JAB

My hair color is more or less what I call 'dirty dark blonde' with reddish tones and my beard is more or less red (which makes my hair look more red.) Lately, though, I have found a few stark white hairs in my beard. If mine changes I hope I go snowy white instead of gray. Guys with dark hair can pull off some gray - it often looks 'distinguished' on them. In my case, I am afraid that gray would just make mine look dingy. White would be better. I have a great uncle whose hair and beard - both still full - both went pure white and it actually looks pretty cool, I think.

I don't know but suspect that convenience is a big part of the reason. It is a lot easier to tell where the actual barrel on a revolver begins because of the cylinder gap, With a semi - especially a fixed barrel - it might not be as visually obvious without getting into the internals of the pistol. I guess there might be some argument that the lack of a cylinder gap makes it all one, continuous unit but then we have the Nagant revolver just to make things more complicated. As the cylinder cams forward to seal the cylinder gap when firing does that mean the barrel length of a Nagant revolver should include the length of the cylinder? Yeah, I know the Nagant is the only revolver - or maybe there is one other - which does that but sometimes minutia can be fun.

The best part is that it sounds like he will be getting to your cottage last. This means that if Codes condemns the place it will be AFTER he spends all the money 'renovating' the other units. You can bet that such 'renovations' will likely only be cosmetic so that he can flip the place or charge more rent. Doubtful that he will address the safety issues. I think you should definitely go through with the plan to inform Codes as soon as you leave. If nothing else you just might be saving a potential, future tenant or tenants from being victims of a fire. The fact that it will screw over this jerk of a landlord is just a nice, big bonus. Sometimes karma will bite people in the ass and sometimes karma needs a little nudge. It sounds like you have a pretty good karmic nudge all lined up and ready to go.

I have been wanting an SP101 for some time as a 'little brother' to my GP100. Bought a DAO version this last Saturday at a shop in Loudon and $549 was the price tag on it so that is apparently pretty much the going rate for new, now. In fact, as I originally really wanted the hammered version, I called a couple of other shops to see if they had a hammered SP101. They only had the DAO version in the standard models, as well and the price at at least one of those shops was $20 or so more than the one I bought. One place had a 'match grade' version - which I assume is hammered and am sure would have been really nice - for $100 more. I have to admit that $549 would have been a little steep for my gun budget these days but I traded some I wasn't using and ended up getting it for those plus $99. Barring something really bad happening, I don't foresee me letting go of the SP101 or the GP100 as long as I am able to hold and fire them - even if I can eventually only handle .38 Special out of them. I also have an S&W 642 which is also DAO that I have had for a few years and even brand new and not broken in at all I think the trigger pull on the Ruger is nicer than on the Smith.

I think you are correct and that is the reason however, when you think about it, that really doesn't make a lot of sense. I say that because in the semi a live round is sitting in and (at least mostly) filling the length of the chamber so that the bullet isn't actually travelling the length of the chamber in a semi any more than it is in a revolver. Truthfully, the length of barrel should probably be measured from where the front end of the average bullet sits when a round is chambered forward to the muzzle. Things that make you go, "Hmmm..."

Won't happen. Someone will label them as 'utensil identity fluid' and they will be protected.

Heck, I'm betting he'd have to hit about 70mph in order to be able to run across the lake! I've been through chemo (colon cancer) and still have a head full of hair. My dad went through a couple rounds of chemo and radiation (stomach cancer) and still had hair when he died - it was thin around his crown but that was probably because he wore a cap most of the time. In fact, a couple of weeks before he died he told me he wished he could go get a haircut but just didn't feel up to it so I had him sit on a stool in the bathroom and used the clippers to give him his last haircut. My mom also had radiation and chemo. Hers was a brain tumor so the radiation was targeted at her head. Her hair started falling out in spots and, saying she thought she looked like she had the mange, she had me take the clippers to her so I gave my mom her last haircut, as well. She was pretty much completely bald by the time of her death. That said, genetic male pattern baldness comes from one's mother's side of the family and can often be predicted by whether or not one's maternal grandfather was/is bald. My maternal grandfather was in his eighties when he died and still had plenty of hair.

