|
Post by QuarterBore on Jan 20, 2005 22:12:13 GMT -5
Yeah and that built in lock dingus nailed the coffin shut for me on S&Ws. It offends my delicate sensibilities and sense of style.
Oh and when they started using MIM parts really bugged me.
I specialize in revolvers from the early numbered guns (late 1940’s) to about 1992 when they discontinued the square butt guns.
|
|
|
Post by Buckshot on Jan 20, 2005 22:42:33 GMT -5
Bulldawg,
I don't see true diversity, even with the attempt to convince us that you practice it.
I don't see a single action revolver there anywhere!
Diversify yourself!
Buckshot
|
|
|
Post by Buckshot on Jan 20, 2005 22:46:04 GMT -5
QuarterBore,
Didn't know that S&W had an internal locking system now.
That is about like me swearing off of Ruger semi-autos now that they installed internal locks and a stinking magazine safety.
You might want to reevaluate your dates on the Numbered S&Ws, they didn't come in until the 50s.
MIM parts are not the best, but have to be better than sintered metal parts Charter Arms used to use.
Buckshot
|
|
|
Post by Bulldawg on Jan 21, 2005 8:45:33 GMT -5
I don't see a single action revolver there anywhere! Trust me, had I been the creator of that graphic, there would have been at least one SA in there.
|
|
|
Post by skydaver on Jan 21, 2005 16:00:33 GMT -5
Buckshot, thanks for the info on what the Marine officers probably carried ... sadly, I'm almost 25 years too late to ask him directly. He passed away before I had a chance to grow up enough.
I've got a couple of 1911 style, so I'll just have to get a military 1911, an M-1 carbine, and an M-1 Garand to cover all the bases ;D
|
|
|
Post by compulsive269 on Feb 2, 2005 2:31:57 GMT -5
Buckshot, what is wrong with you? Tupperware, really? Just a warning then, don't ever pick up a Glock or heaven forbid ever shoot one. Cause if you do, you'll feel real silly about the tupperware thing.
Glock is the standard for SA. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Buckshot on Feb 3, 2005 1:26:31 GMT -5
Compuslive,
What are you talking about with SA that Glock is a standard for? What does SA mean? You are not talking semi-auto, are you?
If semi-auto is what you are talking about, Glock has another 60+ years to see if they last before they even get close to being a standard. The Colt Government Model IS a Standard, it has been around for 94 years. Glock ahs been around what, 25 years so far? Along about the year 2070 or so the Glock will THINK ABOUT becoming a standard!
There is NOTHING wrong with me. I have shot Glocks before. I just don't like them. I WANT a real safety on a semi-automatic fireamr I might be carrying. Glock doesn't have one, it automatically disconnects as soon as you put your finger on the trigger.
Saw and heard about way too many accidents when police and sheriffs departments started transitioning from revolvers and double/single semi-autos to Glocks. Way to many negligent discharges in locker rooms and roll call rooms. WAY TOO EASY TO SCREW UP WITH A GLOCK!
Buckshot
TEXTTEXT
|
|
|
Post by compulsive269 on Feb 3, 2005 5:04:53 GMT -5
Darn, with all the abbreviations out there you'd think semi-auto would have one! How about s-a? Anyway Buckshot, no I don't think anything is really wrong with you. I know people that still drive old, clunky, cars and motorcycles. However, age is no longer a factor in setting anything except how long something has been around. Some folks like the old stuff, but some of us prefer modern technology. Lets face the facts, modern technology beats the old stuff any day! Yup, I've heard some civilian folks and some LEO's still want the old revolvers but most have SAs, oops, semi-autos, and most of those are GLOCKs! There is nothing wrong with carrying around an old, clunky, chunk of steel in a "semi-auto" if thats what you want. However if you ever decide you want better, why then, move up to the best, the standard setting GLOCKs. Ya can't beat their reliability and accuracy! ;D Oh, and their light weight, which means you won't be walking crooked with a bad back from carrying that old, clunky, chunk of steel "semi-auto" when you retire!
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Feb 3, 2005 11:28:38 GMT -5
Now we are getting somewhere!!!!!! a debate on firearms ;D
|
|
|
Post by Buckshot on Feb 4, 2005 2:29:40 GMT -5
Compulsive,
SA normally means Single Action, just like DA normally means Double Action and DAO normally means Double Action Only. That is why you had me so confused!
If I had the money to burn and wanted a chunk of combat Tupperwear, I would buy a H&K USP.
It has a real safety. You can set it up to work the way you want. It is accurate.
You don't have to throw away the factory barrel to shoot nice cheap lead reloads for practice.
As it is, though, there is nothing I can't do with my Ruger KP90 or my M1911A1, both in .45 ACP, or for that matter my S&W M65 in .357 Mag.
Don't have to deal with an overpressure, underaccurate cartridge like the .40 Short & Weak to do it either.
Buckshot
|
|
|
Post by compulsive269 on Feb 6, 2005 5:47:18 GMT -5
I hear you, Buckshot! I never could figure out why Glock doesn't include a more versatile barrel. The Glock, out of the box, is second to no others and the firearm does have applications, situations, that fit. I wonder if the stock barrel helps with reliability? Anyway, when I look at other pistols, nothing gets my blood going like a Glock. Everything about them, the feel, look and especially reliability makes using the Glock seem almost like an extension of myself. I know it will always work and preform as well as I can, limitations and skills considered. I'm also hesitant to change stock parts, but I shoot new and reload ammo, only jacketed stuff though. So, I'm not sure changing the barrel will make any difference. I can't really believe changing the barrel will improve accuracy. Point and shoot, or sight alignment, whichever used, the round hits where ever I point the Glock. How accuracy can be improved is beyond me.
|
|