Warbird

You will always have the rah rah politickin during an election cycle, especially a presidential year. I also saw David Waldrip, it was good to see him. David, hope you had a good time.

I'll add that the tribute to Charlton Heston at the Celebration of American Values banquet Saturday night was terrific, a real tear jerker.

There was certainly plenty of stuff to be had, that's for sure. But for the give aways, folks had to get there early, most of it was gone pretty quick. Several companies including Beretta had some great deals on clothing as well, especially on Sunday. I tried to get a new vest for clay shooting, it was 60% off, but alas they had nothing in the vest I wanted for left handers. There were over 2700 booths, at least 2 days to go through it all. I still don't think I saw every booth there. The speaking events were great, very impressive speakers at the Leadership Forum on Friday, including Marcus Luttrell's story. Glenn Beck's speech on Saturday night was excellent, even better personally than I expected. Ollie North and Ted Nugent both had seminars and book signings, every time I passed both there were long lines. I know Len attended the Sportsman's luncheon, because I said hello, but I didn't get to stay so he'll have to fill you in on that events details and all of his goings-on. A friend of mine attended the firearms law seminar and said he got a great deal of insight in it. There were also tons of other events going on during the week. They were all invigorating and what better way to spend a week than hanging out with 70 thousand gun lovers; shooters, hunters, 2nd amendment fans, etc. If my wife didn't wake me up today at 6am to help her with the kids I might have slept for the next 2 days.

Eh, who cares. A gun is a gun, they are all fun to shoot. I really don't have a favorite. I typically carry semi-auto pistols. Long ago I shot IDPA style of shooting and even some bullseye. But, I love to shoot cowboy action with my Ruger Bisley Vacqueros SAA style revolvers and Lever action rifles, side by sides or Model 97. I have also hunted with pistols and have several modern revolvers as well. I love the precision of a fine rifle. I'm happy to shoot the 378 win mag or the 415 Rigby on a big game hunt. Or a .223 or 22-250 blasting away on some varmints and smaller critters. I'm also glad to head out to the field with a shotgun for pigeons, clay or real. A nice semi-auto or O/U shotgun can be a real work of art and fun to shoot. Or put a slug in it and hunt down some hogs.

Len, It was good to see you again at the NRA Annual Meeting. Hope everyone who attended had a good time. I know I did.

I have carried a .380 many times. I'm personally not partial to anything smaller than a .380, but I have carried the .380. Of the weapons I like to carry, none of them are 10 shots even. I don't plan on a hollywood situaion of shooting a 1911 20 times and reloading against 7 or 8 attackers. Maybe I am just nuts, but I don't. And I almost never carry an extra mag, so I don't worry about reloading. There were times in the past I did, but I simply don't feel that elevated of a threat. To each his own, the best laid plans are laid to waste in most real world situations, Stress kills all but most instinct and the best of training. It's not how good a shot you are, it's are you willing and are you prepared to control your adrenaline. Some of my friends carry two pistols, one on each hip. Do they need to? Dunno, it's up to them to feel secure for their own lives. I just don't get crazy about the 9v40v45 debate. Yes we all know a 45 is superior stopping power, but it has draw backs, they all do. What works for you in a certain situation, weather, clothing etc. I also have never been big on carryin a wide assortment of things. You simply cannot have memory instinct training for many many weapons. I almost always carry just one or two different kinds of guns. If I change I ass a lot of training beforehand.

My assumption of his meaning: The chances that you will fire your weapon 10 times is small in a real world situation against an attacker. If they are still moving you probably are not hitting them. If you shoot 10 times likely you are not aiming but spraying and praying. Factor in adrenalin and the real world scenario that most can never be prepared to shoot to kill, your instinct takes over or doesn't and your chances of hitting something as small as between the eyes on a killer who is lilkely moving is difficult as best for people who train daily, for a amateur carry holder it is nigh impossible. Notice I didn't say completely, but very very small chances of it happening. This ain't the friggin movies, it's not Guns and Ammo magazine.. Oop he answered before I got done, so I will leave as my impression.

This problem was corrected long ago by Glock, but still lead is not recommended. H&K also does recommend against using lead in some pistols, the P7 for instance because of the polygonal rifling, the gas cylinder and the fluted chamber instrumental in extraction all could be fouled up faster with lead. I don't use lead anyway so it really makes no difference to me.

Polygonal rifling has been used by HK for many many years. It uses peaks and valleys instead of the standard lands and grooves which are the same depth and angle throughout. Glock's polygonal is different from the one used by HK. Polygonal rifling does a better job of holding gases back behind the bullet. Therefore you generally get a better spin and more accurate weapon than it would have been with a traditional rifling. That kind of barrel also lasts longer with traditional combat ammos. It does gunk quicker with lead though than traditional. It is the best choice for certain types of actions, such as that used by a P7. On other types of actions I don't know that the advantages are worth the effort. It is more expensive to make than a traditional rifling.

