Smoking Barrels - LTT's Unnofficial Gun Club!

[Drak3]

Just now, kaiju_wars said:

All three infinitely better than the type of revolver he got for concealed carry.

Nah. Just tell him to throw it, and aim for the crotch.

[atxcyclist]

2 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

He wanted a "big caliber like .40 or .45"  
I was so freaking close to getting him leaving with an M&P Shield 2.0 .45, M&P Shield .380 EZ, or Glock 48.

 

All three infinitely better than the type of revolver he got for concealed carry.

Haven't you always wanted to conceal carry a boat anchor?

[kaiju_wars]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Nah. Just tell him to throw it, and aim for the crotch.

Oh you're out of your six shots?  Just chuck it.  Can't put in a fresh mag or quickly pop the cylinder.

 

6 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

Haven't you always wanted to conceal carry a boat anchor?

I used to carry a compact 1911 chambered in .45.  My goal since then has been slowly getting away from that and finding middle ground from one extreme to the next (one being an all steel 1911, down to a tiny LCP.)

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

Oh you're out of your six shots?  Just chuck it.  Can't put in a fresh mag or quickly pop the cylinder.

 

1 hour ago, kaiju_wars said:

He got a fullsized, 6" Heritage 357 Mag revolver, that the cylinder doesn't even flip out, it's like an old fashioned Colt single action to unload it.

I'd say chucking it as hard as you can is the right answer here.

[atxcyclist]

3 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

Oh you're out of your six shots?  Just chuck it.  Can't put in a fresh mag or quickly pop the cylinder.

 

I used to carry a compact 1911 chambered in .45.  My goal since then has been slowly getting away from that and finding middle ground from one extreme to the next (one being an all steel 1911, down to a tiny LCP.)

I've had a P3AT forever, not the best nor worst, but it's always worked.

 

I managed sales at an FFL for a while, and convincing people of something sensible to carry was always difficult. Yeah, a fullsize seems great and generally fits a hand better than something small like a J-frame S&W or a P3AT, but no one seemed to realize how much a good concealment holster cost, and the amount of effort it took to carry something like a G22 or a 1911. 

[kaiju_wars]

20 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

 

I'd say chucking it as hard as you can is the right answer here.

Right?  Then go and buy something a little more practical.

 

Thing is I know he likes .357 magnum too, I tried getting him to look at snub nose revolvers.  He can still have his .357, but in something much more practical to carry.

 

16 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

I've had a P3AT forever, not the best nor worst, but it's always worked.

 

I managed sales at an FFL for a while, and convincing people of something sensible to carry was always difficult. Yeah, a fullsize seems great and generally fits a hand better than something small like a J-frame S&W or a P3AT, but no one seemed to realize how much a good concealment holster cost, and the amount of effort it took to carry something like a G22 or a 1911. 

I settled on the M&P Shield 2.0.  I love it.  As for concealed handguns.  I always tell people, "not everyone can conceal a Glock 19.  Just because it's one of the most popular options doesn't mean that's what you have to start out with."  I always try to convince them to go to the middle ground.  Something like an M&P Shield 380 EZ, Shield 2.0, Glock 43X, stuff like that.  Some people don't learn.

 

 

 

Honestly, with my buddy, I think what I'll finally have to get him to settle on is a hammer fired DA/SA Bersa.  At least it'd be more practical to carry.

[Radium_Angel]

I carry a Makarov.

Filled with hollow points. Quick, slim, accurate, it's enough.

[kaiju_wars]

1 hour ago, Radium_Angel said:

I carry a Makarov.

Filled with hollow points. Quick, slim, accurate, it's enough.

I had the PA-63.  Well I still own it, but it fucking hurts to shoot.  It has too light of a recoil spring, and it's an aluminum alloy frame. 

[Radium_Angel]

18 hours ago, kaiju_wars said:

hurts to shoot

Interesting, I always felt the 9x18 round was quite light on recoil, but then again my Mak is all steel, so the recoil is properly dampened.

I also have a CZ-52, but it's so picky about ammo that it's not good except for a plinking pistol

[kaiju_wars]

4 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

Interesting, I always felt the 9x18 round was quite light on recoil, but then again my Mak is all steel, so the recoil is properly dampened.

I also have a CZ-52, but it's so picky about ammo that it's not good except for a plinking pistol

Yeah, 9 mak isn’t a snappy round in and of itself.  Just the pistol I’m talking about.  The FEG PA-63 is known to be particularly snappy.

[knightslugger]

We were having an interesting conversation on another forum i frequent about ATF definitions regarding DD's.

 

1/4oz of charge in a projectile makes a DD, but a missile can have 1/4 lbs.

 

this made me cringe a bit. a missile isn't what you think it is. historically and contemporarilly, a missile is any object propelled by force at a target. Think back to the days of the trebuchet and other catapults. every stone, arrow, and BP filled coconut was considered a missile. and still is.

 

so i ask... is a morter or M203 not a modern day catapult? and isn't a modern missile just a rocket assisted projectile? how does this make any sense?

[Jito463]

40 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

how does this make any sense?

Bureaucracy isn't supposed to make sense.

[Real_PhillBert]

9 hours ago, knightslugger said:

We were having an interesting conversation on another forum i frequent about ATF definitions regarding DD's.

 

1/4oz of charge in a projectile makes a DD, but a missile can have 1/4 lbs.

 

this made me cringe a bit. a missile isn't what you think it is. historically and contemporarilly, a missile is any object propelled by force at a target. Think back to the days of the trebuchet and other catapults. every stone, arrow, and BP filled coconut was considered a missile. and still is.

 

so i ask... is a morter or M203 not a modern day catapult? and isn't a modern missile just a rocket assisted projectile? how does this make any sense?

