10P8TRIOT

SGAmmo has Fiocchi FMJ at 23.5¢/round (including shipping). Not a great price, but decent. https://www.sgammo.com/product/fiocchi/1000-round-case-380-auto-95-grain-fmj-ammo-fiocchi-380ap

Always smart to buy on a regular basis as the prices are dropping. Prices are currently at or below pre-Obama levels. My February purchases include a 5000 round case of Aguila 22LR at 3.8¢/round delivered (from OutdoorLimited) and a 1200 round case of IMI 5.56 M193 at 24¢/round delivered (from Midway). I don't know where ammo prices are going ... and I really don't care. I've got enough stash to outlast the next gun-grabber induced ammo hysteria.

CBC makes great 5.56 ... I've shot close to a case with my 16" BMC Mid-Length without any issues. I've got 2 more cases of it in my stash.

I absolutely love my SW22 Victory. I have put close to 1800 rounds through it without a single failure; the vast majority being subsonic (Wolf Match Target, SK Standard Plus, SK Pistol Match, Eley Club, Norma TAC-22, CCI Standard Velocity, Armscor Standard Velocity, Aguila SE Standard Velocity). This is a real tack driver with subsonic ammo, especially with my recent addition of a Burris FastFire III. Complete disassembly takes about 30 seconds with the removal of a single cap screw. But, I have seen reports of FTE issues similar to tmauto769's over at the S&W and RFC forums. I suspect being a new product, these issues are due to manufacturing variability and/or inadequate QC. I really think this is going to be a winner for S&W.

  I bought an SW22 Victory about 6 weeks ago and absolutely love it. There are reports of FTF and FTE problems over on the S&W and RFC forums with subsonic ammo, but after over 500 rounds, I have yet to have a single issue with mine. Most of the ammo I shoot is subsonic, it's what I normally shoot with my Ruger/Kidd 10/22. I've shot Wolf Match Target (1050 fps), SK Standard Plus (1050 fps), CCI Standard Velocity (1070 fps), Eley Club (1085 fps) and Norma TAC-22 (1100 fps). Today I shot about 100 rounds of Federal AutoMatch (1200 fps) without a hiccup. I was looking to buy a either a Ruger 22/45 or a Browning Buckmark. But after I handled the SW22 at my LGS and saw this 22plinkster video, my mind was made up.

My HCP renewal was $87.50 with an expiration date of 04/13/2023. This is a little over 7 years after my previous HCP expiration date (02/23/2016) and exactly 5 years after my DL expiration date (04/13/2018).

I keep my Winchester 1300 Defender loaded with Federal Premium LE132 reduced recoil 00 buck.

Anyone know where I can get a set of sights installed on a SIG P239 in or around the Tri-Cities? I have a set of Meprolight Tru-Dot tritium sights to replace the dead Trijicons currently on the gun. I asked when I was in Gunslinger's the other day, but they don't have a SIG sight tool.

Definitely SIG P225 (9mm) ... because it was designed to fit my hand.  Also SIG P220 Carry ... sweetest shooting .45 out there, and very accurate.

+1 on the Winchester Defender 1300. Very fast, smooth and reliable. I've had 2 friends that have traded their 870s for 1300s after shooting mine. Got mine like new on Gunbroker for $250 a couple years ago. Looks like prices are up some now, but there are currently 7 listed on Gunbroker.

Michael Bane's letter to Colorado State Senator Steve King ...   Subject: OUTDOOR CHANNEL Pulls Productions from Colorado To: Steve King Dear Senator King; I met you yesterday after the so-called "public hearings" on the antigun bills; as I mentioned, I am an Executive Producer for OUTDOOR CHANNEL. I currently have four series in production, including GUN STORIES, the top show on OC, with several additional series in development. My series focus on guns, hunting, shooting and the outdoors.This morning I met with my three Producers, and we made the decision that if these antigun bills become law, we will be moving all of our production OUT of Colorado. We have already cancelled a scheduled filming session for late this month. Obviously, part of this is due to our own commitment to the right to keep and bear arms, but it also reflects 3 lawyers' opinions that these laws are so poorly drafted and so designed to trap otherwise legal citizens into a crime (one of our attorneys referred to them as "flypaper laws") that it is simply too dangerous for us to film here. I can give you chapter and verse on the legal implications if you need, but suffice to say that the first legal opinion was so scary we went out and got two others. Al three attorneys agreed. We are relatively small potatoes in television, but our relocation of production will cost Colorado a little less than a million dollars in 2013. Secondly, we have proudly promoted Colorado in our productions (and have been moving more and more production into the state); now we will do exactly the opposite. What does this mean for Colorado? The community of television producers is a small one. Last week I had lunch with a major network producer who was looking to locate his new reality series in Colorado. That producer is also a shooter, and the new reality series will now be based out of Phoenix. That lunch cost Colorado over a million in economic impact. Thirdly, according to numbers I received from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (for whom I used to work) yesterday, hunting had an almost $800,000,000 impact on Colorado in 2012, driving as many as 8330 jobs. Next month I will be in Texas meeting with most of the top outdoor/hunting producers, and the Number One agenda item will be Colorado. Already, hunting organizations and statewide hunting clubs around the country are pulling out of Colorado, and we expect this trend to accelerate rapidly. The message we will take to our viewers and listeners is that these proposed laws are so dangerous to hunters and any other person, be she a fisherman or a skier who brings a handgun into the state for self-defense, that we cannot recommend hunting, fishing or visiting Colorado. We reach millions of people, and, quite frankly, we have a credibility that Colorado government officials can no longer match. Colorado Division of Wildlife is already running ads trying to bring more out-of-state hunters to Colorado...in light of the flood of negative publicity about these proposed laws, I can assure you those ads will fail. We estimate that as many as one-quarter to one-third of out-of-state hunters will desert Colorado in the next 18-24 months, which will quite frankly be a disaster for the hunting industry in Colorado and have a devastating effect on our western and northern communities (certainly citieslike Grand Junction). This is not a "boycott" in the traditional sense of a centralized, organized operation; rather, it is more of a grassroots decision on where shooters, hunters and other sportsmen are willing to spend their money. Look at the collapse of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in February. That venerable multimillion dollar trade show chose to ban modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, and within three weeks it collapsed as all vendors and sponsors pulled out. Colorado is going to pay a huge price for laws that will do nothing. Thank you, sir, for your support. Best, Michael Bane OUTDOOR CHANNEL mbane@outdoorchannel.com

