Suggest the best gun for self protection

[skyking]

It has been an interesting read🙂

Whatever you keep, it has the very real potential of being used to kill or maim a loved one. If it is convenient to you, it can also be found and used against you.

If you are worried about your home, I would also suggest an alert and well trained dog, and securing your house.

Well trained is not protection trained either. I have had several protection and tracking trained dogs, and they are just as serious a responsibility as gun ownership.
All they need is to be an alert breed with a big bark and apearance. Labs, shepherds, anything big enough to cast a shadow out the back door will do nicely, if trained properly.
The same folks that do protection training can stop at the point where a dog:
1) Alerts properly to an unknown or suspicious noise. Most any dog will do that, but the training encourages and rewards.
2) Will move forward toward that unknown sound, threat, strange thing, whatever.

At that point in the training, biting has not been encouraged. The animal always wins because the training threat retreats, every time. They are trained on leash and off leash to be obedient and to stay near you.

At that point, a would be robber, assailant, burglar has no clue if that dog has been ripping apart guys in padded suits every weekend, and he is for sure not willing to find out.


The dog will hear things that you will never hear, responding to trouble long before you can "rack your shotgun".
I would hope that your goal would be to protect your family in such a way as to head off trouble before a gun has to be picked up.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Edit-Really, it's a fvcking gun. If you put your finger on the trigger and apply pressure you've got to expect that it's going to fire a bullet. Only a complete dumbass would rely exclusively on safeties. :roll:

You mean, putting my finger on the trigger makes the gun shoot?! :Q

No sh1t Sherlock. Thank you Capt'n Obvious. If such vast knowledge is commonplace in the gun industry, then WHY is there accidental/negilgent discharges?
Because people hit the go button on accident. That simple.
Now, if we know accidental discharges happen (Which means some joker touched the trigger), and if we know the point of a safety is to prevent accidental discharge of the firearm, then why in Gods name put the safety on the trigger?!
That completely negates the entire point of a safety!!

Alas, thats not my only beef though. For a time Glock wanted the world to think of them as double action, which they are not. They are single action, that simple. Hell, if memory serves (Which it may not this early) I believe they actually advertised as a double action pistol!

Lastly, plastic is for toys. Toys and boys. I'm a man. I'll take metal.

Bitch all you like. It isn't going to change the fact that the Glock is an excellent weapon. I remember reading in one of the gun rags about 10 years ago where they put something like 40,000 rounds through one in all sorts of conditions from ocean water to desert with no failures to feed and they never even cleaned it IIRC. Nothing wrong with polymer frames on a gun. It is just as durable as metal...hell, maybe moreso in some respects.

If such vast knowledge is commonplace in the gun industry, then WHY is there accidental/negilgent discharges?

Because people are stupid. Stupid people should not own guns and you should NEVER rely exclusively on the safety to prevent accidental discharges IMO. I also think that many accidental discharges have other causes like alcohol/drugs or many suicides are determined to be "accidental" for religious reasons or to cause less embarrassment for the family. Oh, he was cleaning a loaded revolver and it just went off. Come on. Who cleans a loaded revolver?

Edit-I don't think you could qualify the Glock trigger as single action. It is definitely not a single action trigger. I own a couple 1911 pistols. Those are single action. The Glock trigger has what? An 8lb pull? And it is longer than a single action pull.

Do you actually have any figures to show that the Glock is the cause of more accidental discharges than other pistols?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: TallBill
If you think the glock is unsafe your crazy. I've only fired a pistol 3 times in my life yet I've carried a M9 baretta with one in the pipe and the safety off for the last 8 months with no incident.

I'm not saying, or implying, that there unsafe.
I'm simply saying putting a sfaety mechanism which is meant to prevent the gun from firing on the trigger (Which makes the gun fire!) seems a bit bassackwards.

I never mentioned your name now did I? 😀

You overlooked me because I'm a midget is that it?
Dude, I'm so gonna uppercut you in the dingus when I see you.

😛

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Edit-Really, it's a fvcking gun. If you put your finger on the trigger and apply pressure you've got to expect that it's going to fire a bullet. Only a complete dumbass would rely exclusively on safeties. :roll:

You mean, putting my finger on the trigger makes the gun shoot?! :Q

No sh1t Sherlock. Thank you Capt'n Obvious. If such vast knowledge is commonplace in the gun industry, then WHY is there accidental/negilgent discharges?
Because people hit the go button on accident. That simple.
Now, if we know accidental discharges happen (Which means some joker touched the trigger), and if we know the point of a safety is to prevent accidental discharge of the firearm, then why in Gods name put the safety on the trigger?!
That completely negates the entire point of a safety!!

