Wheelgunner

He's talented. I bet I've listened to "White House Road" 20 times - can't get enough. On a completely different note, I found Scott Bradlee's Postmodern Jukebox a few months ago, and I like their stuff a lot. They do a version of "Seven Nation Army" that'll make you feel like Al Capone.

For anyone interested in good maps with MGRS coordinates, there used to be a website called MyTopo where you could order them easily in 1:50,000 or 1:100,000 scale. It's probably still around. If things ever go seriously wrong, a good topographical map in a zip lock bag (or field acetate, if you're that guy) can make a big difference.

Robtattoo, do you already have a chest holster that you like that just doesn't fit the SBH? Instead of buying a new holster for a gun you already have... you could buy a new GUN for a holster you already have.

This. I bet they just said, "If we take equipment and materials that we already have and already use to produce .38s...and we bore .32" chambers instead, what is the hottest .32 cartridge the resulting cylinder could handle?" Frankly, my hat is off to them for acknowledging their limitations. Wish Ruger had done the same with their 7-round .357 GP100.

If you like movies with realistic firefights, check out The Town. Ronin also comes to mind. Even though it's not as "gritty" as some recent flicks, it's cool to see how the characters plan an ambush.

Has anybody heard of crimp jump in an ultra light .38 like these? It seems like I've only read about that in very light .44 mag and .45 LC revolvers. @Quavodus - FWIW, I had a Taurus .357 awhIle back and liked it. I wouldn't hesitate to carry a Taurus revolver.

This could make a great carry gun. I also like the looks of the 8-round Redhawk, though it would serve a different purpose. I'm pretty impressed with Ruger's effort to expand their lineup of revolvers. I just hope we don't see any other new models with problems like the 7-round GP100 had.

I agree. A similar bill has been introduced in Tennessee (SB 1010/HB 1427) - i.e., requiring all firearm transfers to go through FFL and involve a background check. Mailed letters yesterday to my state senator and state representative urging them to oppose it.

@ volshayes - Thank you. That's very helpful information.

Reagan gave us some words to live by. The video is well worth the four minutes of your life.

Yes. Reminds me of the Jarrod Reston video we discussed here several months ago. I think his words were "Do work first, then send radio traffic" or something to that effect.

I have not yet read Representative Dickerson's bill. Consequently, I do not have a concrete or meaningful opinion on it. However, I deeply distrust any individual who uses the phrase "gun violence". It is a cheap catchphrase often used by a segment of the American population that seeks at all costs to do two things: 1) convince us that individual responsibility is somehow inadequate; and 2) convince us that there is such a thing as perfect and constant safety. My starting point is a firm belief that grown folks should be left alone until their conduct puts others in immediate danger, and that when that happens, it is sufficient to hold the wrongdoing man responsible without looking beyond him. It would be unthinkable to enact a law allowing judicial circumscription of a man's freedom of religion because others believe he's off his rocker. Heller and McDonald are the law; the right is as much an individual right as the right to worship God as each man sees fit. There is no clear or persuasive reason why one constitutionally protected right is due less legal protection than another. Many in the State House are not attorneys and are not even well-read on legal issues. I hope Representative Dickerson is aware of the constitutional issues raised by any preemptive curtailment of a Tennessean's rights.

Agreed. Unlike most of the consumer crap sold today, firearms have inherent value. And as long as a firearm is in working order, it continues to be valuable as a tool. Add to that the sentimental value of an inherited piece, and I'm keeping it. Glad to pass on to the next generation a working piece of family history.

A modified version of "Ed's Red" (equal parts kerosene and synthetic ATF) provides good protection for stainless guns. If you have wood stocks you have to be careful, though, since it can stain.

Quavodus, have you considered buying a Rock Island revolver? They have a spurless snub .38 with fixed sights and wood grip that sells for about $250 new.

@ OP - It is possible to spend a couple hundred dollars (or more) on a handgun vault to mount in a car. Even a more expensive, high quality vault can't protect a handgun where someone just steals the whole car. In light of that, have you considered spending the same amount of money on an inexpensive carry gun instead of a vault?

Just a quick heads up to our members. You've probably heard already, but there's a real bad guy on the run up in Montgomery County between Clarksville and Dover. If you're up that way, be careful, guys. He's not playing around. https://www.wsmv.com/news/search-intensifies-for-tbi-most-wanted-fugitive/article_9e1c9b26-c40c-11e8-b0b3-67cf44fa88d5.html

@john455 - The City of Chicago has clearly failed to hold these firearms accountable. Everybody there agrees that the violence is caused by guns, yet not a single gun has been charged with homicide and sent to prison.

In my opinion, that kind of role is where a revolver in a powerful caliber really shines. For example, a 3" barreled .357 mag is small enough to carry virtually all the time. You can load it with .38 Special to make follow-up shots easier. On the farm, stoke it with premium heavy grain .357 magnum ammo for better performance a little farther out. (Buffalo Bore's 180 grain hard cast LFN round comes to mind. ) Of course, what you gain in versatility you lose in reload speed and weight. There's always a tradeoff, I guess.

@ james.price - Welcome to the forum. You pose a good question, and you may well find a small gun that you shoot more accurately than the XSP to fill the EDC role. But to me the bottom line is that your accuracy with the Colt is adequate for the purpose. You probably don't need superb accuracy at 30 or 40 yards from a concealed carry weapon. While most infantry firefights occur within 100 yards of the enemy, the majority of self-defense engagements (in the U.S.) probably occur within 10 yards of the bad guy. Many take place at contact distance. To me, the concealed carry weapon only serves 2 purposes: 1) end threats within my immediate surroundings, and 2) help me get to the long gun.

Maybe SA's announcement will teach other big retail chains not to act like Dick's.

Armslist shows a blued 3" EAA for $300 in Knoxville. If the budget is under $500 and it has to be .357 (instead of. 38 Special), then your best bet is finding a Charter, Rossi, or EAA at a pawn shop.

Outstanding review - very informative. Thanks for posting.

I'm all for using simple, straightforward vocabulary in the national dialogue on this issue. However, the left's euphemistic terms are merely a symptom of a more fundamental problem. The reason that I don't engage folks on the left anymore in firearms conversations is their blatant unwillingness to adhere to logic. I'm talking about logic in the classical sense - causation, in particular. Example: As Wayne LaPierre said, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The efforts of the left to disarm the American people are despicable on general principle (that's a different discussion) - but worse than that, they're not logical. When someone can show me how a law prohibiting me from having the means to defend myself can magically shut down the central nervous system of a determined attacker, then I'll be willing to talk to the left. When you get down to the core of the leftist position, it simply does not make sense. Consequently the left must intentionally avoid engaging in direct, logical debate. "Code-speak" is one technique they use to hide the logical fallacies of their platform. Another is the art of emotion-based arguments.

Absolutely. The health care industry players have a strong incentive to support and develop the "more health care" movement. Superficially it seems great - we label more problems as "medical conditions", people get more medicine, gov't pays, the industry's profits increase every year, and we keep reducing the amount of bothersome and awkward (i.e. meaningful) in-person interaction with other human beings. But consider the insidious effects on society. Say I take my car to the shop for an oil change. The mechanic does his work, but when he tries to hand me the bill I say, "No, I'm not paying. Bill the government, because I have a right to automotive care." Sounds crazy. I'm trying to say that hundred years ago the majority of Americans would have thought it impossible for one man to have a right to another man's labor without paying him. Now half the nation talks about the "right to health care" as though it is a notion dating back to Voltaire and Montesquieu - and they spread the idea via social media. (I recognize the irony and hypocrisy of me making this statement in an online discussion forum; mea culpa.)