It is tougher to conceal. In my mind there's an additional thing about revolvers as a "carry" gun that I don't like. It's too easy for them to accidentally fire, IMO, especially those with an exposed hammer. The hammer can become caught on clothing or inadvertently cocked when retrieving from a holster. At that point it is ready to fire. I like the simplicity of a revolver and I think it's great as a home defense firearm but not so much for carry. For carry purposes a pistol can be made much safer with no round in the chamber until it is racked. That's how I carry mine in the rare instances that I have it on me. The extra half second required to rack a round into the chamber is worth the added safety in my mind. |
#39
On 9/30/2015 8:03 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/29/2015 9:28 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:46:19 -0400, Alex wrote: A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. === Why not a Sig Sauer P238? Darn nice gun. I agree. I had a S&W Bodyguard .380 for a "carry" pistol. Didn't like it at all. Trigger pull was ridiculously long and with my state's requirement of a 10lb pull I'd end up pointing the thing at the ground by the time it fired. Also had jamming issues (stovepiping) although it may have simply been that I didn't have it long enough to properly break it in. I traded it back in for a Sig Sauer P238. Much nicer feel overall and no jams. .380's are notorious for needing a break in period. She will get plenty of range time. The deciding factor was the size. She has small hands. It will probably be fine for her then. The problem I had with it was a tendency to pull the barrel down simply by pulling the trigger back to fire. It has a long pull for a small gun. I suppose you could have it customized. |
#39
On 10/1/15 1:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/30/2015 11:58 PM, wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:06:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/30/15 6:36 PM, wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:15:45 -0700 (PDT), "John H." wrote: On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:46:20 PM UTC-4, Alex wrote: A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. Suck it, Donnie! Wish I'd a known! My wife loves her P938. http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...8-equinox.aspx Her sister has a Bodyguard. I sent them both to a firing course, each with their guns. They both ended up liking the P938. Now sister-in-law is wanting to sell hers. I don't pack but when I did it was my old 1934 Barretta. It was a little clunky but it fit my hand, I could hit things I could see and it went bang every time. The only time I packed in Fla, it was my KP90, but it was legal ;-) I haven't "packed" since I determined Ingerfool was not on his way down here with his lamebrained full patch buddies, but if I were still packing, it would be a small DA revolver, like the Ruger LCR in .357 MAG. I think the small revolvers are more reliable than the more complicated semi-autos. There's nothing you have to do with the revolver but aim it and pull the trigger. Revolvers, particularly 6 shooters are pretty thick. It is tougher to conceal. In my mind there's an additional thing about revolvers as a "carry" gun that I don't like. It's too easy for them to accidentally fire, IMO, especially those with an exposed hammer. The hammer can become caught on clothing or inadvertently cocked when retrieving from a holster. At that point it is ready to fire. I like the simplicity of a revolver and I think it's great as a home defense firearm but not so much for carry. For carry purposes a pistol can be made much safer with no round in the chamber until it is racked. That's how I carry mine in the rare instances that I have it on me. The extra half second required to rack a round into the chamber is worth the added safety in my mind. The Ruger LCR has no exposed hammer, and even on a carry revolver with an external hammer, it's likely to be DA and you still have to pull the trigger. It's only 1.3" wide. Semi-auto pistols are more complicated, and there are more possibilities of jams, FTFs, et cetera. Pull the trigger on a revolver and it goes BANG! To each his own. |
#39
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 01:13:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: The extra half second required to rack a round into the chamber is worth the added safety in my mind. === I agree. No gun has ever fired accidently without a round in the chamber. Lots of them have otherwise. S&W makes a hammerless titanium revolver designed specifically for concealed carry. Not a bad gun but only 5 rounds, and like all DA revolvers, has a long trigger pull. I've known a few retired cops who carried concealed revolvers in an ankle holster. |
#39
On 10/1/2015 12:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/30/2015 8:03 PM, Alex wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/29/2015 9:28 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:46:19 -0400, Alex wrote: A Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 for the wife. === Why not a Sig Sauer P238? Darn nice gun. I agree. I had a S&W Bodyguard .380 for a "carry" pistol. Didn't like it at all. Trigger pull was ridiculously long and with my state's requirement of a 10lb pull I'd end up pointing the thing at the ground by the time it fired. Also had jamming issues (stovepiping) although it may have simply been that I didn't have it long enough to properly break it in. I traded it back in for a Sig Sauer P238. Much nicer feel overall and no jams. .380's are notorious for needing a break in period. She will get plenty of range time. The deciding factor was the size. She has small hands. It will probably be fine for her then. The problem I had with it was a tendency to pull the barrel down simply by pulling the trigger back to fire. It has a long pull for a small gun. I suppose you could have it customized. harry knows a gunsmith who could give it a 1lb double action trigger. What a joy that would be to stuff in your pocket. ;-) |
