The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 25, 2018, 11:41 AM   #26
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 20,349
Concur. We should have stayed with the 1911.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old December 25, 2018, 01:18 PM   #27
Ricklin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: SW Washington state
Posts: 1,493
I'm with you!

I just bought my first 1911, a Govt. model seemed appropos for my first.

Wow what a superb design, I've only put a box through it and I am in love. I bought the cheapo Tisas's from Bud's and I am impressed. I paid about 330 bucks. Had 3 jams on the fist box of ammo. The pistol is super tight. By the end of the box of 50 I was getting through a full magazine w/o a jam.

The trigger is darn good. It's the tactical trigger model and is about 4-5 pounds, there is some takeup so I would not call it crisp, but it is decent and I can hit with it.

I've been on the fence for .45 caliber for years. I can see I am going to need some dies, and maybe start casting after I retire.
This appears to be the perfect pistol to cast for, big chunks of Lead moving slow.

Love the 1911. Am now anxious to shoot a nice one.
__________________
ricklin
Freedom is not free
Ricklin is offline  
Old December 25, 2018, 09:49 PM   #28
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,142
Quote:
Concur. We should have stayed with the 1911.
Hence, why earlier I advocated for the Colt M45A1.

It's the 'peak' of evolution for the 1911-breed - as opposed to cheapo knock-off clones - and is further 'tacticalized' with night sights, an improved recoil assembly, and by the engineering of a rail on the frame for mounting your weapon-light of choice.

Cool beans.
agtman is offline  
Old December 26, 2018, 07:38 AM   #29
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 779
Modern times means modern weapons. For the same reason the US military went away from the M14 to the M16(lighter, shorter, more ammo carried, etc), I think the military was smart to look for a lighter, more simple, higher capacity handgun. Not a fan of thechoice of SIG, but I think that 'type' fills a lot more modern 'squares' than a 1911/.45/8 or so round capacity handgun. Plus like it or don't(not a huge fan)..a LOT of today's military have smaller hands.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old December 26, 2018, 08:38 PM   #30
pete2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,923
The handgun in the military, except to make officers look pretty, is for those who can't carry a rifle. As a topcat on a track, I was issued a pistol. The pistol was a last resort firearm. Way better than a knife but that's about it. I would have liked the Glock or copy if it had a safety, It's a lot lighter than the 1911 I carried. The Lightweight Commander would be even better than the Glock, the 1911 is much easier to shoot. As for special applications, they should carry whatever is best for the job at hand, snubnose .38, Glock 19 or 1911, whatever. It ain't rocket science. With the government it is usually lowest bidder, plastic guns are a lot cheaper than metal guns. I don't see where the SIG is any better than a Beretta, I have to think the SIG is cheaper.
pete2 is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 01:52 AM   #31
sigxder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2009
Posts: 388
As someone said the SIG, Glock, or M&P will all do the job. Have all of them except the SIG. Shot the SIG. Didn't find it any better than the G19 GEN4 or S&W 2.0 Compact.
Pretty much since I got the S&W 2.0 Compact it's been my constant companion.
Like the ergo's the best. Built like a tank. Totally reliable, accurate. Think any of them would be fine for military use. Like the M9. But it's big, heavy, and DA/SA not as easy to learn to shoot. SIG has a lot of room for optics and so on.
sigxder is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 06:53 AM   #32
luger fan
Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2018
Posts: 63
Let's see. Was Glock approved by NATO? No, they were not. SIG? No. The ONLY handgun made with an NSN, NATO Service Number, is the CZ P-01.

If 29 Countries agree that the CZ is reliable enough for its military, but Glock IS NOT, that is probably a good hint.
luger fan is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 09:10 AM   #33
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by luger fan View Post
Let's see. Was Glock approved by NATO? No, they were not. SIG? No. The ONLY handgun made with an NSN, NATO Service Number, is the CZ P-01.

If 29 Countries agree that the CZ is reliable enough for its military, but Glock IS NOT, that is probably a good hint.
'Might' be a little more complicated than that..
Germany, as an example, uses the H&K P8.....France uses a Sig and Glock 17..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_pistol
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 09:11 AM   #34
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,142
Quote:
Let's see. Was Glock approved by NATO? No, they were not. SIG? No. The ONLY handgun made with an NSN, NATO Service Number, is the CZ P-01.
Dude, ... That's only important if anyone really cared about what NATO thinks. NATO was never going to choose any semi-auto pistol adopted by the U.S. military, let alone one made here.

