I've tried two sets of grips on two different pistols recently and made some initial changes based on how the gun felt in hand.
The first was a Walther Q5. The large grip that comes with the Q5 is ridiculously uncomfortable and completely unsuitable for the human hand. It hurts to grip it hard. So I put on the medium grip on, which felt great, and started shooting. But the recoil was really erratic. Switching to the large grip made was less comfortable, but with it the dot tracked directly up and down very predictably.
And I had a similar situation with an M&P 2.0. The 1.0 medium grips are too thin for me so I've always used the 1.0 large grip, even though it feels too large for me. The new 2.0s have a medium-large grip that has the same depth as the medium with the palm swell of the large. It feels like Moses brought it down off a mountain just for my hand. But in use the large grip positions my trigger finger more appropriately and I'm less likely to push the gun around during the trigger press, even though it "feels" less comfortable.
Stuff like this is one of the big reasons I hate hearing "just see which one feels best" when selecting new guns. How it feels isn't as important as how it shoots. And the two don't always have a positive correlation.
I've noticed over the years that a number of guns that felt uncomfortably huge in the hand were actually comfortable to shoot. Not to mention triggers that were very uninspiring in dry fire that ran great. But that's what happens I guess when you try to characterize a dynamic system using a static test.
I have one of the Ruger 4.62" barreled SuperBlackhawks, which have the smaller Blackhawk grip frame.
Uncomfortable to shoot with full-snort loads. I just couldn't get a decent grip, and the recoil was uncomfortable.
A fellow mentioned that he had put some extended grips on his and noticed an improvement. So I ordered a set and tried them. With the pinky finger finally able to help hold on and the grip itself filling the hand better, the little .44 Mag is well-behaved and fun to shoot now.
I've noticed over the years that a number of guns that felt uncomfortably huge in the hand were actually comfortable to shoot. Not to mention triggers that were very uninspiring in dry fire that ran great. But that's what happens I guess when you try to characterize a dynamic system using a static test.
I had that experience when I first shot the G21. I thought it was uncomfortably large, felt like I might drop it, yada-yada. But I shot it the best of any Glocks I've used. After a couple magazines I settled down, never dropped it when shooting weak hand, and discovered I really liked it. Still like holstering a loaf of bread, but I'm not in the Cop business so I don't care.
I've tried two sets of grips on two different pistols recently and made some initial changes based on how the gun felt in hand.
The first was a Walther Q5. The large grip that comes with the Q5 is ridiculously uncomfortable and completely unsuitable for the human hand. It hurts to grip it hard. So I put on the medium grip on, which felt great, and started shooting. But the recoil was really erratic. Switching to the large grip made was less comfortable, but with it the dot tracked directly up and down very predictably.
And I had a similar situation with an M&P 2.0. The 1.0 medium grips are too thin for me so I've always used the 1.0 large grip, even though it feels too large for me. The new 2.0s have a medium-large grip that has the same depth as the medium with the palm swell of the large. It feels like Moses brought it down off a mountain just for my hand. But in use the large grip positions my trigger finger more appropriately and I'm less likely to push the gun around during the trigger press, even though it "feels" less comfortable.
Stuff like this is one of the big reasons I hate hearing "just see which one feels best" when selecting new guns. How it feels isn't as important as how it shoots. And the two don't always have a positive correlation.
What you're saying is probably worth saying but...relate it to the old west. You're in a store and there are two brand new handguns available. One is a Colt SAA and the other is a Smith and Wesson Schofield. Both were issued to the cavalry in the mid-1870's. Both are quality guns and for some reason, the only available ammo is military surplus that fits in both (45 S&W). So you've got two guns relatively equal in size and weight and shooting the same cartridge. You pick both up. The Colt points naturally and feels like an extension of your arm. The Smith feels like a chunk of 2x4. You pick the Colt. You just picked a gun because it felt better.
To me, there is little difference between a Glock and a Smith M&P but the M&P feels better. I've got the M&P.
I have no idea what an imaginary scenario in 1870 has to do with anything. But if I were that guy the correct answer would still be to actually shoot the thing and make decisions off of hits rather than feelings.
I've tried two sets of grips on two different pistols recently and made some initial changes based on how the gun felt in hand.
The first was a Walther Q5. The large grip that comes with the Q5 is ridiculously uncomfortable and completely unsuitable for the human hand. It hurts to grip it hard. So I put on the medium grip on, which felt great, and started shooting. But the recoil was really erratic. Switching to the large grip made was less comfortable, but with it the dot tracked directly up and down very predictably.