#39
On 10/1/2015 6:47 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
To each his own. There's some words of wisdom you should live by. |
#39
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 07:47:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
The Ruger LCR has no exposed hammer, and even on a carry revolver with an external hammer, it's likely to be DA and you still have to pull the trigger. It's only 1.3" wide. Semi-auto pistols are more complicated, and there are more possibilities of jams, FTFs, et cetera. Pull the trigger on a revolver and it goes BANG! To each his own. My 1934 is more like 1.06" wide and it has never failed to go bang in thousands of rounds fired over the 50 years I have had it As I said earlier, it fits my hand well and I can point it very instinctively without really aiming. That is important in low light or when things are happening very fast. |
#39
|
#39
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:29:10 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/1/15 11:15 AM, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 07:47:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: The Ruger LCR has no exposed hammer, and even on a carry revolver with an external hammer, it's likely to be DA and you still have to pull the trigger. It's only 1.3" wide. Semi-auto pistols are more complicated, and there are more possibilities of jams, FTFs, et cetera. Pull the trigger on a revolver and it goes BANG! To each his own. My 1934 is more like 1.06" wide and it has never failed to go bang in thousands of rounds fired over the 50 years I have had it As I said earlier, it fits my hand well and I can point it very instinctively without really aiming. That is important in low light or when things are happening very fast. Ahh, but can you hit a two liter at 15 yards with that .380? :) I seldom train at 15 yards with a pistol but at 7 yards I will hit 5 in 5 seconds just about every time. When I was shooting a lot I would bet you I could hit 5 beer cans in 5 seconds and then double or nothing in 4 seconds. I was shooting almost every day tho since I had the range in the house. |
#39
On 10/1/15 4:00 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:29:10 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/1/15 11:15 AM, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 07:47:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: The Ruger LCR has no exposed hammer, and even on a carry revolver with an external hammer, it's likely to be DA and you still have to pull the trigger. It's only 1.3" wide. Semi-auto pistols are more complicated, and there are more possibilities of jams, FTFs, et cetera. Pull the trigger on a revolver and it goes BANG! To each his own. My 1934 is more like 1.06" wide and it has never failed to go bang in thousands of rounds fired over the 50 years I have had it As I said earlier, it fits my hand well and I can point it very instinctively without really aiming. That is important in low light or when things are happening very fast. Ahh, but can you hit a two liter at 15 yards with that .380? :) I seldom train at 15 yards with a pistol but at 7 yards I will hit 5 in 5 seconds just about every time. When I was shooting a lot I would bet you I could hit 5 beer cans in 5 seconds and then double or nothing in 4 seconds. I was shooting almost every day tho since I had the range in the house. Your gift should arrive soon. It'll let you shoot two liters at any distance you can without making a mess or attracting ants. I mostly practice at 25 yards with handguns. My long distance vision is good, my close in vision sucks without glasses, and holding out a pistol so I can focus on the sights and also the target for some reason seeks to work for me at that distance. With my one lens eyeglasses (reading lens on the right eye), I do pretty well with "iron sights" at most distances. |
#39
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:05:20 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/1/15 4:00 PM, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:29:10 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/1/15 11:15 AM, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 07:47:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: The Ruger LCR has no exposed hammer, and even on a carry revolver with an external hammer, it's likely to be DA and you still have to pull the trigger. It's only 1.3" wide. Semi-auto pistols are more complicated, and there are more possibilities of jams, FTFs, et cetera. Pull the trigger on a revolver and it goes BANG! To each his own. My 1934 is more like 1.06" wide and it has never failed to go bang in thousands of rounds fired over the 50 years I have had it As I said earlier, it fits my hand well and I can point it very instinctively without really aiming. That is important in low light or when things are happening very fast. Ahh, but can you hit a two liter at 15 yards with that .380? :) I seldom train at 15 yards with a pistol but at 7 yards I will hit 5 in 5 seconds just about every time. When I was shooting a lot I would bet you I could hit 5 beer cans in 5 seconds and then double or nothing in 4 seconds. I was shooting almost every day tho since I had the range in the house. Your gift should arrive soon. It'll let you shoot two liters at any distance you can without making a mess or attracting ants. I mostly practice at 25 yards with handguns. My long distance vision is good, my close in vision sucks without glasses, and holding out a pistol so I can focus on the sights and also the target for some reason seeks to work for me at that distance. With my one lens eyeglasses (reading lens on the right eye), I do pretty well with "iron sights" at most distances. Hey, krotch said it, it must be true! -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
#39