Quote:
If 29 Countries agree that the CZ is reliable enough for its military, but Glock IS NOT, that is probably a good hint.
If 29 quasi-socialist (Euro) countries agree that border security using drones is better and more effective than hardened barriers (walls), is that a 'good hint' we should follow?

Colt M45A1, all day.

8-rds of .45acp high-n-hard. Repeat as needed.

'Nuff said.

agtman is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 09:49 AM   #35
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachen View Post
The recent years have seen a drastic change in the type of battlefield being faced by the modern soldier. In a traditional open field fight with equally matched combatants with infantry long arms, pistols are symbols of authority for officers.

Today's battlefield is highly unconventional. You have a lot of combatants utilizing 5th generation tactics. No uniforms, ambushes, blending in amongst civilians. To flush them out involves a lot of close-quarters fighting in urban settings. Today's soldier, especially in the war on terrorism, is more of a policeman and SWAT operative rather than a traditional grunt. I would choose a Glock or a Sig over a M-16 any day if I am doing house clearing operations in Kandahar or Baghdad. That plus a FN-PS90 or another SBR for longer range or AP purposes.

The future of the front line soldier will cross paths with that of a law enforcement officer. Today's soldiers already have to learn to operate far more hi-tech electronics, biometric equipment, scanners etc... than their ancestors.
Smalll shoulder-able PCC PDW's like the GHM9, P90, MX4, etc, make far more sense than pistols.

The whole change out was simply payback to Sig after decades of butthurt losing out to Beretta decades ago, a complete waste of money. The entire inventory of Berettas should have been surplussed out long ago (they were not taken care of properly) and partially replaced with new ones for the very limited roles the serve in, then standardize a PCC PDW.

Staying with Beretta and procuring the PX4 / MX4 combo would have made even more sense, same caliber, same magazines, existing pipeline of existing PROVEN products. But when the military burocrats get involved the taxpayer looses and the fighter almost always gets shortchanged.
TBM900 is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 10:42 AM   #36
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,040
I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and catch lots of flack but this is based on my experience as a grunt, riflemen and machine gunner in the jungles of SE Asia.

The handgun of choice if I were to get a vote (which I dont) would be the J-Frame Smith with enclosed hammer.

Silly you say...think about it. I was infantry, grunt. We had to be armed 24-7. In the bush I wouldnt be without my hands on my assigned weapon (which was a M16a1 or M60).

Now there were times when we came to rear. Pretty much secure. Had chow halls, the works. Yet no matter what, we had to be armed. It wasnt assigned but I did pick up and carry a M1911A1, and it worked but the J-Frame would have been better. I could stick it in my pocket and be armed.

Trust me, a small revolver in the pocket is a lot easier to get through the chow line then a M-60. If push came to shove I could use the revolver to fight my way to the back of the chow hall tent to get to my '60 hanging on a peg.

It doesnt weigh much and even in the field it wouldnt be in the way tucked into my pants pocket.

But like I said, like the rest of us in these forums, we dont get a vote. You carry what uncle sam says you carry, and the lobbyist tell uncle same what we need based on which ever lobbyist cuts loose the most money to sell their product to congress.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 09:54 PM   #37
Leaf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2018
Posts: 161
Wouldn't be my first thought to arm myself with any kind of weapon to fight my way to the front of any chow line I remember from back in the Corps. Maybe to get away from the stink maybe.
Leaf is offline  
Old January 18, 2019, 01:02 PM   #38
pete2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,923
Wasn't in a mess hall in Vietnam more than a dozen times. Mostly C's. Once in a while hot food brought in by chopper. .50 on the track, 1911 in my holster. Pulled the .45 once, never shot it except at tin cans. B Troop, 1/1 Cav, 67/68.
pete2 is offline  
Old January 25, 2019, 11:14 PM   #39
ROCK6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Georgia/Afghanistan
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBM900
Smalll shoulder-able PCC PDW's like the GHM9, P90, MX4, etc, make far more sense than pistols.
This I agree with. Several Advisors just have a pistol, which I feel is pretty inadequate. Some of the Germans have their MP7, and the two Belgians we have on our team use their FN P90's. Granted, they also carry pistols, but these PDW's/SMG's are far more versatile and maneuverable when in/around vehicles and buildings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy
I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and catch lots of flack but this is based on my experience as a grunt, riflemen and machine gunner in the jungles of SE Asia.

