TexasCHLforum.com

[quote="Liberty Somewhere out there there is the perfect gun, I'll find it someday.[/quote]

Let me know when you do, I'm saving my money.

Tote 9 wrote:[quote="Liberty Somewhere out there there is the perfect gun, I'll find it someday.

Let me know when you do, I'm saving my money. [/quote]
The catch for me is that it still has to be economical enough so that I don't worry about the nicks and daily wear it would get.

Ruger SP101 for CCW .357 (2.25" or 3 1/16") ... there are also LOTS of great used S&W K-frame .357s... 13/65/65LS are where I'd start.

Kahr MK40 for a smaller all stainless 3" .40

Springfield Ultra Carry for a nice, compact .45

S&W 642/442 for .38+p (I personally would own this gun over any Kel-Tec or .380 if I didn't have a Kahr PM9)

My $.02

AV8R wrote:

Liberty wrote:
My concern with Glocks is ... It also seems like its a dangerous gun....

If it wasn't dangerous, I wouldn't be carrying one.

There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, just dangerous people.

srothstein wrote:

AV8R wrote:

Liberty wrote:
My concern with Glocks is ... It also seems like its a dangerous gun....

If it wasn't dangerous, I wouldn't be carrying one.

There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, just dangerous people.

Ever been to Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque?

srothstein wrote:

AV8R wrote:
If it wasn't dangerous, I wouldn't be carrying one.

There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, just dangerous people.

Nice platitudes, they sound good, but some weapons can be very dangerous to the user.
Don't underestimate how dangerous a gun is that sometimes goes click.
Or what a gun can do to a users face and eyes because there is some crud in the barrel. Or because it is in poor condition.
The most dangerous gun is the one we believe is perfectly safe.

Liberty wrote:

srothstein wrote:

AV8R wrote:

Nice platitudes, they sound good, but some weapons can be very dangerous to the user.

That's why I always try to find weapons that have a dangerous end

and a safe end, separated by at least 180 degrees.

Liberty wrote:

srothstein wrote:

AV8R wrote:
If it wasn't dangerous, I wouldn't be carrying one.

There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, just dangerous people.

Nice platitudes, they sound good, but some weapons can be very dangerous to the user.
Don't underestimate how dangerous a gun is that sometimes goes click.
Or what a gun can do to a users face and eyes because there is some crud in the barrel. Or because it is in poor condition.
The most dangerous gun is the one we believe is perfectly safe.

But you have not yet disproven the theory stated. It is still the person who was dangerous. Some people are dangerous to others because we maintain our weapons and no how to use them, some are dangerous to themselves because they do not maintain their equipment or obey basic safety rules.

There are no weapons I know of that are dangerous until a person intervenes. Even a bomb requires a person to set it off or start the timer or something. And we all know people who are dangerous with no weapons or just their ability to improvise ones.

srothstein wrote:

Liberty wrote:

srothstein wrote:

AV8R wrote:
If it wasn't dangerous, I wouldn't be carrying one.

There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, just dangerous people.

Nice platitudes, they sound good, but some weapons can be very dangerous to the user.
Don't underestimate how dangerous a gun is that sometimes goes click.
Or what a gun can do to a users face and eyes because there is some crud in the barrel. Or because it is in poor condition.
The most dangerous gun is the one we believe is perfectly safe.

But you have not yet disproven the theory stated. It is still the person who was dangerous. Some people are dangerous to others because we maintain our weapons and no how to use them, some are dangerous to themselves because they do not maintain their equipment or obey basic safety rules.

There are no weapons I know of that are dangerous until a person intervenes. Even a bomb requires a person to set it off or start the timer or something. And we all know people who are dangerous with no weapons or just their ability to improvise ones.

+1

srothstein wrote:

Liberty wrote:

srothstein wrote:

AV8R wrote:
If it wasn't dangerous, I wouldn't be carrying one.

There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, just dangerous people.

Nice platitudes, they sound good, but some weapons can be very dangerous to the user.
Don't underestimate how dangerous a gun is that sometimes goes click.
Or what a gun can do to a users face and eyes because there is some crud in the barrel. Or because it is in poor condition.
The most dangerous gun is the one we believe is perfectly safe.

But you have not yet disproven the theory stated. It is still the person who was dangerous. Some people are dangerous to others because we maintain our weapons and no how to use them, some are dangerous to themselves because they do not maintain their equipment or obey basic safety rules.

There are no weapons I know of that are dangerous until a person intervenes. Even a bomb requires a person to set it off or start the timer or something. And we all know people who are dangerous with no weapons or just their ability to improvise ones.

"But you have not yet disproven the theory stated." Actually, this is a conjecture rather than a theory, for which a proof is not likely to be forthcomig. (e.g., see:"Goldbach's conjecture")

"There are no weapons I know of that are dangerous until a person intervenes. " See: "Kirtland Air Force Base", and "Torpex"

Interesting discussion on safeties. Personally, the absence of a thumb safety on my Glocks does make me think twice when I holster. Every year folks, including those that have been through LEO training, shoot themselves when re-holstering pistols that rely on trigger activated safeties such as Glock uses. If something like a jacket or shirt tail gets tangled up inside the trigger guard, it can go bang when you push it into the holster.

Weapons that have grip safeties don’t really impress me as protection against this sort of accident. At least in my case, my hand is firmly wrapped around the grip when I re-holster, and the grip safety is disengaged. If I get tangled up with something, it will go bang…

A thumb safety such as used on the 1911 is pretty positive protection against this sort of accident. Provided of course you engage it prior to holstering .

One night I was awakened from a sound sleep by the sound of the alarm on the bedroom door (the door is only 4 ft from my head!). I rolled out of bed, grabbing for the Glock on the nightstand as I went. Well, I fumbled the gun and it slid out of my hands. Like an idiot, I tried to catch it in the air instead of letting it hit the ground (ok, so I’m not too bright awakened out of a deep sleep). Turns out my grab was true, and the weapon was in my hand without an AD. But that was sheer luck. The next day, I emptied the weapon, cocked it, and proceeded to repeat the stupidity of the night before. It turned out that out of 20 tries, only twice did I properly “catch� the weapon, and 3 times I hit the trigger and it dry fired . That’s not good odds! This is one time a grip safety such as on an XD would have been considerably better, and of course a 1911 style would have been safe (probably safer).

As for the Glock needing to have the trigger pulled before disassembly, I don’t worry much about that. Or rather I should say I’m not likely to have an AD in this case because I do worry about it. For me, the clip is out and the slide has been cycled multiple times, with me looking at the chamber, before the trigger is pulled. The weapon is also pointed is a “safe� direction. It’s really no different then what I do with my 1911’s, and my other pistols. Nothing in the chamber, it won’t go bang…

So Russell, what did you get?