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:05:20 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/1/15 4:00 PM, wrote: I seldom train at 15 yards with a pistol but at 7 yards I will hit 5 in 5 seconds just about every time. When I was shooting a lot I would bet you I could hit 5 beer cans in 5 seconds and then double or nothing in 4 seconds. I was shooting almost every day tho since I had the range in the house. Your gift should arrive soon. It'll let you shoot two liters at any distance you can without making a mess or attracting ants. I mostly practice at 25 yards with handguns. My long distance vision is good, my close in vision sucks without glasses, and holding out a pistol so I can focus on the sights and also the target for some reason seeks to work for me at that distance. With my one lens eyeglasses (reading lens on the right eye), I do pretty well with "iron sights" at most distances. I suppose it started shooting in the house where 7 yards was easy. More than 40 feet required being in the garage and shooting through 2 doorways ;-) If "defense" is an issue, you won't be more than 21 feet away anyway. |
#39
On 10/1/2015 3:05 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/1/15 4:00 PM, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:29:10 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/1/15 11:15 AM, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 07:47:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: The Ruger LCR has no exposed hammer, and even on a carry revolver with an external hammer, it's likely to be DA and you still have to pull the trigger. It's only 1.3" wide. Semi-auto pistols are more complicated, and there are more possibilities of jams, FTFs, et cetera. Pull the trigger on a revolver and it goes BANG! To each his own. My 1934 is more like 1.06" wide and it has never failed to go bang in thousands of rounds fired over the 50 years I have had it As I said earlier, it fits my hand well and I can point it very instinctively without really aiming. That is important in low light or when things are happening very fast. Ahh, but can you hit a two liter at 15 yards with that .380? :) I seldom train at 15 yards with a pistol but at 7 yards I will hit 5 in 5 seconds just about every time. When I was shooting a lot I would bet you I could hit 5 beer cans in 5 seconds and then double or nothing in 4 seconds. I was shooting almost every day tho since I had the range in the house. Your gift should arrive soon. It'll let you shoot two liters at any distance you can without making a mess or attracting ants. I mostly practice at 25 yards with handguns. My long distance vision is good, my close in vision sucks without glasses, and holding out a pistol so I can focus on the sights and also the target for some reason seeks to work for me at that distance. With my one lens eyeglasses (reading lens on the right eye), I do pretty well with "iron sights" at most distances. You're doing it all wrong. |
#39
On 10/1/2015 3:15 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:05:20 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/1/15 4:00 PM, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:29:10 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/1/15 11:15 AM, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 07:47:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: The Ruger LCR has no exposed hammer, and even on a carry revolver with an external hammer, it's likely to be DA and you still have to pull the trigger. It's only 1.3" wide. Semi-auto pistols are more complicated, and there are more possibilities of jams, FTFs, et cetera. Pull the trigger on a revolver and it goes BANG! To each his own. My 1934 is more like 1.06" wide and it has never failed to go bang in thousands of rounds fired over the 50 years I have had it As I said earlier, it fits my hand well and I can point it very instinctively without really aiming. That is important in low light or when things are happening very fast. Ahh, but can you hit a two liter at 15 yards with that .380? :) I seldom train at 15 yards with a pistol but at 7 yards I will hit 5 in 5 seconds just about every time. When I was shooting a lot I would bet you I could hit 5 beer cans in 5 seconds and then double or nothing in 4 seconds. I was shooting almost every day tho since I had the range in the house. Your gift should arrive soon. It'll let you shoot two liters at any distance you can without making a mess or attracting ants. I mostly practice at 25 yards with handguns. My long distance vision is good, my close in vision sucks without glasses, and holding out a pistol so I can focus on the sights and also the target for some reason seeks to work for me at that distance. With my one lens eyeglasses (reading lens on the right eye), I do pretty well with "iron sights" at most distances. Hey, krotch said it, it must be true! -- Ban idiots, not guns! Why in the world would he be doing self defense drills at 75 feet? It doesn't make sense. |
#39
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:55:50 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote: Why in the world would he be doing self defense drills at 75 feet? It doesn't make sense. That is just target shooting at that point. I know hunters who train at those kind of distances and even out to 50 or 75 yards. It will be a large bore pistol tho. The military typically shoots at 25 yards (I assume meters these days) |
#39
|
#39
On 10/2/2015 5:42 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/2/15 1:37 AM, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:55:50 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: Why in the world would he be doing self defense drills at 75 feet? It doesn't make sense. That is just target shooting at that point. I know hunters who train at those kind of distances and even out to 50 or 75 yards. It will be a large bore pistol tho. The military typically shoots at 25 yards (I assume meters these days) Gosh, that's right...it's target shooting. I didn't say or imply "self defense drills" had anything to do with it. Gosh, I wonder why one would use a 357 revolver for target practice. Must be pretty tough paper he's shooting at. |