The handgun of choice if I were to get a vote (which I dont) would be the J-Frame Smith with enclosed hammer.
This isn't a bad choice if just having a sidearm along with your primary rifle/LMG. J-frame may be debatable, but there are times your rifle isn't in reach and engagements are basically in a phone-booth. Primary purpose is to simply get to your rifle, and the weight would be more than acceptable with a typical combat load. There are numerous "activities" where your rifle is often outside arms-reach when not doing active missions/patrolling.

ROCK6
ROCK6 is offline  
Old January 28, 2019, 11:30 AM   #40
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,553
Quote:
Concur. We should have stayed with the 1911.
Hence, why earlier I advocated for the Colt M45A1.

It's the 'peak' of evolution for the 1911-breed - as opposed to cheapo knock-off clones - and is further 'tacticalized' with night sights, an improved recoil assembly, and by the engineering of a rail on the frame for mounting your weapon-light of choice.

Cool beans.
Of course, those 1911s procured up until WW2 have or will all eventually wear out if they were kept in service.

Considering that there are equally effective options today that cost far less, offer more firepower, and are much lighter (Colt definitely took MARSOC for a ride with the M45A1), it is simply foolish for the taxpayer to keep buying overpriced and out-dated combat pistols. This is not to say the M17 should have replaced the M9, unless its procurement offers a real cost-savings overall.

Sorry if this steps on some toes, but it's a rational evaluation, and economics and rationality should trump nostalgia when providing warfighters with the best and most economically responsible option.


Quote:
If 29 quasi-socialist (Euro) countries agree that border security using drones is better and more effective than hardened barriers (walls), is that a 'good hint' we should follow?

Colt M45A1, all day.

8-rds of .45acp high-n-hard. Repeat as needed.

'Nuff said.
Again, without delving into the silly politics of it all, you have to detach personal feelings from rational decisions (something the left often has difficulty with). The "'Nuff said" comment indicates a close-mindedness that benefits neither the warfighter or taxpayer.

To use an example you brought up, if drones are more cost-effective than a wall why shouldn't that option be studied? Just because a politician threw out the wall idea to get elected and it sounded appealing to those who didn't really think about it much?

You may not agree with the Euros' politics (I typically don't), but good on them for looking at other options for border security. We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation, since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway, and walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around). If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?

Never mind the physical impossibility of running a non-stop wall along an arbitrary (i.e. non-natural) border. Google "watershed" if you don't understand.

Anyway - not to get so far off topic, but you provided a good lens though which to look at the issue of government procurement, and why it is failing so hard currently.


.

Last edited by Fishbed77; January 28, 2019 at 11:38 AM.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old January 28, 2019, 01:29 PM   #41
imp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2006
Location: Pistol-Vania
Posts: 560
The Sig is a good choice for a mass issued sidearm.

It's a striker fired gun, which is easier to train on compared to the M9, and while I've never served in the military, my experience with military trained shooters tells me they dont spend much time training with pistols.

The barrel is easily swapped for a threaded barrel for suppressed use, which is more difficult with the M9.

The entire grip module is replaceable, both to change grip diameter for people with larger or smaller hands than average, and from full sized to compact and subcompact to accommodate concealment priorities. Also entirely different grip profiles are available with more to come. This is an advantage over the Glock and S&W, where only backstraps are replaceable, and on par with the new beretta pistol. The big caveat to this is the fact that the DOD bureaucracy will probably hinder the issue of particular grip modules to the troops.

It's as cheap, accurate, and reliable as the competitors entries.

Truthfully, the only question I have is whether the new procurement is important enough to justify the financial output, but that is something for the bean counters to figure out, and they decided it was.
imp is offline  
Old January 29, 2019, 07:42 AM   #42
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 779
Quote:
Again, without delving into the silly politics of it all, you have to detach personal feelings from rational decisions (something the left often has difficulty with). The "'Nuff said" comment indicates a close-mindedness that benefits neither the warfighter or taxpayer.

To use an example you brought up, if drones are more cost-effective than a wall why shouldn't that option be studied? Just because a politician threw out the wall idea to get elected and it sounded appealing to those who didn't really think about it much?

You may not agree with the Euros' politics (I typically don't), but good on them for looking at other options for border security. We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation, since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway, and walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around). If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?

