Any 1911 fans on the board?

[PARAGON]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Toadies:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PARAGON:
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLATHER BLATHER BLATHER </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the basis of your arguements throughout this thread is the military adopted the M9 due to a perceived lacking in range and accuracy on with the 1911. you are wrong and very stupid to keep blathering your bull**** opining about what does not constitute a valid tactical situation. again, you = wannabe CQB man..

You are the only one who is dazzled with your pretend military experience and tactical expertise. Most LEs and operators would laugh at your dumbass as most likely half this board is not counting your sackriders.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok

[Mr. I - Man]

Hey toad sh*t it is very obvious that you don't know dick about the armed forces. USMC S/S does not stand for anything secret agent or service related. It stands for Marine Scout Sniper. One Shot One Kill. OOH RAH

[Bondage]

Paragon - I don't think I ever caught your caliber and load (and I'm too lazy to go back and read over Toadstools BS to find it). Do you carry a .40 Short and Wimpy? Sorry - couldn't resist. I actually really like the round. What rounds do you stoke it with for everyday use? Are you familiar with the +P Golden Sabre rounds? I don't know about .40, but they are about tops in the .45. I have half a box of the original Black Talon's laying around here somewhere in .40 - if we ever meet up on the trail, I'll give 'em to you as a reminder of how pathetically PC the USA has become.


Sean

ps - hey Toadstool....

[Bondage]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PARAGON:
A tactical engagement doesn't follow any rules written by a damn magazine or a book. The ridiculous back and forth about calibers and the DA and polymer handguns is doling out the ignorance and nothing else.

A 1911 .45 is fine as a backup weapon to tactical officer who is carrying an entry weapon but as an everyday personal protection choice.... it's just a bad choice. 25 feet is easy to encounter for the civilian in any situation. You can't tell the person shooting at you to stop and wait until he is only 25 feet away. You corner someone in your home and they are threatening and it is easy to be 30 feet or more down a hall. To pigeon hole things will get you killed. And yes, having as many rounds available is a plus, because you never know what situation will arise.

If you want to be stupid with your own life, fine. Otherwise, move on and quit giving advice here on crap you know nothing about on something as important as this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I was with you through most of the first paragraph, but...ummmm...before critisizing, read more carefully. No one was discussing 25 FEET - it was 25 YARDS (that's 75 feet for those of you who are "yardstick challenged").
You are quite obviously an incredible wheeler! Slapping newbies around with regard to wheeling an H2 is your forte. You keep us all very entertained and informed! But coming late to this thread and misreading what was being discussed while dissing the venerable and proven 1911 .45 shows...well...um...maybe not ignorance, but perhaps you are just tired from your recent awesome trip. Maybe you could explain why the 1911 .45 as an everyday personal protection weapon is a bad choice? I'd be interested in your reasoning much more than your vitriol.

Sean

[Bondage]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr. I - Man:
Actually Paragon and I are former Jarheads. I was in for about 8.5 years with extensive M.O.U.T. and C.Q.B. Training also a Water Survival Instructor and 300 PFT consistantly. So I know just a little. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's great service. I'm sure you understand how little Marine training and warfare experience and weaponry translate to civilian situations though. And SURELY you know the high regard held for the 1911 by the Marines who have actually been in the **** with it. I have exceptional regard for the Glock, the Sig, even the Beretta. But one must equally be worried about a man carrying a .45 1911 if he knows how to use it. I agree with most of what Paragon said - the petty arguments over caliber and capacity are silly. It is time better spent getting familiar with the weapon you choose - regardless of what that is!

Somehow I doubt that you, faced with a man carrying a 1911 are going to laugh at him and tell him that's a "bad choice" to shoot you with! The arguments get silly after a while, huh?

Sean

[Mr. I - Man]

To each his own, I have never have a problem with this fine piece of German engineering. Had hot loads pop off in the chamber, bad reload ( split casing) & still cycled through all 15 rounds.

[Bondage]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr. I - Man:
Quote : " Follow Me"????

Were you a Ranger??

Just wondering because when I was a group of us Marines and Navy got to participate in a Ranger school package It was to help with better unit coheasion during J.T.F. missions.

Anyways the instructors were always saying that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



And meaning it. Rangers go first, you girls follow.

Sean

[Klaus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Toadies:
I suppose you glockies are gonna start the hi-cap arguement next... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I like the .357 Magnum. If you need more than 5 or 6 shots, you need more than a handgun anyway.