Alas, thats not my only beef though. For a time Glock wanted the world to think of them as double action, which they are not. They are single action, that simple. Hell, if memory serves (Which it may not this early) I believe they actually advertised as a double action pistol!

Lastly, plastic is for toys. Toys and boys. I'm a man. I'll take metal.

Bitch all you like. It isn't going to change the fact that the Glock is an excellent weapon. I remember reading in one of the gun rags about 10 years ago where they put something like 40,000 rounds through one in all sorts of conditions from ocean water to desert with no failures to feed and they never even cleaned it IIRC. Nothing wrong with polymer frames on a gun. It is just as durable as metal...hell, maybe moreso in some respects.

If such vast knowledge is commonplace in the gun industry, then WHY is there accidental/negilgent discharges?

Because people are stupid. Stupid people should not own guns and you should NEVER rely exclusively on the safety to prevent accidental discharges IMO. I also think that many accidental discharges have other causes like alcohol/drugs or many suicides are determined to be "accidental" for religious reasons or to cause less embarrassment for the family. Oh, he was cleaning a loaded revolver and it just went off. Come on. Who cleans a loaded revolver?

Edit-I don't think you could qualify the Glock trigger as single action. It is definitely not a single action trigger. I own a couple 1911 pistols. Those are single action. The Glock trigger has what? An 8lb pull? And it is longer than a single action pull.

Do you actually have any figures to show that the Glock is the cause of more accidental discharges than other pistols?

Single vs double has nothing to do with pull length or pull weight.

Additionally, I niether stated nor implied Glocks suffer from more accidental discharges. I simply said that putting a mechnism designed to prevent the gun from firing on that which makes the gun fire is bassackawards.
It would be like having a seatbelt audible alarm that only worked when the car was parked, and when you started moving it dinged if you DID wear your seatbelt rather then the other way around.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Edit-Really, it's a fvcking gun. If you put your finger on the trigger and apply pressure you've got to expect that it's going to fire a bullet. Only a complete dumbass would rely exclusively on safeties. :roll:

You mean, putting my finger on the trigger makes the gun shoot?! :Q

No sh1t Sherlock. Thank you Capt'n Obvious. If such vast knowledge is commonplace in the gun industry, then WHY is there accidental/negilgent discharges?
Because people hit the go button on accident. That simple.
Now, if we know accidental discharges happen (Which means some joker touched the trigger), and if we know the point of a safety is to prevent accidental discharge of the firearm, then why in Gods name put the safety on the trigger?!
That completely negates the entire point of a safety!!

Alas, thats not my only beef though. For a time Glock wanted the world to think of them as double action, which they are not. They are single action, that simple. Hell, if memory serves (Which it may not this early) I believe they actually advertised as a double action pistol!

Lastly, plastic is for toys. Toys and boys. I'm a man. I'll take metal.

Bitch all you like. It isn't going to change the fact that the Glock is an excellent weapon. I remember reading in one of the gun rags about 10 years ago where they put something like 40,000 rounds through one in all sorts of conditions from ocean water to desert with no failures to feed and they never even cleaned it IIRC. Nothing wrong with polymer frames on a gun. It is just as durable as metal...hell, maybe moreso in some respects.

If such vast knowledge is commonplace in the gun industry, then WHY is there accidental/negilgent discharges?

Because people are stupid. Stupid people should not own guns and you should NEVER rely exclusively on the safety to prevent accidental discharges IMO. I also think that many accidental discharges have other causes like alcohol/drugs or many suicides are determined to be "accidental" for religious reasons or to cause less embarrassment for the family. Oh, he was cleaning a loaded revolver and it just went off. Come on. Who cleans a loaded revolver?

Edit-I don't think you could qualify the Glock trigger as single action. It is definitely not a single action trigger. I own a couple 1911 pistols. Those are single action. The Glock trigger has what? An 8lb pull? And it is longer than a single action pull.

Do you actually have any figures to show that the Glock is the cause of more accidental discharges than other pistols?

Single vs double has nothing to do with pull length or pull weight.