Never mind the physical impossibility of running a non-stop wall along an arbitrary (i.e. non-natural) border. Google "watershed" if you don't understand.
Serious thread drift but what he said...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old January 29, 2019, 01:45 PM   #43
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,555
Quote:
We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation, since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway, and walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around). If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?
I'm not suggesting its the right thing for US, but to say walls are ineffective seems foolish. And, in what countries do the majority of illegal aliens arrive via aircraft?? Great Britain? Cyprus? Australia? other islands?? And, while a wall must be manned (or robotically surveilled) to be its most effective, the simple fact it is a physical barrier that requires effort to get over, under, around, or through does have an effect.

If you think walls don't work (or are "not effective), go talk to any of the millions of people still living that were stopped by the Iron Curtain. During its existence, only a relative handful of people managed to get past it, and the "majority" of them didn't do via commercial air travel.


Back on topic, I don't really see what the point in discussing military handgun choice, other than as something to pass the time. The military cares nothing for our opinions, and are not overly concerned with either the handgun's combat effectiveness, or its personal defensive ability.

Since, at present, and for the near future, the military round is a FMJ 9mm Luger, it really makes little difference which 9mm pistol they choose. None of them can perform better than the ammo they shoot.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 29, 2019, 02:41 PM   #44
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,223
In my 4 years in the Army 1967-1971 I received NO training on the M1911A1 and NEVER went to the range. And I carried it twice. And I knew very few gun guys. Probably more crack shots in the Army in the days of the 45-70 and 30-40 Krag.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old January 29, 2019, 06:23 PM   #45
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 378
Not sure how this topic got here, but.....

Quote:
Just because a politician threw out the wall idea
It wasn't a 'new idea', it's been implemented for decades, as well as supported, reinforced, supplemented, etc.

Further, the 'wall' has simply been a broad brush term to cover a multitude of physical barriers as well as electronic surveillance.

Quote:
it sounded appealing to those who didn't really think about it much?
It was 'appealing' to leftists......until Trump beat Clinton.
As far as 'not thinking about it much', I would look in the mirror as you seem to be repeating talking points almost verbatim.

Quote:
We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation
Utter BULL$H1T
Crossings where walls have been built are ALWAYS reduced
I live in a border state, our family ranch is right in the bath of illegals
Every single place walls have been erected in our state the crossings drop over 90%
And I'll let you in on a little secret.....shhh....I've worked the border.....don't tell anyone....

Quote:
since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway
Another BS talking point
You are referring to visa overstays, which account for about 40%

Quote:
walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around)
You just refuted your own argument and don't even know it
Further, if physical barriers are 'so easily defeated', why have they worked so well when/where erected? At no point, and at no time, has anyone suggested physical barriers cannot be defeated, people have escaped some of the most secure prisons ever built. But to keep repeating BS talking points says a lot about you and your capacity for critical thought.

Quote:
If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?
You've clearly never heard the term 'force multiplier'
Physical barriers are huge force multipliers, especially when COMBINED with electronic walls
Which AGAIN, have always been part of the equation

Last edited by TBM900; January 29, 2019 at 06:30 PM.
TBM900 is offline  
Old January 30, 2019, 11:20 AM   #46
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,553
Quote:
And, in what countries do the majority of illegal aliens arrive via aircraft??
The United States.

Visa Overstays account for 44% by the most recent count, but that is only the number that can be confirmed, with many more unconfirmed, likely putting this number over 50%. Also understand also that large numbers of otherwise temporary illegal aliens get "trapped" with an increase in physical barriers, further inflating the number of illegals who would not otherwise be in the US. This has been widely studied and you can research yourself, since it is outside the scope of a firearms discussion.

Quote:
It wasn't a 'new idea', it's been implemented for decades, as well as supported, reinforced, supplemented, etc.

Further, the 'wall' has simply been a broad brush term to cover a multitude of physical barriers as well as electronic surveillance.
I am specifically reffing to the "30' concrete wall" certain politicians have touted.

Quote:
You just refuted your own argument and don't even know it
Further, if physical barriers are 'so easily defeated', why have they worked so well when/where erected? At no point, and at no time, has anyone suggested physical barriers cannot be defeated, people have escaped some of the most secure prisons ever built. But to keep repeating BS talking points says a lot about you and your capacity for critical thought.
Walls only work with constant surveillance. Without constant surveillance, a wall is next to useless. Critical thinking includes looking at history (even recent history). As soon as surveillance of the Berlin Wall ended, it was defeated within minutes.