And I had a similar situation with an M&P 2.0. The 1.0 medium grips are too thin for me so I've always used the 1.0 large grip, even though it feels too large for me. The new 2.0s have a medium-large grip that has the same depth as the medium with the palm swell of the large. It feels like Moses brought it down off a mountain just for my hand. But in use the large grip positions my trigger finger more appropriately and I'm less likely to push the gun around during the trigger press, even though it "feels" less comfortable.
Stuff like this is one of the big reasons I hate hearing "just see which one feels best" when selecting new guns. How it feels isn't as important as how it shoots. And the two don't always have a positive correlation.
Blue how hard of a grip do you use? I grip almost every defensive gun with an absolute death grip. It’s never really comfortable form me as much as it is awkward/less awkward. Right or wrong its how I have learned to shoot fast and accurately. Take for instance Glocks with and without finger groves. It virtually doesn’t matter which one I have, the finger groves “disappear” figuratively Crush grip I give. Conversely I have a more organic approach to grip when it comes to hunting handguns where my focus isn’t on the balance speed and accuracy.
If your hands don't grip the gun completely I feel like you might not have as good of control over the gun as you would with a smaller grip frame gun. The glock 17, 19, 23 etc grip frames are easier for me to shoot well because I have a very high grip on the pistol with my thumbs pointed forward along the side of the slide, I cannot grip the G21 as well. I shoot a G17 better than I shoot a g21.
I have no idea what an imaginary scenario in 1870 has to do with anything. But if I were that guy the correct answer would still be to actually shoot the thing and make decisions off of hits rather than feelings.
Nice sarcasm. Here's another one to gig: Neither the Schofield nor the SAA were around in 1870, so the scenario truly would be imaginary unless you were in The Comancheros.
I've owned and shot both guns. About the same accuracy. The Schofield is a little more delicate over the long haul. You couldn't tell that by shooting it a couple of times. The SAA is slower to reload. In the end, the SAA feels better and many would make the decision based on that. Same thing if you had a Glock and an M&P at the range testing them. About the same...so why not make a decision based on feel.
I disagree that you are making a decision based on feelings. "Feel" may be sort of subjective, which is what I guess you're saying when you say "feelings" but it isn't a decision based on emotions really. It's how the gun feels in your hand. I will say that I've been about ready to cry after shooting some guns, but that was due to recoil hurting my hand as opposed to...say it bringing up feelings of despair or the like.
Anyway, try very hard in an objective scenario to not consider how the gun feels if you wish. You have my blessings.
You are at the range and practicing your presentation. One gun is significantly quicker to get into action and make hits with. You can objectify the description of this "test" for your decision, or you can chalk it up to part of how it feels. Same for just picking it up off the table and scoring a hit. ...OR picking it up off the ground and shooting for some "dropped gun" drill.
The bottom line is that for most of us, how a gun feels is important. Telling a woman to simply pick up each in an array of guns and you'll get her the one that "feels" best is probably not a good idea though, unless you've already thoroughly tested them all and figure it's a wash between them anyway.
If your hands don't grip the gun completely I feel like you might not have as good of control over the gun as you would with a smaller grip frame gun. The glock 17, 19, 23 etc grip frames are easier for me to shoot well because I have a very high grip on the pistol with my thumbs pointed forward along the side of the slide, I cannot grip the G21 as well. I shoot a G17 better than I shoot a g21.
Stuff like this is one of the big reasons I hate hearing "just see which one feels best" when selecting new guns. How it feels isn't as important as how it shoots. And the two don't always have a positive correlation.
And 'how it feels' and 'ooh, nice balance' is usually determined in the gun store with an empty 15 round magazine.
Unless it's a Luger or a 1911, everything else feels like a club or a 2X4..
It depends on the person. Almost everybody likes the feel of a Colt SAA. Lots of people used to NOT like the feel of a 1911. I've noticed quite a few people lately claim to like one, since Glock has pretty much taken over the semi-auto handgun market for serious purposes. Personally I really like how a 1911 handles but I'm sure that's because it was one of the guns I had the most experience handling, early on in my young life.
Sometimes small(er) grips may feel good when picking up a gun, but rarely does a gun shoot better with small grips than something slightly larger...............but there's also such a thing as too large.
But for sure, proof is in the shooting; good shooter can usually make most anything work, after a fashion, doesn't mean it's optimum for sure.