Additionally, I niether stated nor implied Glocks suffer from more accidental discharges. I simply said that putting a mechnism designed to prevent the gun from firing on that which makes the gun fire is bassackawards.
It would be like having a seatbelt audible alarm that only worked when the car was parked, and when you started moving it dinged if you DID wear your seatbelt rather then the other way around.

Well, I can't argue with that. I don't think that the Glock trigger safety really does much of anything to prevent accidental discharges. I don't think this really makes the gun any more dangerous or prone to accidental discharges than any revolver though.

The Glock trigger is neither single action nor is it double action. Technically, since pulling the trigger doesn't cock the weapon it is closer in design to a single action. I say that length of pull and resistence play a role in that though. Would you say that the Para-Ordnance LDA is a single action gun? Pulling the trigger does not cock the weapon but it is definitely not the same as a 1911 or a SAA.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, I can't argue with that. I don't think that the Glock trigger safety really does much of anything to prevent accidental discharges. I don't think this really makes the gun any more dangerous or prone to accidental discharges than any revolver though.

The Glock trigger is neither single action nor is it double action. Technically, since pulling the trigger doesn't cock the weapon it is closer in design to a single action. I say that length of pull and resistence play a role in that though. Would you say that the Para-Ordnance LDA is a single action gun? Pulling the trigger does not cock the weapon but it is definitely not the same as a 1911 or a SAA.

I have no experience with the Para so I'll withhold judgement. But in simple terms, double action cocks and fires, single action only fires. A real simple and effective test is to cycle the weapon manually with no rounds in it. Pull the trigger once. Now pull again. If you dont hear 2 clicks, its not double action no matter what the advertisers would have you believe.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, I can't argue with that. I don't think that the Glock trigger safety really does much of anything to prevent accidental discharges. I don't think this really makes the gun any more dangerous or prone to accidental discharges than any revolver though.

The Glock trigger is neither single action nor is it double action. Technically, since pulling the trigger doesn't cock the weapon it is closer in design to a single action. I say that length of pull and resistence play a role in that though. Would you say that the Para-Ordnance LDA is a single action gun? Pulling the trigger does not cock the weapon but it is definitely not the same as a 1911 or a SAA.

I have no experience with the Para so I'll withhold judgement. But in simple terms, double action cocks and fires, single action only fires. A real simple and effective test is to cycle the weapon manually with no rounds in it. Pull the trigger once. Now pull again. If you dont hear 2 clicks, its not double action no matter what the advertisers would have you believe.

Yes, I'm aware of that but with some of the new and innovative trigger designs I don't think they all fall neatly into those two categories anymore. The trigger on a Glock is not the same as that of a Colt SAA. So, while they both might be "single action" they are not the same. I wouldn't carry a cocked revolver on my hip but I've carried the Glock with a round chambered many times.

The Para Ornance LDA is not a double action trigger as it does not cock the weapon. However, this is right from the ParaOrd website "The Limited LDA is the only 1911 style pistol that maintains the classic Government model lines and gives you a double-action only trigger that is better than many out-of-the-box single-action triggers." I know for a FACT that it does not cock the weapon when you pull the trigger (I own one). Pulling the slide back to chamber a round cocks the weapon. Interestingly, on this design the hammer does return to the "uncocked" position though, allowing you to carry the weapon with the hammer in the uncocked position and the safety on. Pulling the trigger does move the hammer back but if you pull the trigger on it unloaded the trigger does not return to the normal position and pulling it again will not cause the hammer to go back and drop again. The pull is long, smooth and very light, maybe 3-4lbs to pull the trigger and it stages ever so slightly right before the hammer drops.

How would you classify this weapon?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, I can't argue with that. I don't think that the Glock trigger safety really does much of anything to prevent accidental discharges. I don't think this really makes the gun any more dangerous or prone to accidental discharges than any revolver though.

The Glock trigger is neither single action nor is it double action. Technically, since pulling the trigger doesn't cock the weapon it is closer in design to a single action. I say that length of pull and resistence play a role in that though. Would you say that the Para-Ordnance LDA is a single action gun? Pulling the trigger does not cock the weapon but it is definitely not the same as a 1911 or a SAA.

I have no experience with the Para so I'll withhold judgement. But in simple terms, double action cocks and fires, single action only fires. A real simple and effective test is to cycle the weapon manually with no rounds in it. Pull the trigger once. Now pull again. If you dont hear 2 clicks, its not double action no matter what the advertisers would have you believe.