So, since gun control completely and totally stopped all murders in the UK it seems the government there has decided that knives can no longer be ordered online and delivered to a person's home. I guess pretty soon they will be cutting down all of the trees and paving every inch of the UK in order to prevent people from getting hold of deadly sticks and rocks. Of course, a few years after that they will have to figure a way to stop people from killing each other with chunks of broken pavement. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ban-on-home-deliveries-of-knives-in-government-crackdown-after-surge-in-london-stabbings/ar-AAvDgUA

Thanks for the reassurances, fellahs. As for the analogy, I thought it would get the point across and it seems it did but maybe I should have said, "It felt sort of like finding out that Ruger had started making Redhawk and Blackhawk revolvers out of polymer and zamak."

Yesterday I was in a Walmart that is one of the locations I am not in very often. I noticed a sort of end cap rack/display of Ontario Old Hickory knives. At first I was kind of excited because I have always loved those knives and haven't seen them in a Walmart - or many brick and mortar stores, really - in years. My initial excitement quickly turned to disgust, however, as I noticed the word 'stainless' printed on the packaging. What?! To me the whole point of Old Hickory knives is that they are made of 1095 high carbon steel. Sure you get a little rust if you don't care for them but these inexpensive kitchen knives have always, to my experience, sharpened and performed better than any stainless kitchen knives at anything near a similar price point. To see these old favorites defiled by being made of stainless felt sort of like running into an old girlfriend and finding out she had recently had a sex change and now goes by the name 'Bill'. I just hope it doesn't mean that Ontario is going to stop making real Old Hickory knives in favor of these imposters.

I am coming late to this thread and you may have already found a solution. Just in case, though: I put a set of Pachmayr Compacts on my 642 to replace the torture devices cleverly disguised as grips that it came with from the factory. The Compacts fill my hand better - making the gun more controllable - and, as they cover the backstrap (which I am pretty sure the 'Professional' does not), are much more comfortable when shooting. While they are slightly larger than the original grips they do not impact pocket carry very much and do not seem to slow my presentation of the gun from the pocket (not that said presentation is all that fast, anyhow.) I also have the same type of grip (Pachmayr compact) on my late 1970s model Colt Police Positive and really like the feel on that revolver, too. I am not sure how much my experience with the J-frame sized grips will translate to your usage but here is a pic of the 642 with original grips and the Pachmayrs lying on top of my Ruger GP100 four inch (sorry for the small pic size - had to make the pic tiny before the file size was small enough that the forum software would let me post it:

A search didn't turn up anything on these so I thought I would post about them. Has anyone here heard of the Midland folding shotguns? Someone on another forum posted about them and I think they look interesting. I like that they have an 18 inch model - I haven't seen many if any 'security' length barrels on singles from the factory. I also like that it accepts chokes. Something like that and a good set of chamber adapters would be one heck of a good survival/subsistance/camping/just plain fun setup to have. Being used to my singles with no manual safety and external hammers it would take a bit of getting used to, for me, but wouldn't really result in an extra step as the best/safest way to carry a single 'in the field' is probably with the gun broken open and carried lying across the off-hand forearm so close it, cock the hammer and fire or close it, disengage the safety and fire - I can't imagine there is much difference. https://www.shootmidland.com/products/midland-backpack-12-gauge-18-5-barrel

You certainly have a point about convincing the big name makers and that just might be a bit difficult. Even if there would be people standing in line yelling, "Shut up and take my money," they may well be so stuck in their tacticool ways - just because that is where the money has been for the last, few years - that they will lose lots of money and we will lose many, potential members of the gun owning community. It is entirely possible that the suits in the corporate offices won't budge and may continue to refuse to budge until it is too late. I guess that is the cost of having corporate types and investment groups running gun companies rather than firearms enthusiasts who also have a good bit of business acumen.