Shooting 1911's recently - a Les Baer and a Kimber 10mm. The Kimber has a short trigger I fitted years ago. The Baer is stock with a long trigger, and probably a better made pistol. I was astonished at how much better I shot the Kimber. I had significantly fewer left to right flyers. Both guns feel fine, but the Baer will get a new, short trigger.
There are a lot of illogical influences that inhibit an individual from selecting equipment that best suits their needs. Operator delusions, Fad Foolishness, Gear-Queerness, Tac-Tardness and outright Fuddness are just a few. I saw them all in 25 years. Luckily in my case, there were equipment and performance standards in place to limit the foolishness.
Particularly later in my career as a LE FTO, there were almost no limits on the size and strength of the people I had to bring up to those standards. Feel and Fit are two different things. Fit is the one that affects results on target.
I've tried two sets of grips on two different pistols recently and made some initial changes based on how the gun felt in hand.
The first was a Walther Q5. The large grip that comes with the Q5 is ridiculously uncomfortable and completely unsuitable for the human hand. It hurts to grip it hard. So I put on the medium grip on, which felt great, and started shooting. But the recoil was really erratic. Switching to the large grip made was less comfortable, but with it the dot tracked directly up and down very predictably.
And I had a similar situation with an M&P 2.0. The 1.0 medium grips are too thin for me so I've always used the 1.0 large grip, even though it feels too large for me. The new 2.0s have a medium-large grip that has the same depth as the medium with the palm swell of the large. It feels like Moses brought it down off a mountain just for my hand. But in use the large grip positions my trigger finger more appropriately and I'm less likely to push the gun around during the trigger press, even though it "feels" less comfortable.
Stuff like this is one of the big reasons I hate hearing "just see which one feels best" when selecting new guns. How it feels isn't as important as how it shoots. And the two don't always have a positive correlation.
Blue how hard of a grip do you use? I grip almost every defensive gun with an absolute death grip. It’s never really comfortable form me as much as it is awkward/less awkward. Right or wrong its how I have learned to shoot fast and accurately. Take for instance Glocks with and without finger groves. It virtually doesn’t matter which one I have, the finger groves “disappear” figuratively Crush grip I give. Conversely I have a more organic approach to grip when it comes to hunting handguns where my focus isn’t on the balance speed and accuracy.
With my support hand I grip as tight as I can. With my strong hand I grip as tight as I can and still avoid trigger freeze.
I have no idea what an imaginary scenario in 1870 has to do with anything. But if I were that guy the correct answer would still be to actually shoot the thing and make decisions off of hits rather than feelings.
Nice sarcasm. Here's another one to gig: Neither the Schofield nor the SAA were around in 1870, so the scenario truly would be imaginary unless you were in The Comancheros.
I've owned and shot both guns. About the same accuracy. The Schofield is a little more delicate over the long haul. You couldn't tell that by shooting it a couple of times. The SAA is slower to reload. In the end, the SAA feels better and many would make the decision based on that. Same thing if you had a Glock and an M&P at the range testing them. About the same...so why not make a decision based on feel.
I disagree that you are making a decision based on feelings. "Feel" may be sort of subjective, which is what I guess you're saying when you say "feelings" but it isn't a decision based on emotions really. It's how the gun feels in your hand. I will say that I've been about ready to cry after shooting some guns, but that was due to recoil hurting my hand as opposed to...say it bringing up feelings of despair or the like.
Anyway, try very hard in an objective scenario to not consider how the gun feels if you wish. You have my blessings.
That wasn’t sarcasm. I legitimately don’t understand what your incoherent ramblings about how delicate a Schoffield are have to do with our conversations.
And I will continue to try to objectively choose a gun based on how the gun performs rather than how it feels in my hand. I have two examples in my original post about how the feel of the gun in hand didn’t positively correlate to its performance. And both times I chose performance over feel.
Stuff like this is one of the big reasons I hate hearing "just see which one feels best" when selecting new guns. How it feels isn't as important as how it shoots. And the two don't always have a positive correlation.
The sucky thing is that with gun purchasing, there's not often a "try before you buy" option, unless the buyer has access to a range that will rent the exact gun they're looking to purchase, or has a friend with the gun they're looking to buy, and will let them give it a test drive. It would really suck if we couldn't test drive a new vehicle before purchase, but with guns we mostly take it for granted.