Yes, I'm aware of that but with some of the new and innovative trigger designs I don't think they all fall neatly into those two categories anymore. The trigger on a Glock is not the same as that of a Colt SAA. So, while they both might be "single action" they are not the same. I wouldn't carry a cocked revolver on my hip but I've carried the Glock with a round chambered many times.

The Para Ornance LDA is not a double action trigger as it does not cock the weapon. However, this is right from the ParaOrd website "The Limited LDA is the only 1911 style pistol that maintains the classic Government model lines and gives you a double-action only trigger that is better than many out-of-the-box single-action triggers." I know for a FACT that it does not cock the weapon when you pull the trigger (I own one). Pulling the slide back to chamber a round cocks the weapon. Interestingly, on this design the hammer does return to the "uncocked" position though, allowing you to carry the weapon with the hammer in the uncocked position and the safety on. Pulling the trigger does move the hammer back but if you pull the trigger on it unloaded the trigger does not return to the normal position and pulling it again will not cause the hammer to go back and drop again. The pull is long, smooth and very light, maybe 3-4lbs to pull the trigger and it stages ever so slightly right before the hammer drops.

How would you classify this weapon?

Load sensing double action? 😀
I'd still put it in a single action class. IF it only functions as double action when its loaded (Or detects a round in the chamber) then its only a double action when its loaded and not a TRUE double action as per definition. More of a highly advanced single action.

I do see your point however.

 

[JulesMaximus]

BTW-I think the 1911 is a horrible suggestion for a gun n00B for home defense and carry. I own a couple of them and once I found that, while carrying it in a hip holster, that the safety had snicked off because of the holster thumbsnap. I happened to notice it when I was drawing the weapon and I kept my finger OFF the trigger until I cleared the weapon. That only happened once but it was quite unnerving. I know for a fact that I had the safety on when I put it in the holster.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BTW-I think the 1911 is a horrible suggestion for a gun n00B for home defense and carry. I own a couple of them and once I found that, while carrying it in a hip holster, that the safety had snicked off because of the holster thumbsnap. I happened to notice it when I was drawing the weapon and I kept my finger OFF the trigger until I cleared the weapon. That only happened once but it was quite unnerving. I know for a fact that I had the safety on when I put it in the holster.

And if you had touched the trigger (even by accident) the gun would have discharged because the safety was off.
And if it was a Glock the same thing would have happened, because the safety is on the trigger. Except in the case of your 1911 it was an isolated incidence of the safety moving to the fire position, whereas with the Glock the safety will ALWAYS move to the fire position if you touch the trigger.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, I can't argue with that. I don't think that the Glock trigger safety really does much of anything to prevent accidental discharges. I don't think this really makes the gun any more dangerous or prone to accidental discharges than any revolver though.

The Glock trigger is neither single action nor is it double action. Technically, since pulling the trigger doesn't cock the weapon it is closer in design to a single action. I say that length of pull and resistence play a role in that though. Would you say that the Para-Ordnance LDA is a single action gun? Pulling the trigger does not cock the weapon but it is definitely not the same as a 1911 or a SAA.

I have no experience with the Para so I'll withhold judgement. But in simple terms, double action cocks and fires, single action only fires. A real simple and effective test is to cycle the weapon manually with no rounds in it. Pull the trigger once. Now pull again. If you dont hear 2 clicks, its not double action no matter what the advertisers would have you believe.

Yes, I'm aware of that but with some of the new and innovative trigger designs I don't think they all fall neatly into those two categories anymore. The trigger on a Glock is not the same as that of a Colt SAA. So, while they both might be "single action" they are not the same. I wouldn't carry a cocked revolver on my hip but I've carried the Glock with a round chambered many times.

The Para Ornance LDA is not a double action trigger as it does not cock the weapon. However, this is right from the ParaOrd website "The Limited LDA is the only 1911 style pistol that maintains the classic Government model lines and gives you a double-action only trigger that is better than many out-of-the-box single-action triggers." I know for a FACT that it does not cock the weapon when you pull the trigger (I own one). Pulling the slide back to chamber a round cocks the weapon. Interestingly, on this design the hammer does return to the "uncocked" position though, allowing you to carry the weapon with the hammer in the uncocked position and the safety on. Pulling the trigger does move the hammer back but if you pull the trigger on it unloaded the trigger does not return to the normal position and pulling it again will not cause the hammer to go back and drop again. The pull is long, smooth and very light, maybe 3-4lbs to pull the trigger and it stages ever so slightly right before the hammer drops.