True it is not uniformly applied. Judges can and often do judge on whims. A judge can dismiss charges with or without prejudice. Just because charges are dropped does not mean that more evidence or an appellate court over ruling a dismissal can't lead to a reinstate of the charges. I imagine this judge saw problems coming ahead if a ruling was reached and so he dismissed the case pending new or other evidence, the higher court didn't like it and reinstated them. But, if Dave's case went to a decision, bench or jury, then that decision if not guilty would have stood. The DA could not have appealed that. Procedural problems won't allow a not guilty verdict to be reheard, there has to be evidence of tampering or a bought off judge, the case has to be extreme. It has happened, but it is so rare as to not be worth mentioning as a typical possibility.

As others have said it tends to pass. I was content for a long time, several years, then recently started buying and trading some too. I usually regret trading anything as some of my favorite guns were talked out of my hands. But usually it was because I had a need or a huge desire for something and couldn't get it w/o selling something else. Unless you are a very very high end collector, there's always another or that gun. One of the guns I sold recently I can almost guarantee you I'll be able to buy it in six months for less than what I sold this one for. That's the way I rationalized it anyway. I regularly visit collectors with enormous collections, massive vaults worth millions. I have known some of them to sell off or give away to charity hundreds of their collections saying they don't want to buy anymore and are done with it. I'll see them a year or two later and they started adding again.

You know you would think in this day and age they would be, and you'd hope so. But I'd not bet on it. There are a lot of variables there with the grade of the 1911, are you talking basic factory pistols all or the highest grade all? Again, it would be tough to say. Out of the box pistols maybe if they are basic bottom end 1911's. They have larger tolerances, they are made knowing much of them will be stripped and fitted with better parts. Several of those guns maybe. When I started buying 1911's you either bought a basic 1911 and spent a lot of money or a little less money and a lot of time to get it reliable, fast, accurate etc for a combat piece. Ironically the pistol famous for being the Service Pistol for so long was not a good combat piece out of the box. The best pistols made were the Gold Cup, which were supremely accurate, but NOT a combat weapon. So when I use the term out of the box that is what i am referring to. Today a 1911 fan has the chance to buy an out of the box great 1911, but they pay a steep steep price for it. In my experience with 1911's and I've had quite a few of them, they are beautiful if you call a pistol that, but you really have a choice of one of the three options above to have a great and reliable combat piece. They have mechanisms which simply call for fitting. You do all the things needing to be done and you will have a hell of a piece.

Why would you make such statements? This seems ludicrous to me. I really don't understand the adulation or the hatred of Glocks. It's purely preposterous. Your statement for one cannot be supported with even the slightest bit of evidence. How many are in landfills today or were melted down compared to the number of 1911's? Do you have the numbers? For two, there are many many firearms that deserve the rubbish heap from the time they leave the factory and yet you pick one of the toughest of guns to castigate? I have a 1911 from 1917, it is still doing well and has been in my family since 1917, but I don't shoot it. It is still in decent shape. I have a Glock which I have no reason to suggest will not be around when it is that 1911's age. Grow up. The snide comments are just silly and immature. The 1911 has just as many positives and negatives as the Glock, they are just different. If you want to make a reasoned comment do so, but that comment just shows unreasoned discrimination. Jeesh, reminds me of what Twain said of keeping one's mouth shut to remove all doubt. That's my opinion for what it's worth.

I would contact John Harris at the TFA. Reason being he runs a CLE, Continuing Legal Education, course for attorneys across the state. He always has some of the nation's top legal experts on firearms law come in for that class. John would know who has attended that course, most attorneys in the state interested in this law go to that because they have to have it so many CLE's a year, and that's a fun one for a gunnie. There are a number of pro-gun attorneys in Tennessee. John Brown and Randolph Veazey, both instructors at Personal Responsibility Inc, are attorneys who have great expertise in firearms law. They are in Nashville. I sent my wife through the carry CLE last year. She is in Murfreesboro. There are other attorneys who attend the NRA's firearms law seminars across the country and at the Annual Meeting every year. The could be a resource.

I second the HK P2000. Give it a look see and feel.

I'll be there.

Unless something unforeseen happens I will be there.