Stuff like this is one of the big reasons I hate hearing "just see which one feels best" when selecting new guns. How it feels isn't as important as how it shoots. And the two don't always have a positive correlation.
The sucky thing is that with gun purchasing, there's not often a "try before you buy" option, unless the buyer has access to a range that will rent the exact gun they're looking to purchase, or has a friend with the gun they're looking to buy, and will let them give it a test drive. It would really suck if we couldn't test drive a new vehicle before purchase, but with guns we mostly take it for granted.
Even new vehicle test drives don't tell us much about the performace or fit of a car. We all know how this goes with holsters. We buy and try, and throw some in The Box. With cars, you're stuck with the big depreciation. With good holsters and with guns, resale isn't such a loss. If you have to buy to try, at least get the best price you can in both directions. But don't marry a gun that doesn't fit.
I won't mention the make/caliber,but I picked one up in a pawn shop and was sold as soon as my hand curled around the grip.I admit to having less experience than a lot you posting here,but that weapon really spoke to me so for me "feel" was important.
'How it feels' changes for me with use, after mostly shooting 1911's for years, I started with my p226, then a gen4 m21, after awhile they both felt great, I shoot the Sig more accurately because I think it's a more accurate pistol than my Glock, just center punched the shoulders of a garden bunny the other day with a 200gr xtp at 22 yards with the sig, that's pretty good shooting for me.
Initial feel in the hand isn't half as important as most people seem to think. 95% of shooting a gun well is learning the gun, not how it felt when you were in the gun store and holding it.
Unless it's a Luger or a 1911, everything else feels like a club or a 2X4..
It depends on the person. Almost everybody likes the feel of a Colt SAA. Lots of people used to NOT like the feel of a 1911. I've noticed quite a few people lately claim to like one, since Glock has pretty much taken over the semi-auto handgun market for serious purposes. Personally I really like how a 1911 handles but I'm sure that's because it was one of the guns I had the most experience handling, early on in my young life.
Yep, handle most popular guns long enough, and they just feel right in the hand and come to point "naturally."
Even new vehicle test drives don't tell us much about the performace or fit of a car. We all know how this goes with holsters. We buy and try, and throw some in The Box. With cars, you're stuck with the big depreciation. With good holsters and with guns, resale isn't such a loss. If you have to buy to try, at least get the best price you can in both directions. But don't marry a gun that doesn't fit.
I have no idea what an imaginary scenario in 1870 has to do with anything. But if I were that guy the correct answer would still be to actually shoot the thing and make decisions off of hits rather than feelings.
Nice sarcasm. Here's another one to gig: Neither the Schofield nor the SAA were around in 1870, so the scenario truly would be imaginary unless you were in The Comancheros.
I've owned and shot both guns. About the same accuracy. The Schofield is a little more delicate over the long haul. You couldn't tell that by shooting it a couple of times. The SAA is slower to reload. In the end, the SAA feels better and many would make the decision based on that. Same thing if you had a Glock and an M&P at the range testing them. About the same...so why not make a decision based on feel.
I disagree that you are making a decision based on feelings. "Feel" may be sort of subjective, which is what I guess you're saying when you say "feelings" but it isn't a decision based on emotions really. It's how the gun feels in your hand. I will say that I've been about ready to cry after shooting some guns, but that was due to recoil hurting my hand as opposed to...say it bringing up feelings of despair or the like.
Anyway, try very hard in an objective scenario to not consider how the gun feels if you wish. You have my blessings.
That wasn’t sarcasm. I legitimately don’t understand what your incoherent ramblings about how delicate a Schoffield are have to do with our conversations.
And I will continue to try to objectively choose a gun based on how the gun performs rather than how it feels in my hand. I have two examples in my original post about how the feel of the gun in hand didn’t positively correlate to its performance. And both times I chose performance over feel.
The stuff I posted was nowhere near incoherent and if you can't understand it you either lack intelligence or are purposely misunderstanding.
While choosing a handgun based solely upon how it feels in your hand is certainly unwise, how it feels is still important. Perhaps you can understand the summary with no examples to confuse you.
While choosing a handgun based solely upon how it feels in your hand is certainly unwise, how it feels is still important. Perhaps you can understand the summary with no examples to confuse you.
Yes. Eliminating the unnecessary, pointless, rambling about imaginary old west scenarios with imaginary old west guns that may or may not have existed at the time of the imaginary scenario helped a great deal in clarifying your comment.
I've tried two sets of grips on two different pistols recently and made some initial changes based on how the gun felt in hand.