#39
|
#39
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:37:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:55:50 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: Why in the world would he be doing self defense drills at 75 feet? It doesn't make sense. That is just target shooting at that point. I know hunters who train at those kind of distances and even out to 50 or 75 yards. It will be a large bore pistol tho. The military typically shoots at 25 yards (I assume meters these days) All of my .45 shooting (familiarization, not qualification) was done at about 7 yards. I can't imagine trying to hit a target at 25 yards with those old military .45's. Well, maybe if the target was a tank. -- Ban idiots, not guns! True, but I have a custom built one that has a match grade barrel and an adjustable trigger. It's very accurate. It just wouldn't last long out in the field, as a few grains of sand would probably lock it up. It's built very tight, unlike the military versions that are built loose for a reason. |
#39
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:17:06 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:37:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:55:50 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: Why in the world would he be doing self defense drills at 75 feet? It doesn't make sense. That is just target shooting at that point. I know hunters who train at those kind of distances and even out to 50 or 75 yards. It will be a large bore pistol tho. The military typically shoots at 25 yards (I assume meters these days) All of my .45 shooting (familiarization, not qualification) was done at about 7 yards. I can't imagine trying to hit a target at 25 yards with those old military .45's. Well, maybe if the target was a tank. I guess you never qualified with the .45. ;-) My old chief could keep all 7 in the palm of your hand at 25 yards. He also scoffed at the idea that a hardball .45 was not accurate. It was the shooter, not the gun. He had me shooting it fairly well after a while. I still never embraced slow fire with a handgun although we did shoot at an oil drum in the dump where we used to shoot and see how far away we could hit it. (up to 100 yards or so) That was really more plinking than target shooting tho. I think of a handgun being an extension of my skeet shooting, more than rifle shooting. It came in handy when I hit a running rat in the house with my frontier scout. Rolled him with one shot. |
#39
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:35:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote: On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:37:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:55:50 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: Why in the world would he be doing self defense drills at 75 feet? It doesn't make sense. That is just target shooting at that point. I know hunters who train at those kind of distances and even out to 50 or 75 yards. It will be a large bore pistol tho. The military typically shoots at 25 yards (I assume meters these days) All of my .45 shooting (familiarization, not qualification) was done at about 7 yards. I can't imagine trying to hit a target at 25 yards with those old military .45's. Well, maybe if the target was a tank. -- Ban idiots, not guns! True, but I have a custom built one that has a match grade barrel and an adjustable trigger. It's very accurate. It just wouldn't last long out in the field, as a few grains of sand would probably lock it up. It's built very tight, unlike the military versions that are built loose for a reason. I have the Kimber which is much better than the old Army .45's, but is probably not up to par to yours. I've not tried the Kimber at 25 yards. Will have to give it a shot. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
#39
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:14:13 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:17:06 -0400, John H. wrote: On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:37:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:55:50 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: Why in the world would he be doing self defense drills at 75 feet? It doesn't make sense. That is just target shooting at that point. I know hunters who train at those kind of distances and even out to 50 or 75 yards. It will be a large bore pistol tho. The military typically shoots at 25 yards (I assume meters these days) All of my .45 shooting (familiarization, not qualification) was done at about 7 yards. I can't imagine trying to hit a target at 25 yards with those old military .45's. Well, maybe if the target was a tank. I guess you never qualified with the .45. ;-) Correct. That's why I said 'familiarization' above. My old chief could keep all 7 in the palm of your hand at 25 yards. He also scoffed at the idea that a hardball .45 was not accurate. It was the shooter, not the gun. He had me shooting it fairly well after a while. I still never embraced slow fire with a handgun although we did shoot at an oil drum in the dump where we used to shoot and see how far away we could hit it. (up to 100 yards or so) That was really more plinking than target shooting tho. I think of a handgun being an extension of my skeet shooting, more than rifle shooting. It came in handy when I hit a running rat in the house with my frontier scout. Rolled him with one shot. I'll try the Kimber at 25 yards next time I go to the range. I promise not to pencil punch holes in a target and then post a picture of it. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
#39