Its kind of been said already I think. Glocks don't fit everyone, but then again no gun does. I don't particularly care for the Glock safety when it comes to having my children around. I do put them away and they have been taught, but there's always a chance and they can pull that trigger even at the age of 5. Glocks have better accuracy than the vast majority of people will be able to get out of them. Their accuracy though isn't the best in the industry, but a combat pistol isn't supposed to be as accurate as some styles. You sacrifice for reliability. Even still my Glocks are not as accurate as my HK's, but with the lower bore sight radius I do shoot my Glock as well as my Sig. Sigs though are inherently more accurate in equal hands IMO, IF the Sig is practiced often. And even that may be that they just fit me better and for some they could shoot the Glock better. I know of several people who can beat me every day of the week with their Glock and my Sig. Hell they could probably beat me with my own Sig for that matter. So much of this is preference and discrimination on the part of any particular shooter. To be honest I am kind of ambivalent my Glocks. They are great for certain things. If I am going hunting for a week I will carry one as a sidearm, I won't worry about it sitting in a holster for a week w/o being babied. I neither love Glocks as a be all end al nor do I understand their rancor. I find that some of the guns that have come after in their vein such as the XD are excellent, which is better is probably a matter of choice. Some of the makes are simply not near as good as Glock. In a way it is silly to boast one gun is the be all end all or to suggest that its just horrible and a matter of marketing and that hey are the evil big kid bullying everybody else. IMO the more you shoot, the more different things you own, the less likely you are to suggest one thing is the be all end all for everyone. I find that usually comes from immaturity and/or lack of experience. People read too many magazines and buy into hype one way or the other.

I have 2 Glocks, my dad has 3 and a Sigma. We both agree that a comparison of th Sigma and Glock is no comparison at all. The Glock just feels better, it's mechanism is better, smoother etc on and on. The Glock set the standard for their type of pistol and there are now many many imitators. Some are bad imitations and some are good. I would suggest the Sigma came out at a time for S&W when they were at their lowest point in quality. That's my opinion anyway. I don't believe there is a perfect pistol just ones that some people find favorable over another. Glocks are not perfect but they are a great blend of many of the things someone looks for in a combat piece. You can dismantle just about any Glock throw a bunch of them in a bucket and put one together out of pieces picked up out of that bucket. Try that with a bucket of 1911's. As for comparing prices on guns and their same basic design. There's a world of difference in the internals and the fittings and the materials used in different firearms. Their basic designs being the same has little to do with it. Glocks are still quite inexpensive, it's one of their selling points. If you don't like Glocks I don't quite know what to say, I like mine very much, though I wish I had a 26 instead of the 27, and find that they have many great features, and some I don't care for. But there's no doubt they are excellent firearms whether they meet you specific needs or they do not. I disagree completely about the marketing. I remember well the absolute hell Glock took. They went from town to town trying to get LE to give them a chance. They performed all sorts of stunts to get them to switch fro their S&W and Ruger autos. At the time Glock beat the hell out of those hands down. Eventually their toughness won over LE and for the most part LE officers loved the Glocks after finally being forced at times to start shooting them. Glock earned their name and rep the hard way, with guts and grime. They had to completely change a mindset, that's no easy task for old LE agencies of city governments big and small. No today, sure they have a solid name, but in no way did they just happen in to a large market share with great marketing gimmicks and branding. Their marketing was done the hard way. I think the first Glock I bought was probably because I simply admired their chutzpah.

No thanks!

Exactly, pure garbage. Not only garbage, but dangerous even for the shooter.

Having owned or owning Glocks, Sigs, 1911's of various years and makes, Rugers, HK's, Walthers, Lugers, Brownings and the P7 itself I can say that IMO the P7 was just about the best auto-pistol ever made. I think the Rabbi is right, we don't live in a gun era where a company can afford to mass make Ferrari's, especially the auto-loading world. There's too much competition for competent, less expensive and yes cheaper pistols. That said, I'm not sure they would be right for everyone. They have to make sure they can squeeze the cocker, my wife because of a herniated disk in her neck doesn't have the strength to do so. Also, I don't want everyone to want one, that only drives up the cost for me buying second one. So, NO DON'T BUY A P7, they are JUNK.

I commend your desire to get involved and learn. It absolutely can't hurt that's for sure.

NO! He is being political and he knew in that district he better do something to try and appease a constituency. After he won the dem nomination for that seat the Fords went on a tear. They ran a family member against him in the general as an independent. Not even the constituents in that district were fooled by the complete lack of any skills by that gentleman to be in office. They got the black ministers to run a smear campaign against him for being a white Jew and said he wouldn't represent their predom black district as well as a black man. No no friend at all. Ford and Cohen served in the state senate together for over 20 years. Ford was the most hated man in the legislature. This move was all political. And probably a good move on his part.