The first was a Walther Q5. The large grip that comes with the Q5 is ridiculously uncomfortable and completely unsuitable for the human hand. It hurts to grip it hard. So I put on the medium grip on, which felt great, and started shooting. But the recoil was really erratic. Switching to the large grip made was less comfortable, but with it the dot tracked directly up and down very predictably.
And I had a similar situation with an M&P 2.0. The 1.0 medium grips are too thin for me so I've always used the 1.0 large grip, even though it feels too large for me. The new 2.0s have a medium-large grip that has the same depth as the medium with the palm swell of the large. It feels like Moses brought it down off a mountain just for my hand. But in use the large grip positions my trigger finger more appropriately and I'm less likely to push the gun around during the trigger press, even though it "feels" less comfortable.
Stuff like this is one of the big reasons I hate hearing "just see which one feels best" when selecting new guns. How it feels isn't as important as how it shoots. And the two don't always have a positive correlation.
This has been my experience as well.
The interchangeable back straps make a big difference. The problem is most shooters (and instructors) don't swap them out and shoot drills under time to determine which truly fits them better. And if they do it's done in a rushed and unscientific manner that leaves most of the testing inconclusive.
But then again, a huge problem with most handgunners is they don't even use a timer to begin with. So they have on idea how well they are or aren't shooting when it comes to fit of a handgun to the shooter.
At the end of the day, you will see very little difference in score when a good shooter switches between multiple handguns on the same course of fire. A slower split here, a dropped round due to lack of familiarity there, but overall, a good shooter is going to shoot a pretty decent score with just about anything.
In short. How a gun "feels" is nonsense. In my experience.
Not being a smart ass but trying to parse out reliability and for example magazine capacity as a function of performance.
In those comments I was isolating the performance of the gun independent of its reliability or capacity. My thoughts were completely on how the gun acted when it was fired. -How accurate can I be when firing the gun in slow, deliberate fire? -How do the sights track in recoil and how consistently do the sights return to the point of aim after recoil? -Does the gun shift in my hand during recoil, changing any of the other things I was considering from shot to shot?
Stuff like this is one of the big reasons I hate hearing "just see which one feels best" when selecting new guns. How it feels isn't as important as how it shoots. And the two don't always have a positive correlation.
The sucky thing is that with gun purchasing, there's not often a "try before you buy" option, unless the buyer has access to a range that will rent the exact gun they're looking to purchase, or has a friend with the gun they're looking to buy, and will let them give it a test drive. It would really suck if we couldn't test drive a new vehicle before purchase, but with guns we mostly take it for granted.
Yes.
But if it's something you're committed to and something you spend time researching and spending thousands of dollars on, you should probably prepare yourself to buy, swap, trade, and test until you find what is truly working best for you.
Or just learn to shoot well period and not worry about the nuances of it all.
Yes. Eliminating the unnecessary, pointless, rambling about imaginary old west scenarios with imaginary old west guns that may or may not have existed at the time of the imaginary scenario helped a great deal in clarifying your comment.
Imaginary guns are guns that don't exist. Both of these models did/do exist. The reason they were used was that experienced gunners oft times comment on the difference in feel between them. IMO there is little difference between the feel of plastic guns anyway, so harder to differentiate. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused you. I'll try to dumb it down for you if I comment on one of your posts again.
Not being a smart ass but trying to parse out reliability and for example magazine capacity as a function of performance.
In those comments I was isolating the performance of the gun independent of its reliability or capacity. My thoughts were completely on how the gun acted when it was fired. -How accurate can I be when firing the gun in slow, deliberate fire? -How do the sights track in recoil and how consistently do the sights return to the point of aim after recoil? -Does the gun shift in my hand during recoil, changing any of the other things I was considering from shot to shot?
Thank you. The 1911s fit all those parameters with me to a "tee". The only drawback is of course magazine capacity.
Yes. Eliminating the unnecessary, pointless, rambling about imaginary old west scenarios with imaginary old west guns that may or may not have existed at the time of the imaginary scenario helped a great deal in clarifying your comment.
Imaginary guns are guns that don't exist. Both of these models did/do exist. The reason they were used was that experienced gunners oft times comment on the difference in feel between them. IMO there is little difference between the feel of plastic guns anyway, so harder to differentiate. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused you. I'll try to dumb it down for you if I comment on one of your posts again.
Don’t stop. You should talk more about them. It’s fascinating, and very relevant to the conversation at hand.