[Toadies]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bondage:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Toadies:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PARAGON:

If you want to be stupid with your own life, fine. Otherwise, move on and quit giving advice here on crap you know nothing about on something as important as this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


RAAARRR!!!!1 I am a goddamn navy bellhop and I know all...

RAAARRRRR!!!!1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You're an idiot. Kinda funny, but an idiot.
Sssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
You're making a fool of yourself.

Sean </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am deaf and I will thank you NOT to make fun of the handicap.

[Toadies]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Beastmaster:
No. He's not the type to be scared off. He gathers information and waits patiently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He gathers no information.. leastwise not "correct" information.

I know I was shock to find out we adopted the M9 pistol because of it's long range capablities and not so we could interchange ammo stocks with NATO allies... Or due to the fact that Beretta was "fed" the bid amount so they could win. And it was low bid not best bid... And most tactical engagements take place well beyond the established 21 feet.

Wow it was like history had changed itself...

Just shocking.

[PARAGON]

<Table>
<H2><FONT size=5>One-Shot Drops
Surviving the Myth</FONT>
By ANTHONY J.
PINIZZOTTO, Ph.D., HARRY A. KERN, M.Ed., and EDWARD F. DAVIS, M.S.</H2>


<FONT
face="TimesNewRomanPSMT,Times New Roman,Times,serif">O</FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">n a summer evening in the
northeastern part of the United States, a patrol officer received a radio
dispatch at approximately 7 p.m. to respond to an address for a disorderly
subject. The officer arrived at the location and parked his patrol vehicle on
the opposite side of the street, several houses away. Before exiting the
vehicle, the officer paused to observe the scene. He saw a male move from behind
a large tree in front of the address of the alleged disorderly subject. The
officer started to exit his vehicle, but then stopped </FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">when he saw the male, with a
gun in each hand, begin to run toward him. The man fired both weapons at the
officer, who returned two rounds from his service weapon, striking the male in
the center of his chest. However, the man continued to fire. One round struck
the officer in the head, killing him instantly. The male survived the two
gunshot wounds and later was convicted of killing the officer. </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">This scenario is a collage of
several cases dealing with the use of deadly force, by and against law
enforcement, that </FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">the authors have examined over
the last decade. Studying these cases and interacting with officers attending
the FBI National Academy,</FONT><SUP><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">1</FONT></SUP><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif"> who have experienced similar
incidents in their own agencies, have led them to question if officers have died
because of any of the following factors: </FONT></P>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">The type of weapon
issued to the officer.</FONT>

<LI><FONT face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">The type of
ammunition the department issued for service rounds.</FONT>

<LI><FONT face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">The lack or quality
of self-defensive training provided to the officer.</FONT>
<LI>Overconfidence because the officer was wearing a bullet-resistant vest and,
thereby, took unnecessary chances.
<LI>The officer’s own preparation for a violent encounter, such as wearing a
bullet-resistant vest or remaining in excellent physical condition.
<LI>The officer’s choice to notify dispatch of the location during a traffic
stop or other encounter with suspects.
<LI>ny other circumstances presently unknown to the officer’s department.
<P align=left>In the opening scenario, did the officer “hesitate” after firing
the two rounds that struck the offender? Was he instructed to “double tap” and
pause, as many departments once trained?</P>
<P align=left>The authors have learned from their research on law enforcement
safety that there exists a significant hesitancy on the part of many officers to
use deadly force. However, they have not determined the reason for either the
hesitation or why officers stop shooting before they neutralize the threat. One
question they can answer is that handguns used for protection by law enforcement
are capable of immediately eliminating a deadly threat quickly.
However, the fact largely remains that bullet placement, rather than caliber,
causes immediate stop-page of body functions in most instances. 2</P>
<P align=center>With all of this in mind, then, if officers are adequately
armed, what causes them to fall victim to criminals wielding less powerful
weapons? An examination of the myth of the “one-shot drop,” data relative to the
type of weapons offenders have used to attack officers, and effective survival
and firearms training may help law enforcement agencies begin to reverse this
tragic trend.