Ah okay, thanks for the response. How has the light held up to the recoil? While doing some research, a lot of people don't recommend hand held lights to be put on shotguns because of the recoil beating the lights up. Do you take it off when you shoot the gun at the range? I have heard the same recommendation and there is probably some truth to it. The Surefire G2X was not designed for weapons mounting. If I'm heading to the range to shoot a handful of 00, I leave the light mounted. But, if I'm going to put some serious numbers down range, I'll take the light off. My son and some of his buddies have a big shoot-out a couple times a year. One of the "events" is trap shooting. The only requirement is to bring a box of clays, a shotgun with a barrel between 18"-20" and some brrd shot. Big fun! In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that my flashlight is no longer on my shotgun ... my AR-15 "borrowed" it. I am going to buy another G2X for my shotgun. I think it's one of the best values in tactical flashlights. Output: 200 lumens Length: 5.2" Barrel Dia: 1.00" Bezel Dia: 1.25" Weight: 4.4 oz Price: $61 at B&H (2xCR123A batteries included)

With my hand on the pump, I can easily reach the switch with my thumb extended toward the target. But I have long thumbs. As you can see, I have the light mounted near the business end of the barrel, but the switch is about 2" from the pump (3rd picture). You can always mount the light a little further back, but you might introduce some barrel shadow. With the Surefire, you lock the light on with a twist of the last inch of the light housing. Depending on the situation, I have the option of leaving the light on or pressing the switch to turn it on and releasing to turn it off.

I realize I'm a little late to the party, but just found this thread. I have a Surefire G2X mounted to my Winchester 1300 Defender with a CDM Gear MOD-C clamp. I'm very happy with the clamp and love the clean, uncluttered looks. Here's a few pics ...

From TCA 39-17-1359 (b.) (1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a.) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (b.)(3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted. (2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited. (3) (A.) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following: AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. (B.) As used in this section, "language substantially similar to" means the sign contains language plainly stating that: (i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law; (ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted; and (iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense. (C.) A building, property or a portion of a building or property, shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited: (i) The international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle; or (ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision (b.)(3). Example:

I own 4 Sigs including a P226 and P220 Carry SAS. They are both extremely reliable and accurate. I have only had 1 FTE on the P226 and that was with the 1st box of ammo ... I suspect that was due to weak ammo (Remington UMC) and strong springs. Or maybe I limp wristed that one. The P220 has been flawless. On the P226, I replaced the short reach trigger with a standard trigger and replaced the plastic guide rod with a Gray Guns stainless steel rod. On the P220, I replaced the polymer grips with rosewood. The polymer grips were too slick for my tastes.

Yeah, "Nothing" currently has 46% of the vote, more than twice the 2nd choice. So the headline tomorrow will be ... "The Majority (54%) Support Some Form of Gun Control".

http://www.sfgate.com/news/

Lawrence Hunter, Contributor December 28, 2012   It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it.  Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.   Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy.  And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.   A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies.  The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals’ enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest.   The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law.  The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.   That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself.  It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people.  Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.   Americans provisionally delegated a limited amount of power over themselves to government, retaining their individual sovereignty in every respect and reserving to themselves the power not delegated to government, most importantly the right and power to abolish or replace any government that becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created.  The Bill of Rights, especially the Second and Ninth Amendments, can only be properly understood and rightly interpreted in this context.   Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for “collective security”) are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant—a seducer’s lie. The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don’t, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended. To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist or insist it doesn’t mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response:  “If you don’t like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts.”   Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights—why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights—by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to “security” from things that go bump in the night.  But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself.  The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.   That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force.  To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms.   They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights.  The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment’s reference to the necessity of a “well-regulated militia” proves the amendment is all about state’s rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance.  Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance.  Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter.   The truth is, the Founders understood a “well regulated” militia to mean a militia “functioning/operating properly,” not a militia “controlled or managed by the government.” This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary’s archaic definitions of “regulate;” “( b ) Of troops: Properly disciplined.”   The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest.  But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government.  In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.   The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense.  The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals’ right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, “Don’t Tread On Me.”   Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”   Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people.   That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as “afraid to trust the people with arms.”  Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed.”   But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently:   “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”   That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check—in modern parlance, a “deterrent”—against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.   A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression.  A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government.   Link  