Yes. Eliminating the unnecessary, pointless, rambling about imaginary old west scenarios with imaginary old west guns that may or may not have existed at the time of the imaginary scenario helped a great deal in clarifying your comment.
Imaginary guns are guns that don't exist. Both of these models did/do exist. The reason they were used was that experienced gunners oft times comment on the difference in feel between them. IMO there is little difference between the feel of plastic guns anyway, so harder to differentiate. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused you. I'll try to dumb it down for you if I comment on one of your posts again.
Don’t stop. You should talk more about them. It’s fascinating, and very relevant to the conversation at hand.
When it gets down to it, you just created a thread about nothing, bound to end in nothing. How it "feels" is no more subjective than "how it shoots". Either can be completely subjective or loaded with objectivity depending on what is meant.
I used the old west guns because the difference is stark to people who are experienced with them. The black guns you favor and which this thread is limited to, I guess, have little objective differences between them and in a sense lend themselves very well to picking one on "how it feels".
Anybody who lays say, three guns out and tells for instance, a lady friend to just pick the one that feels best, when let's say, two of them are inferior to the other one in most other objective aspects, is indeed stupid. Why would anybody lay out two guns that are woefully inaccurate and unreliable and tell anybody to pick the one that felt the best? OTOH if you have three guns laid out that are all relatively equal in terms of accuracy, reliability and whatnot and then tell the person to pick the one that feels best to her, then what is the problem? Certainly it would be even better if you were at a gun store featuring a range where you could rent specimens of the same gun and see which she shoots the best.
Knowing a bit about women, it's certainly good in most cases to limit the array to guns that are viable in the first place and if she doesn't think it "feels" good, she is going to be a lot less likely to ever shoot it. If you can rent the gun and she shoots one of the ones that doesn't feel as good, better, then she might make that choice for herself and actually practice with it.
I don't think "feel" is as subjective as you're making it out to be.
Sorry also for introducing guns other than the extremely popular Walther into the equation for purposes of illustration and thus forcing you to come up with smartassed comments.
The whole danged point was that how things feel in the hand don’t always positively correlate to their actual performance when shooting (performance as defined to jorge).
Sometimes what doesn’t feel more gooder does shoot more gooder.
The whole danged point was that how things feel in the hand don’t always positively correlate to their actual performance when shooting (performance as defined to jorge).
Sometimes what doesn’t feel more gooder does shoot more gooder.
That was my point. NOTHING feels like a Luger in my hand, but there is no way I'd carry it as my defensive weapon. A 1911 on the other hand, accomplishes both for me, Make sense?
Thank you. The 1911s fit all those parameters with me to a "tee". The only drawback is of course magazine capacity.
Last I noticed there were at least 50,000 members on the Campfire. If any of them have ever posted about using more than 7 rounds in defensive use I missed it.
Forums and bulletin boards are places for enthusiasts to trade information and expound on their interests. Big Stick, Bluedreaux, and many others post information here that is usually valid and correct. How much it applies to me in everyday life is open to question.
And I'm always gonna go with the pistol that feels and shoots good. If it results in my untimely demise then so be it. I'll take feel good to the grave...
Thank you. The 1911s fit all those parameters with me to a "tee". The only drawback is of course magazine capacity.
Last I noticed there were at least 50,000 members on the Campfire. If any of them have ever posted about using more than 7 rounds in defensive use I missed it.
Forums and bulletin boards are places for enthusiasts to trade information and expound on their interests. Big Stick, Bluedreaux, and many others post information here that is usually valid and correct. How much it applies to me in everyday life is open to question.
And I'm always gonna go with the pistol that feels and shoots good. If it results in my untimely demise then so be it. I'll take feel good to the grave...
You had my attention until you cited Stick as a cognoscenti of anything but FUGLY rifles with pirates, f a g g o t y colored stocks and cheap ass scopes...
Thank you. The 1911s fit all those parameters with me to a "tee". The only drawback is of course magazine capacity.
Last I noticed there were at least 50,000 members on the Campfire. If any of them have ever posted about using more than 7 rounds in defensive use I missed it.
Thank you. The 1911s fit all those parameters with me to a "tee". The only drawback is of course magazine capacity.
Last I noticed there were at least 50,000 members on the Campfire. If any of them have ever posted about using more than 7 rounds in defensive use I missed it.
![[Linked Image]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47082461744_6e6aefd27d_c.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/39219.jpg)