How would you classify this weapon?

Load sensing double action? 😀
I'd still put it in a single action class. IF it only functions as double action when its loaded (Or detects a round in the chamber) then its only a double action when its loaded and not a TRUE double action as per definition. More of a highly advanced single action.

I do see your point however.

Yeah, it is the action of racking the slide that cocks the striker or firing pin. It is similar to the Glock in that respect. It doesn't sense anything. If I pull the slide back and let it return to battery it is ready to fire again. If I pull the trigger on an empty chamber I would need to rack the slide again in order for the trigger to return to the ready to fire position. It's really quite unique. I would suggest that anyone who is into 1911 pistols give this one a try. They make it with a single stack and a double stack magazine.

BTW-When I said earlier that "If you put your finger on the trigger and apply pressure you've got to expect that it's going to fire a bullet", that was pretty much what it says in the manual for my Colt Officer's model.

Right out of the manual: "This Colt pistol is designed primarily to discharge bullets, and it will do this efficiently when it is loaded and you squeeze the trigger. Always expect the gun to fire when you squeeze the trigger." 😀

 

[OJ]

I thought you wanted the weapon to fire if you pulled the trigger? (Glock)

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BTW-I think the 1911 is a horrible suggestion for a gun n00B for home defense and carry. I own a couple of them and once I found that, while carrying it in a hip holster, that the safety had snicked off because of the holster thumbsnap. I happened to notice it when I was drawing the weapon and I kept my finger OFF the trigger until I cleared the weapon. That only happened once but it was quite unnerving. I know for a fact that I had the safety on when I put it in the holster.

And if you had touched the trigger (even by accident) the gun would have discharged because the safety was off.
And if it was a Glock the same thing would have happened, because the safety is on the trigger. Except in the case of your 1911 it was an isolated incidence of the safety moving to the fire position, whereas with the Glock the safety will ALWAYS move to the fire position if you touch the trigger.

The trigger on the 1911 is much lighter than that of the Glock though and the pull is much shorter. Still, I don't put my finger in there until I'm ready to fire the weapon or I know it is unloaded and/or pointing in a safe direction. Even if the weapon is unloaded I NEVER point it at anything I wouldn't want to shoot. I'm always aware of where the muzzle is pointing.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BTW-I think the 1911 is a horrible suggestion for a gun n00B for home defense and carry. I own a couple of them and once I found that, while carrying it in a hip holster, that the safety had snicked off because of the holster thumbsnap. I happened to notice it when I was drawing the weapon and I kept my finger OFF the trigger until I cleared the weapon. That only happened once but it was quite unnerving. I know for a fact that I had the safety on when I put it in the holster.

And if you had touched the trigger (even by accident) the gun would have discharged because the safety was off.
And if it was a Glock the same thing would have happened, because the safety is on the trigger. Except in the case of your 1911 it was an isolated incidence of the safety moving to the fire position, whereas with the Glock the safety will ALWAYS move to the fire position if you touch the trigger.

Thats why you dont touch the trigger PERIOD untill you wish the weapon to fire. This goes for any weapon, not just a glock.

 

[moshquerade]

a loaded one

 

[DMT]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: roguerower
Go w/ a M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. Then a M-16A2 w/ a M203 slung underneath the barrel. Should prove to be a useful deterrant 🙂

Get ready to pay through the roof for a class 3 to get number 1 or #2, and the 203 will be useless since 40mm would be illegal to own.

Of course I carry an M249 every day 😀

A: There's no such thing as a "class three" for ordinary folks.

B: IIRC there may not be any M249's that are transferrable samples.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BTW-I think the 1911 is a horrible suggestion for a gun n00B for home defense and carry. I own a couple of them and once I found that, while carrying it in a hip holster, that the safety had snicked off because of the holster thumbsnap. I happened to notice it when I was drawing the weapon and I kept my finger OFF the trigger until I cleared the weapon. That only happened once but it was quite unnerving. I know for a fact that I had the safety on when I put it in the holster.

And if you had touched the trigger (even by accident) the gun would have discharged because the safety was off.
And if it was a Glock the same thing would have happened, because the safety is on the trigger. Except in the case of your 1911 it was an isolated incidence of the safety moving to the fire position, whereas with the Glock the safety will ALWAYS move to the fire position if you touch the trigger.

Thats why you dont touch the trigger PERIOD untill you wish the weapon to fire. This goes for any weapon, not just a glock.

