molonlabetn

Don't forget that in Cali, you'll have trouble buying magazines which hold more than 10rd... so, one of the benefits which the Glock (and other double-stack polymer pistols) have is effectively minimized. Find a pistol which fits your hands, first of all... Full-size .45acp 1911s hold 8 in the magazine... and .40s&w Browning Hi-Powers hold 10 in the magazine. Both of those pistols have exceptional ergonomics and accuracy. Welcome to TGO!

If I make it, it'll be in the afternoon... I've got to wash & detail my better half's RAV4. I'll call by 3 whether or not I'll be there.

I was considering going to On-Target (in case it rained)... If it's nice I might come try it out.

I'd say a better way to do it would be graduated ranges at which the target is placed, based on skill level... I believe that this is meant to wring out the pistols, however, not the shooters... so perhaps the accuracy comparison should be done from a rest?

Dang... I guess it is about time then!

Yes... Makarovs and CZs are excellent weapons, generally for half the price of comperable American ones. CPO Sigs are worth looking at, as well (P225, P228...)

Depends on what you prefer... but in 9mm, here are a few to look into: Beretta/Stoeger Cougar 8000 Glock 26/19 H&K USP Compact or P2000 S&W M&P Compact Sig P239 Springfield EMP-9, XD-9SC, or 1911A1 Ultra-Compact 9mm Walther P99 Compact In .45ACP: Compact, Officers, or Commander 1911 (Kimber, Colt, Springfield, etc...) Glock 30 or 36 Springfield XD-45 Compact Sig P220 Carry or Compact... or P245 H&K USP Compact .45 Best way to decide what is best for you, is to look at and try out a bunch. Welcome to TGO!

I'd be inclined to take a piece of that too. I've been meaning to order another case of .357sig for the P239... Time to organize a statewide TGO meet... We probably ought to keep it friendly though, and everybody only pay for their own ammo. Dinner is a good wager... don't worry, I like Taco-Bell

Welcome! The only place I've been that'a'way was in Murfreesboro... On-Target. I keep going back. Chances are you'll see one of us there. Picture a guy who looks like a cross between Freddie Prinze Jr. and Leonardo DeCaprio (and I doubt either of 'em would object to that)... that's me, only hetero.

The Glock is essentially what a combination of the Chevy Corvair and Ford Pinto would be, as a car... Is that about the jist of it, Mars? "Unsafe at any... BOOM!"

Nothing at all ( as long as you have double ear-protection or a suppressor! )

Dave... Allow me to again congratulate and welcome you for moving to not-Illinois. Some states are worse that others, indeed... IL is one of the worst. None of this discussion is meant to down-play the valuable experience you have from there. I think we all understand that 'should be', 'was' and 'really is' get mixed up at times, in debate.

What you say is correct. Our rights have been usurped, for the 'greater good'... 'for the children'... However, we have not lost any of our rights, since they could be regained with the correct application of fortitude and strength... but because of past and present apathy, these rights are oppressed by those who would posture themselves to be our guardians, replacing all individual responsibility and independent thought.

Any time tolerances are opened in order to promote reliability, any given system is vulnerable to structural failures. Though, assuming that proper cartridge specs are maintained, the Glock design successfully achieves it's purpose of feeding reliably. Regardless of the ergonomics and manual of operation which can be argued between different pistols and the Glock, I would personally much rather have precisely matched tolerances, and am willing to pay for the extra effort to refine it's operation to be just as reliable, which is entirely possible. Glock does not have the market cornered on reliable operation, they have merely sacrificed safety-factor for reliability cheaply by using the shortcut of opening the tolerances of the chamber and disconnecter-to-battery relationship. Such engineering practices are sub-standard, I don't care how you cut it. addendum: A similar comparison is to the Kalashnikov rifle, which operates on loose tolerances for the same reason as the Glock. The difference is that the designer addressed the reduced safety-factor by designing the rifle to be heavy, over-built in fact, with thick metal in the areas which may experience excessive loads... this contrasts greatly with the Glock, which was built as lightly as possible. Safety-factor is important with machines which can cause fatality if they misoperate.

Welcome to TGO!

At least there are some who would do battle for what they believe in, instead of roll over and say "oh well, there my priviledges go..." I'm sure glad none of the great men/women throughout world history have never been like what you suggest.

Why do you think our rights have deteriorated to this point Dave? I agree that this society and government has trampled on them, but I think it is apathetic to say they no longer exist, simply because they are not recognized. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment is undeniable, in light of the other documentation from its authors. And I agree with you that the 2nd Amendment is not the source of my right to be armed... but because of the current state of things, it is the only thing standing in the government's way of trampling the other enumerated and basic citizen's rights we cherish. A comparative perspective... Communist countries do not recognize the right of individuals to (as we would say) 'free speech'. Does that mean their right does not exist? No! It is merely oppressed. Our right to arm ourselves certainly exists... but only by claiming it can the oppression towards it be resisted.

My point is, from their context, that IS what they said. "regulation" did not have the same meaning it does today. As Tower pointed out, the founding fathers made it crystal clear in their subsequent writings to whom and why the 2nd Amendment applies. You have to realize that standing armies, which the antis would have you believe is meant by 'militia', were undesirable... the nation's defense by the people was the intention: "The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. -- James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, principal writer of The Federalist Papers, Fourth President of the United States, Mainstream Revolutionary and Militant. "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States in a speech to Congress, January 7, 1790 "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789 The 'militia' IS the people, armed. This last quotation clearly makes the distinction between the regular, government organized army, and the armed citizens who make up the militia. The meaning of many words have been twisted over the years, for the sole purpose of twisting the truth, to make the weak-minded doubt the full purport of their liberty. Don't fall into that trap.

The civil war was fought with many privately owned field artillery... the first gatling guns were privately owned and fielded... There was no confusion then that 'arms' meant ALL arms. Also... in terms of the meaning of the phrase 'well regulated' as it was meant in any context during that period, literally meant 'properly equipped'. Doesn't that make more sense? Looking at the 2nd Amendment as the founders' intention to ensure that the people were properly equipped with arms in order to defend their freedom...

I'd forgotten about this... I need to get on the ball and get some card stock for the printer.

Because the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to infringe the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not say that we may only keep and bear certain types of arms, such laws are unconstitutional... as such, the BATFE is the enforcer of tyrannical, unconstitutional laws, much like the British red-coats were.

Tools, they all are... the debate over which qualities are most desirable in their tools, is eternal. If rappers started carrying 1911s, I'd probably listen to more rap I had a .45GAP Springfield XD for a year and a half... it was a great shooter, very accurate (handled much better than the G37 I tried out before buying the XD). The main issue was finding ammo locally, I could order ammo all day long off of the 'net, but rarely did. Thinking back, I should have went straight to .357sig... As to the G21 - G37 comparison, the smaller grip is a major improvement. I just think that the lower capacity and lack of common ammo really killed the GAP from the get-go. I was enthusiastic about the performance of the round, but when it all comes down, it's not any improvement over ACP, in a properly designed gun (ie XD-45acp, and to a lesser extent, the G21SF).

Greetings!

Worthwhile to note... an AR with an A1 buttstock has a shorter length-of-pull than the A2 buttstock, and is more comfortable than a telestock. Might be worth a try...