</P></LI>[/list]
<P align=left>
In many of the classic, albeit simplistic, cowboy movies from
the early days of the American film industry, the stereotypical “good guys” wore
white hats, whereas the “bad guys” donned black ones. After meeting in the
middle of a dirt street in some small town, two shots would ring out. The bad
guy’s bullet always missed, but the one from the hero in the white hat
inevitably found its mark and freed the town of the criminal threat. With one
shot from the good guy’s gun, the bad guy immediately dropped to the ground and
became completely incapacitated.</P>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">In today’s films and television
programs, Hollywood has varied not only the clothing of the actors but also
their standards and demeanor, both the good guys and the bad guys. It now has
become difficult to distinguish the protagonist from the antagonist.
Unfortunately, however, this increased realism has not always carried over to
the portrayal of gun battles. Many current shooting scenes continue to display
unrealistic reactions and underlying expectations regarding ballistic effects.
For example, one shot from a handgun often lifts the wounded person 2 feet off
the ground and causes immediate incapacitation. </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Even knowing that these are
movies and television programs, some in the law enforcement community still
expect one-shot drops in real-life shootings. In fact, few actual instances end
this way. </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Realistic and regular law
enforcement training must counterbalance and mentally and emotionally override
the fallacy of the one-shot drop still promoted by some media. Short of
disrupting the brain or severing the upper spinal column, immediate
incapacitation does not occur.</FONT><SUP><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">3</FONT></SUP><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif"> Therefore, the threat remains
to the officer. Yet, implicit in the media presentations of law enforcement
encounters is the belief that with the </FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">“proper handgun” and the
“proper ammunition,” officers will inflict immediate incapacitation if they
shoot offenders anywhere in the torso. Varied and multiple real-life law
enforcement experiences contradict this false and dangerous belief. </FONT></P>
<H3 align=left><FONT
face=TimesNewRoman,Bold,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif>Actual Shootings
</FONT></H3>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">In the authors’ ongoing study
of violence against law enforcement officers, they have examined several cases
where officers used large-caliber hand guns with limited effect displayed by the
offenders. In one case, the subject attacked the officer with a knife. The
officer shot the individual four times in the chest; then, his weapon
malfunctioned. The offender continued to walk toward the officer. After the
officer cleared his weapon, he fired again and struck the subject in the chest.
</FONT><FONT face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Only then did the
offender drop the knife. This individual was hit five times with 230-grain,
.45-caliber hollow-point ammunition and never fell to the ground. The offender
later stated, “The wounds felt like bee stings.” </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">In another
case, officers fired six .40-caliber, hollow-point rounds at a subject who
pointed a gun at them. Each of the six rounds hit the individual with no visible
effect. The seventh round severed his spinal cord, and the offender fell to the
ground, dropping his weapon. This entire firefight was captured by several
officers’ in-car video cameras. </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">In a final case, the subject
shot the victim officer in the chest with a handgun and fled. The officer,
wearing a bullet-resistant vest, returned gunfire. The officer’s partner
observed the incident and also fired at the offender. Subsequent investigation
determined that the individual was hit 13 times and, yet, ran several blocks to
a gang member’s house. He later said, “I was so scared by all those shots; it
sounded like the Fourth of July.” Again, according to the subject, his wounds
“only started to hurt when I woke up in the hospital.” The officers had used
9-millimeter, department-issued ammunition. The surviving officers re ported
that they felt vulnerable. </FONT></P>


<FONT face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">They wondered if they
had done some thing wrong that caused their injury or placed them in the
proximity of physical danger. They also wondered if they would react differently
if faced with a similar situation. </FONT></P>
<H3><FONT face=TimesNewRoman,Bold,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif>Practical
Expectations </FONT></H3>


<FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Social science discloses that
if people expect to see something, they well may see it. For ex ample, in basic
psychology courses, instructors generally include the perceptual set theory,
which shows students a picture. Although exactly the same picture, it appears to
some as an old woman, whereas others see a young </FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">woman. People often see what
they expect to see. This explains why so many sightings of the Loch Ness
“monster” turn out to be floating logs. </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Officers’ expectations of how
they will respond when shot significantly affect their reactions to these
situations. Development of advanced, practical expectations may be</FONT> <FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">influenced best by clarifying
misconceptions and imparting new knowledge during purpose-driven training
concerning the topic. Absent a clear, purposeful understanding of the session’s
training objectives, little influential and practical learning can occur.
Further, lack of purposeful training may prove detrimental to an officer’s
practical </FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">expectations, psychological
preparation, and capabilities when employing complex tasks in response to the
significant stressors of a life-threatening, critical incident. </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Humans are largely
differentiated from animals through their miraculous ability to develop skills
and abilities to perform multiple, complex tasks simultaneously through
repetitive practice. By necessity of minimizing risk to themselves and others,
officers effectively learn many firearm-use procedures and tactics through a
progressive building-block process. Herein, initial exposure is given to
learning gross and fine motor skills. Some conscious behaviors develop into
subconscious ones. Officers progressively hone skills to a reasonable level of
mastery, then apply them under shorter time constraints during which they must
incorporate and </FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">maintain mental processes of
assessing their surroundings and changing conditions. Trainers need to remain
cognizant of the role that repetition plays in the mental processes reinforced
during training scenarios and courses of fire. From learners’ perspectives,
ideal firearms and tactics training objectives should embrace an achievable
notion that they will learn “something new” about their personal performances,
skill levels, and capabilities with their equipment each time they receive
training. </FONT></P>
<H3><FONT face=TimesNewRoman,Bold,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif>THE
DATA</FONT> </H3>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">To better grasp the scope and
gravity of the myth of the one-shot drop, the authors provide an over view of
felonious, line-of-duty law enforcement officer deaths. From 1993 to 2002, 636
officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty.</FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif" size=1>4 </FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Offenders used handguns,
ranging from .22 to .50 caliber, to kill 443 of the officers.</FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif" size=1>5 </FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Forty-five of these victims
were slain with their own </FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">weapons. </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Fifty-six of the 443 officers
(12.6 percent) were killed by small-caliber weapons that fire lightweight
bullets at low velocity and included .22, .25, and .32 calibers. Undoubtedly, no
officer would consider any of these firearms as a primary weapon of choice, and
no records indicated that agencies issued any of these to their uniformed patrol
officers. </FONT></P>
<P align=left><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Concerning the 45 officers
killed with their own weapons, 3 were slain with small-caliber rounds from
backup/off-duty weapons they carried, either .22 or .25 caliber. Twenty-five
</FONT><FONT face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">officers (56
percent) were killed with their 9-millimeter or .40 caliber service weapons,
common to law enforcement during the time period examined. The remaining 17
officers were slain with other weapons, including .38 caliber, .357 magnum, 10
millimeter, .44 magnum, and .45 caliber. </FONT></P>


<FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">In two previous studies on
violence against law enforcement officers conducted by the authors, offenders
stated their reason for selecting a particular firearm as availability, 41 per
cent in the first study and 68 percent in the second.</FONT><SUP><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">6</FONT></SUP><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif"> These offenders did not care
about bullet weight or velocity. The majority of the offenders in both studies
had been involved in prior shootings before assaulting or killing the officers.
Their major concern was being “fast on the trigger” and delivering the bullet to
its intended target. One stated, “There’s no time to sight up the gun. If you
hesitate, you’re dead.” </FONT></P>


<FONT face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">Because of the time
needed for adjudicating these offenses, the most recent disposition data
available for offenders involved in line-of-duty law enforcement officer
felonious deaths are for the 10 years 1991 to 2000.</FONT><SUP><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">7</FONT></SUP><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif"> Of the 665 persons charged
with killing a law enforcement officer for this time period, only 9 remained
fugitives. The majority (464) of these individuals </FONT><FONT
face="TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman,Times,serif">were arrested and convicted of
murder. The victim officers justifiably killed only 23 of their attackers. Other
officers responding to the scene killed an additional 78 offenders. Sixty-two of
the perpetrators committed suicide after killing the officer. In their ongoing
research, the authors are examining if any of these incidents could have started
as an officer-assisted suicide or, more commonly, suicide by cop. </FONT></P>
<H4 align=center><FONT face=Helvetica,Bold,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif>Law
Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed in the Line of Duty with Firearms
1993-2002 </FONT></H4>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="45%" align=center
summary="This table lists Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed in the Line of Duty with Firearms from 1993 through 2002 "
border=0>
</Table>

[Toadies]

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-kb-faq.html

[Beastmaster]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Harley:
Steve, I agree entirely... I shoot IPSC with a G35 so I don't switch between guns too often (other than a ccw)... ( I personally carry a G22 at work). I've dumped thousands and thousands of rounds through that gun and it did fail once, we think it was d/t a jacked up reloaded round... and the weapon did just what it was supposed to... it dumped the mag (yes it spanked my hand) and expelled the gasses downward. I replaced the extractor that got knocked off, got a new mag and was ready for the next stage... same gun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that's why I've slowed my 1911 carry down a bit...actually quite a bit! Using the same pistol over and over builds that muscle memory and refreshes it. I have to enhance my G30 and G21's handling. Here's why.