Trying to make sense of the ATFs definitions is an exercise in futility; they're all completely arbitrary. 

[knightslugger]

1 hour ago, Real_PhillBert said:

Trying to make sense of the ATFs definitions is an exercise in futility; they're all completely arbitrary. 

i know, but how in the hell is one supposed to stay on the right side of things when we are presented with crap like this?

[Crunchy Dragon]

Apparently Colt is halting AR-15 production.

 

They claim it's due to lack of demand.

[kaiju_wars]

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Apparently Colt is halting AR-15 production.

 

They claim it's due to lack of demand.

I can believe it.  IMO Colt has their stuff overpriced and sells on brand recognition alone.

You have many other reputable brands for the same price or cheaper than they are.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Apparently Colt is halting AR-15 production.

 

They claim it's due to lack of demand.

Colt sells milspec stuff for significantly more than it's worth. They charge ~$700 for a milspec M4 style upper, $1000 for the rifle. To put that in context, Smith and Wesson sells their M&P15 Sport II RIFLE, a milspec M4 style AR15 of the same quality (being generous to Colt), for under $600.

Ruger, same product as S&W, also under $600.

Core15, $720.

Del-Ton Echo, $450.

DPMS LCAR, $460.

Diamond Back, $500.

 

Colt stagnated. Less than no innovation, as their bread and butter guns, the 1911 and AR15, were designed by John Moses Browning and Eugene Stoner (as well as Jim Sullivan's improvements when downscaling the AR10 to make the AR15), respectively.  Quality isn't there either.

And the kicker is that most of their handgun offerings are 1911s ranging from sub par to average at best, and their 1903, to which only military collectors MIGHT care about. The only rifles they carry are overpriced AR15s and 10s with no differentiating qualities (other than a cheapish 6.5 Creedmore). Revolvers consist of the lackluster Cobra snub nose, Single Action Army, and King Cobra (which does nothing to stand out from the less expensive Smith & Wessons). The only thing going for them is legacy.

[Lowbuget]

i dont have a general fav of guns but you gotta admit the wood finish on some of them look good 

*Me glares at ak*

 

[Slumberjack]

1 hour ago, kaiju_wars said:

I can believe it.  IMO Colt has their stuff overpriced and sells on brand recognition alone.

You have many other reputable brands for the same price or cheaper than they are.

 

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Colt sells milspec stuff for significantly more than it's worth. They charge ~$700 for a milspec M4 style upper, $1000 for the rifle. To put that in context, Smith and Wesson sells their M&P15 Sport II RIFLE, a milspec M4 style AR15 of the same quality (being generous to Colt), for under $600.

Ruger, same product as S&W, also under $600.

Core15, $720.

Del-Ton Echo, $450.

DPMS LCAR, $460.

Diamond Back, $500.

 

Colt stagnated. Less than no innovation, as their bread and butter guns, the 1911 and AR15, were designed by John Moses Browning and Eugene Stoner (as well as Jim Sullivan's improvements when downscaling the AR10 to make the AR15), respectively.  Quality isn't there either.

And the kicker is that most of their handgun offerings are 1911s ranging from sub par to average at best, and their 1903, to which only military collectors MIGHT care about. The only rifles they carry are overpriced AR15s and 10s with no differentiating qualities (other than a cheapish 6.5 Creedmore). Revolvers consist of the lackluster Cobra snub nose, Single Action Army, and King Cobra (which does nothing to stand out from the less expensive Smith & Wessons). The only thing going for them is legacy.

When it comes to Colt, if there's no snake in the name, it can pound sand, and even that's not a given anymore

[atxcyclist]

AR parts are so ubiquitous now, and the pressure/metallurgy testing and staking that Colt used to corner the market on, are fairly standard on any reputable rifle these days. No reason to spend extra on a Colt, not with the dozens of quality receiver manufacturers and hundreds of armorer companies making them now. Building a quality AR yourself is nothing these days as well, with a few tools and an hour or so of time.

[Drak3]

5 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

/metallurgy testing and staking that Colt used to corner the market on

Metallurgy of AR recievers is the same across the board, as all the blanks come from one of 3 (or 5, don't remember off the top of my head) companies. Gun manufacturers like Colt, DPMS, Odin Works, Faxon, Bushmaster, Aero Precision, etc. just do the final milling.

[Corrupt_Liberty]

I don't think Colt has been at the top of their game in decades.  They stagnated for too long sucking at the government teat while other manufacturers had to innovate to survive in the open market. I own a Colt HBAR and it had a terrible stock trigger and fit and finish was worse than my Bushmaster, a brand not known for its quality control.  I hate to see them leave the consumer space instead of innovating to compete but I think they've fallen too far behind.  The next time their government contract runs out may be the end for them.  I fear the next time they return to the civilian market they'll be way too far behind the competition to save themselves.  

[Radium_Angel]

On 9/21/2019 at 8:11 AM, Corrupt_Liberty said:

The next time their government contract runs out may be the end for them.

Adapt to market forces, or perish.

Unless you are GM.

[Corrupt_Liberty]

On 9/23/2019 at 4:54 PM, Radium_Angel said:

Adapt to market forces, or perish.

Unless you are GM.

Yeah, I don't see any of these politicians rushing to bail out any firearms manufacturer. 

[Radium_Angel]

10 hours ago, Corrupt_Liberty said:

Yeah, I don't see any of these politicians rushing to bail out any firearms manufacturer. 

I get why they bailed out GM, after some reading and discussions with those who might have been affected.

I didn't like it, but I got it, but it's pretty clear the gov't would be more than happy to let all gun makers perish, and several in gov't are actively trying to find ways to make that happen.