Very nice Sonny; love the rosewood grips. I currently own 3 DA/SA Sigs in 9mm and primarily carry the P239 and occasionally the P225. I have decided I need a .45 and have been looking at the P220 Carry SAS. But I can't decide between a DA/SA or an SAO trigger. I am so used to the DA/SA trigger and am hesitant to switch. Any input from the board on this? I'm looking forward to your range report.

Very Nice! That's the handgun my son carries.

SIG P225 !!

American Thinker by Pamela Geller October 5, 2012 Much is being made of the devastating blow that Mitt Romney administered to President Obama in the first presidential debate Wednesday night. Romney was masterful; Obama was incomprehensible. Romney was presidential; Obama was incoherent. Romney schooled Obama; Obama responded by doing the hand motions to "The Wheels On the Bus Go Round and Round." Republicans and conservatives alike were cheering. Even Romney skeptics like me happily conceded that Romney was the right guy all along. There will be an October surprise from the Obama camp, but they got one themselves Wednesday night. Obama was rambling, fumbling, stuttering. He was terrible. This was a great night for freedom-lovers. If sixty million Americans were watching, freedom has a shot at resuscitation. Even Obama's own camp was crestfallen. Bill Maher tweeted: "Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney." And: "I can't believe I'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter." Maher is noticing only now? Andrew Sullivan tweeted in dismay: "This is a rolling calamity for Obama." But is Obama worried? Not for a second. He doesn't care. Because that's not his job. Obama is merely the pretty face for the über-left monster. Let's face it: Obama is merely a figurehead. A happy face for the anti-American, anti-individual, anti-capitalist revolution. He's a movie star, nothing more. He's an impressive façade with nothing behind it, like a Hollywood set. But the American people should be concerned about his puppet masters: Reverend Wright, George Soros, Bill Ayers, and a cabal of Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood operatives. That's who's running the country. Obama is implementing and instituting everything on the radical, socialist, and Islamic supremacist wish list, without compromise. As far as Obama is concerned, it's up to them to deliver him. It's up to the culture, it's up to the media, it's up to J-Lo and the other soulless airheads in Hollywood. Obama is merely the face that the monster is wearing. So is he worried? Not on your life. His contempt for the American intellect has been demonstrated. He doesn't think his constituency is even watching. They get their talking points from the mothership -- whether it's Media Matters, the Center for American Progress, or MSNBC. Goebbels-style talking points devoid of logic, accuracy, and fact. Obama goes on The View, Letterman, and Jimmy Kimmel, and he would even go on Romper Room if it were still on the air, exuding cool, hip, and groovy vibrations. And all is right with the world, even as U.S. embassies are attacked, our ambassadors are killed, jihadi revolutions overthrow our secular allies, and the economic machine that empowers this magnificent nation is routed, and the Saturday Night Live band plays on. What, me worry? As soon as the bell rang on the close of the debate, the leftist/Islamic machine went into huddle and started hammering on an imaginary inconsistency in Romney's flawless performance. And they've been jackhammering ever since. Obama knows this going in: he's counting on America watching Real Housewives of...pick a city. But sixty million people watched. Can they be talked out of what they saw? Chris Matthews and the rest of Obama's media and civilian army are counting on it. Obama doesn't have to worry because the media will provide for all his deficiencies. As far as the left is concerned, the debate doesn't start until after it's over. The media is like the man with the shovel following behind Obama the circus elephant. Ever since the debate ended, they've been in fifth gear, spinning a completely new narrative. America, don't believe your eyes; believe the leftist lies. They are busy answering points Romney made and impugning the accuracy of Romney's assertions. And if miraculously Romney pulls it out, Obama will not accept any of the blame. Instead, the blame will lie squarely on the shoulders of the enormous leftist machine. Is it true that it doesn't matter? That as brilliant and in command and presidential as Romney was, it's a fait accompli? That remains to be seen. There's no question about it: the first presidential debate was a game-changer. The question is: is the game already over? That question will ultimately be answered by the American people. Is Obama right, and we are beneath contempt? Unworthy of respect? And this great constitutional republic that millions before us fought and died for is also unworthy of respect and beyond redemption? Or will the wheels on Obama's bus come off before the finish line? That's the question. Link

CNBC Poll: GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a fundraising event earlier this year that “there are 47 percent who are with him (Obama), who are dependent upon the government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them.†Do You Agree? Currently 76% Yes with 33562 votes Vote Now!