Quote:
You've clearly never heard the term 'force multiplier'
Physical barriers are huge force multipliers, especially when COMBINED with electronic walls
Which AGAIN, have always been part of the equation
I clearly understand the term, and have alluded to it multiple times above. There are other force multipliers outside of physical barriers (especially on the scale we are speaking of) as well, and ones that are potentially much more effective. Physical barriers are of course not wholly ineffective when paired with force multipliers like surveillance and human intelligence, they just have to be employed in an intelligent and measured manner.

Your tone, however, indicates a certain close-mindedness on this subject. So there is no point in further debate on this subject, and I will refrain from such.

This thread need to be swung back into the direction of military service weapon adoption and the economics/politics/priorities associated with it.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old January 30, 2019, 04:26 PM   #47
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,142
Okay, let's review.

1) Build the wall, Snowflakes.

2) Colt M45A1 for the real shooters.

3) 9mm whatevers that 'look-real-purty-on-yer-hip' for everyone else.
agtman is offline  
Old January 30, 2019, 09:47 PM   #48
Leaf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2018
Posts: 161
I love the Colt M45A1 but I'd feel like I was willing to cut off my nose to spite my face if I were willing to send our folks into battle with anything less than a hi-cap nine. I mean, we're talking combat with a lot of targets.
Leaf is offline  
Old January 31, 2019, 08:34 AM   #49
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 378
Quote:
The United States
Prove it

Quote:
Visa Overstays account for 44% by the most recent count, but that is only the number that can be confirmed, with many more unconfirmed
False
The data you are referring to is NOT 'confirmed', it is only an estimate, and a very generous estimate at that

Quote:
likely putting this number over 50%.
Funny how you keep moving the bar.

Quote:
Also understand also that large numbers of otherwise temporary illegal aliens get "trapped" with an increase in physical barriers, further inflating the number of illegals who would not otherwise be in the US.
So wait a minute.....
You assert that physically barriers are essentially useless at keeping people out....
Then go on to assert that they 'trap' people in.......?

LoLoLoLoLoL

I can tell you've never set foot on or even near our southern border.

Quote:
This has been widely studied and you can research yourself, since it is outside the scope of a firearms discussion.
You brought is into the scope, so please provide one of these 'studies'.

Quote:
I am specifically reffing to the "30' concrete wall" certain politicians have touted.
Which also included budget for everything I stated, stop being so obtuse.

Quote:
Walls only work with constant surveillance.
a) False
b) The 'wall' as you keep referring to it also includes multiple levels of electronic surveillance.

Quote:
Without constant surveillance, a wall is next to useless.
a) False
b) The 'wall' as you keep referring to it also includes multiple levels of electronic surveillance.

You keep feigning ignorance on this aspect but doing so only keeps digging yourself deeper.

Quote:
Critical thinking includes looking at history (even recent history).
You keep saying 'walls don't work', yet those on the border prove they do, and you ignore them.

Quote:
I clearly understand the term, and have alluded to it multiple times above.
Clearly you do not.
Your alluding has been in terms of 'Trump wall bad because it doesn't have surveillance'.
Even though it has included such since day one.
You painted yourself into a corner.

Quote:
There are other force multipliers outside of physical barriers (especially on the scale we are speaking of) as well
Do you mean the electronic ones that have been included in 'the wall' since day one?
You know, the ones you keep pretending don't exist?

Quote:
and ones that are potentially much more effective.
Such as....?

Quote:
Physical barriers are of course not wholly ineffective when paired with force multipliers like surveillance and human intelligence, they just have to be employed in an intelligent and measured manner.
Do you mean the manner as proposed by those on the border that have all been included in 'the wall' plan since day one? The ones you keep pretending don't exist?

Quote:
Your tone, however, indicates a certain close-mindedness on this subject.
Again, as I stated in my first reply to you......look in the mirror.

Quote:
So there is no point in further debate on this subject, and I will refrain from such.
Yes I can clearly see that you've painted yourself into a corner.

Quote:
This thread need to be swung back
You're the one that swung it away.





PS...sorry your girl lost
TBM900 is offline  
Old January 31, 2019, 08:39 AM   #50
seeker_two
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,148
Until the military gets away from FMJ, any talk on caliber or pistol is pointless.

Now, can we dump the wall talk and stay on topic?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
seeker_two is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10725 seconds with 11 queries