My wife carries the G23 for CCW. To standardize (in case of anything adverse that happens), I've been carrying the G30 or G21 a lot more. I really should get another G23 and carry that instead.

Which brings back the side discussion about standardization. Standardization in NATO meant using the same ammo. Police departments should do the same thing - standardize along the same firearm family so that you can interchange parts and ammo. In the off chance of an extended firefight, officers can exchange magazines with little to no issues, or at least use the same ammo by migration to magazines of the type that their weapon can use. That's why Phoenix PD uses (for their patrol officers) G22's and G23's.

But again, training repetitively is the key. I know that when I carry the G30 or G21, my wife doesn't have to change her way of thinking to adapt to use it if she has to. It operates identically to her G23. She can grab ANY one of the Glocks and use it, and she knows how the trigger works, the angle of the grip to her hand, sight alignment, etc.

Again, gross motor skills and the training to make you use it in adverse situations will help you survive. And I need to reinforce it myself by carrying the G30 or G21 more often than I do.

[Bondage]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ssgharkness020147:
I appreciate all the advise guys. I found a gun shop close by that is a Wilson dealer, I plan to go down there this week and demo a gun or two. So far (despite the STEEP price tag) I really like the Wilson Tactical Elite. All and all that would fit me and what I would like to go in to. I checked out that IDPA league Steve, I appeciate the tip, it looks like a blast and is exactly what I would really like to get in to. Thankfully there is also a gun club 5 minutes away that has IDPA too.

How many of you guys carry a gun in your truck? Here in WI the way the laws sit I can have a gun in the truck if its in a case and unloaded (a loaded clip can be right next to the gun though). With all my trips down to Milwaukee and the bad experiences down there I have come to the conclusion that it would be in my best intrests to have protection of some kind for my trips down there. I dont feel that pepper spray would be effective in most situations, the same goes for a stun gun. A tazer could help sometimes, but not always. Though I wonder with the way the laws sit here if my having some protection would even be worth it, and I do not and will not do anything that it not legally allowed. What do you guys think, is it worth having a gun in the truck if it has to be in a case and cannot be loaded while stored? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Enjoy your new weapon. I think you've made an outstanding choice, now practice, practice, practice! You were too kind to call our rambling nonesense "advice." But take what Beastmaster said to heart - he is, IMHO, dead on. Go back and re-read his last post. I agree 110%.

As for carrying the weapon in your car, I understand and sympathize with you're wanting to follow the law. You're a good law abiding citizen. And that is why I urge you to break the law if you feel it is necessary for your personal safety and well being. Living in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, I do it just about on a daily basis and have never had a problem. The weapon is well secreted, and I know how to say "Yessir and Nosir" if I am pulled over for a traffic violation.

Good luck! Enjoy it!

Sean

[Toadies]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr. I - Man:
Heavy, outdated. Works well as a paper weight or if you run out of rounds you can throw it at your enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I would much rather have to worry about a potential Kaboom in a tupperware gun than exceptional service from an outdated Sig or Kimber or Wilson..

[Toadies]

HK, Kahr, Glock is all tupperware plastic crap..

Here let me show you a real gun.. not wannbe starwars crap..

[Toadies]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DRTYFN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Toadies:
Look at the big brain on Brad.. does mommie let you use the big boy chair at home??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is definitely NOT the real Toadies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am neapoleon

[Petey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Humgirl&guy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Petey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Humgirl&guy:
Here in canada we cannot carry handguns, Just shotguns and beer! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bull****..

Julian does it all the time on TPBs... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On TPBs.....what is that!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trailer Park Boys

[Toadies]

real guns are made of metal and metal alloys NOT plastic and come in calibres of .40 or better.

The best round bar none is a .45 230 grain hollowpoint in +P

[Toadies]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr. I - Man:
quote: Glockies are best with factory ammo.. Even Gaston says so...


Hey hillbilly Texan don't you know how to read. I don't have a F*&king Glock I have a H&k USP 40SW. I guess the literacy rate is not to good down there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's your pile of crap blowing up..

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/hk-kb.html