Then why is there accidental discharges?
We're getting into a cyclical argument. Needless to say, I think the Glock safety system sucks.
On that note however I wouldnt NOT buy a Glock simply for that.

I'm more worried about it blowing up in my hands..... 😉

😀

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BTW-I think the 1911 is a horrible suggestion for a gun n00B for home defense and carry. I own a couple of them and once I found that, while carrying it in a hip holster, that the safety had snicked off because of the holster thumbsnap. I happened to notice it when I was drawing the weapon and I kept my finger OFF the trigger until I cleared the weapon. That only happened once but it was quite unnerving. I know for a fact that I had the safety on when I put it in the holster.

And if you had touched the trigger (even by accident) the gun would have discharged because the safety was off.
And if it was a Glock the same thing would have happened, because the safety is on the trigger. Except in the case of your 1911 it was an isolated incidence of the safety moving to the fire position, whereas with the Glock the safety will ALWAYS move to the fire position if you touch the trigger.

Thats why you dont touch the trigger PERIOD untill you wish the weapon to fire. This goes for any weapon, not just a glock.

Then why is there accidental discharges?
We're getting into a cyclical argument. Needless to say, I think the Glock safety system sucks.
On that note however I wouldnt NOT buy a Glock simply for that.

I'm more worried about it blowing up in my hands..... 😉

😀

Why? The slide and the barrel are metal. It's no more likely to blow up in your hands than any other gun.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BTW-I think the 1911 is a horrible suggestion for a gun n00B for home defense and carry. I own a couple of them and once I found that, while carrying it in a hip holster, that the safety had snicked off because of the holster thumbsnap. I happened to notice it when I was drawing the weapon and I kept my finger OFF the trigger until I cleared the weapon. That only happened once but it was quite unnerving. I know for a fact that I had the safety on when I put it in the holster.

And if you had touched the trigger (even by accident) the gun would have discharged because the safety was off.
And if it was a Glock the same thing would have happened, because the safety is on the trigger. Except in the case of your 1911 it was an isolated incidence of the safety moving to the fire position, whereas with the Glock the safety will ALWAYS move to the fire position if you touch the trigger.

Thats why you dont touch the trigger PERIOD untill you wish the weapon to fire. This goes for any weapon, not just a glock.

That's a rule I follow religiously unless I'm dry snapping it...or snapping a pic of it in my hand! 😀

 

[TallBill]

Then why is there accidental discharges?
We're getting into a cyclical argument. Needless to say, I think the Glock safety system sucks.
On that note however I wouldnt NOT buy a Glock simply for that.

I'm more worried about it blowing up in my hands.....

Maybe if your using hot handloads.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Then why is there accidental discharges?
We're getting into a cyclical argument. Needless to say, I think the Glock safety system sucks.
On that note however I wouldnt NOT buy a Glock simply for that.

I'm more worried about it blowing up in my hands.....

Maybe if your using hot handloads.

Ohhh nooo man, those Glocks are just Kabooms waiting to happen!!

😉

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Why? The slide and the barrel are metal. It's no more likely to blow up in your hands than any other gun.

Theres been isolated instances of catastrophic failures. Not entirely related to Glock or its QC/manufacturing processes, but there have been instances. Mainly related to the ammo.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Why? The slide and the barrel are metal. It's no more likely to blow up in your hands than any other gun.

Theres been isolated instances of catastrophic failures. Not entirely related to Glock or its QC/manufacturing processes, but there have been instances. Entirely related to the ammo.

Fixed

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DMT

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: roguerower
Go w/ a M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. Then a M-16A2 w/ a M203 slung underneath the barrel. Should prove to be a useful deterrant 🙂

Get ready to pay through the roof for a class 3 to get number 1 or #2, and the 203 will be useless since 40mm would be illegal to own.

Of course I carry an M249 every day 😀

A: There's no such thing as a "class three" for ordinary folks.

B: IIRC there may not be any M249's that are transferrable samples.

In regards to A, not true. Some states do allow class 3 ownership with proper licensing (oregon is one).

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: chowmein

Originally posted by: blackinches
blackinches likes the h&k usp socom. but in close quarters a shotgun does sound like the best bet.

just out of curiosity do you live in a really bad neighborhood or are you a drug dealer?

blackinches must play counterstrike.

Fixed.

I conquer

conquer, or concur?

Well, I guess I concur with what he said, but "I conquer" references a Simpsons joke...