On 10/2/15 11:14 AM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:35:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote: On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:37:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:55:50 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: Why in the world would he be doing self defense drills at 75 feet? It doesn't make sense. That is just target shooting at that point. I know hunters who train at those kind of distances and even out to 50 or 75 yards. It will be a large bore pistol tho. The military typically shoots at 25 yards (I assume meters these days) All of my .45 shooting (familiarization, not qualification) was done at about 7 yards. I can't imagine trying to hit a target at 25 yards with those old military .45's. Well, maybe if the target was a tank. -- Ban idiots, not guns! True, but I have a custom built one that has a match grade barrel and an adjustable trigger. It's very accurate. It just wouldn't last long out in the field, as a few grains of sand would probably lock it up. It's built very tight, unlike the military versions that are built loose for a reason. I have the Kimber which is much better than the old Army .45's, but is probably not up to par to yours. I've not tried the Kimber at 25 yards. Will have to give it a shot. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Lots of problems with Kimber .45s...as this one example specifies... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm7NdLNlRa0 |
#39
On 10/2/15 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:17:06 -0400, John H. wrote: On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:37:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:55:50 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: Why in the world would he be doing self defense drills at 75 feet? It doesn't make sense. That is just target shooting at that point. I know hunters who train at those kind of distances and even out to 50 or 75 yards. It will be a large bore pistol tho. The military typically shoots at 25 yards (I assume meters these days) All of my .45 shooting (familiarization, not qualification) was done at about 7 yards. I can't imagine trying to hit a target at 25 yards with those old military .45's. Well, maybe if the target was a tank. I guess you never qualified with the .45. ;-) My old chief could keep all 7 in the palm of your hand at 25 yards. He also scoffed at the idea that a hardball .45 was not accurate. It was the shooter, not the gun. He had me shooting it fairly well after a while. I still never embraced slow fire with a handgun although we did shoot at an oil drum in the dump where we used to shoot and see how far away we could hit it. (up to 100 yards or so) That was really more plinking than target shooting tho. I think of a handgun being an extension of my skeet shooting, more than rifle shooting. It came in handy when I hit a running rat in the house with my frontier scout. Rolled him with one shot. Hehehe. When I got my first modern handgun, a Glock 9mm, as a matter of fact, my instructor trained me at "defensive distances," which tapped out at seven yards. Too easy and to me boring. If you can't shoot a really really tight group at seven yards, you have no business even owning a handgun. I like shooting handguns at 25 yards. I've found that with regular practice, I can shoot .357 MAG hardball into a really tight group - all six rounds - at that distance using the standard "iron sights" on my S&W 686. I'm taking lessons now from a really "hotshot" cowboy action shooter, not for cowboy action shooting, but to perfect - as much as I can - accurate one-handed revolver shooting from various stances. It's an interesting challenge. Easiest handgun shooting? My Ruger Mark III .22LR with the red dot sight. I sent the pistol out to Volquartsen for installation of all its kits and wowser...it's just terrifically accurate. |
#39
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:23:20 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/2/15 11:14 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:35:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 9:16:57 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote: On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:37:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:55:50 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: Why in the world would he be doing self defense drills at 75 feet? It doesn't make sense. That is just target shooting at that point. I know hunters who train at those kind of distances and even out to 50 or 75 yards. It will be a large bore pistol tho. The military typically shoots at 25 yards (I assume meters these days) All of my .45 shooting (familiarization, not qualification) was done at about 7 yards. I can't imagine trying to hit a target at 25 yards with those old military .45's. Well, maybe if the target was a tank. -- Ban idiots, not guns! True, but I have a custom built one that has a match grade barrel and an adjustable trigger. It's very accurate. It just wouldn't last long out in the field, as a few grains of sand would probably lock it up. It's built very tight, unlike the military versions that are built loose for a reason. I have the Kimber which is much better than the old Army .45's, but is probably not up to par to yours. I've not tried the Kimber at 25 yards. Will have to give it a shot. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Lots of problems with Kimber .45s...as this one example specifies... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm7NdLNlRa0 I 'spect I could find a 'problem' with about any gun you can think of, just as there would be videos praising Kimbers. I don't use the Kimber magazines though. I like the Wilson Combat much better. Now, about that Vietnam service of yours? What unit was that? (You could just say the name of the unit was classified. That'd probably work.) -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
#39
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:43:13 -0400, John H.
wrote: Now, about that Vietnam service of yours? What unit was that? (You could just say the name of the unit was classified. That'd probably work.) === In that case we should be able to find it on Hillary's EMAIL server. :-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com