I disagree. Black and tactical is where the money from a lot of folks who are already 'in' to firearms is whether it is their first purchase or their fiftieth. There are likely some folks who are new to guns who gravitate in that direction, as well. However, I still say that there is a very large, untapped market for blued steel and wood and that such a market is about to grow as societal attitudes potentially prevent growth and possibly even result in some losses in the black and tactical market segment. Doesn't have to be fine walnut - think Marlin's Glenfield line and others where the furniture is simply 'hardwood'. Doesn't even have to be high-end bluing. If Taurus and Rossi can build and sell revolvers and rifles in the modern market for, in some cases, a few hundred dollars less than the competition then why can't S&W, Remington, etc.? One of the least expensive firearms on the market - the Heritage Rough Rider revolver - has wood grips. Again, think along the lines of 'field grade' or 'utility grade' firearms. I am not talking about rarified safe queens to sell to collectors or museum quality heirloom pieces with gorgeous walnut and beautiful, old Colt style bluing. I am talking about good, usable firearms to sell to the non-enthusiast but non-anti new husband/father (or new wife/mother) who wants something behind the closet door or next to the bed for protecting his/her family in an environment where those same folks are, at least for a little while, are possibly not going to be looking at all favorably upon 'scary' black and tactical firearms. That is why I specifically referred to the Model 10, the Police Positive and the like. To be completely honest, I wouldn't mind the opportunity to buy a couple of those 'utility' grade firearms, myself. Further, money could be made in the aftermarket as some buyers may decide that they want to upgrade the wood, etc. to make their gun their 'own'. I mean, folks these days do seem love to accessorize, customize and personalize just about everything.

I first wrote this as a response in the thread about Remington filing for bankruptcy but, realizing it went far afield from the topic, I decided to start a new thread. I realize that Remington's woes haven't come solely from a slump in sales but that bankruptcy combined with the current zeitgeist have me thinking how firearms companies - and the firearms community, in general - might need to weather the storm that is potentially coming. So these are my thoughts: Personally, I think that the future for Remington (and Marlin - and Winchester, too) may well lie in the past. Right now there is a lot of heat being dumped on semiauto firearms and especially on AR15 type rifles. I also believe that there is also a wave of nostalgia that is getting ready to break over the country that is going to impact the wants and buying habits even of individuals who weren't around when the 'nostalgia' items were more popular in the first place. Heck, I read an article the other day that was talking about how cassette tapes are making a bit of a comeback and have also read that board games seem to be gaining popularity as a means to socialize - I have even noticed that several of the microbreweries around Knoxville have a stack of board games in one corner or another that people can take out and play while they hang out and drink beer. I believe that firearms companies could somewhat take advantage of such trends. I think there are a lot of folks who aren't specifically anti but who also aren't specifically firearms enthusiasts who could be reached if these long standing companies (or at least the legacy companies that have the rights to use the branding) put a little less emphasis on building yet another line of plastic fantastic bottom feeders that look the same as every other pistol or rifle of the type and focus a little more on updated versions of more 'traditional' firearms - with said updates including making them affordable. These companies still make lever action rifles and Marlin apparently pushed a few new ones at SHOT show this year. The problem is that most of those new Marlins looked, to me, to be geared toward people who are already gun collectors and enthusiasts with prices that will likely reflect the same. Likewise, things like double barrelled shotguns still exist but to my knowledge no American company still makes a good side by side double with a 'value' price like the old Stevens doubles, etc. Instead, the American made doubles tend to be high dollar models geared toward avid bird hunters or skeet shooters, etc. Heck, even dumbass Joe Biden 'endorsed' the idea of having a double barrel shotgun for home defense (even if his comment encouraging people to just shoot into the darkness without being sure of their target was stupid and irresponsible.) The same thing seems to be happening with revolvers. Sure, there are wheel guns like the EAA Windicator and the Rossi and some Taurus models but I can't think of any revolvers on the new gun market with a name like Remington, Smith and Wesson, etc. that are regular, full sized revolvers with an affordable (as in budget/value line) price tag made by an American company. I know that Colt has brought back/is bringing back some version of the old Detective Special. I think that they should follow that up by bringing back the last iteration (late '70s) of the Police Positive. Likewise, maybe S&W should gear up some of the old tooling (if they still have it and can find it) and start making the Model 10 in .38 Special, again. Remington could also get into the game. Let's face it, most people don't need an AR15 with a 30 round mag or a semiauto pistol with a 15 round magazine to defend themselves and their homes. Do I support efforts to ban or limit the availability of such firearms and/or magazines? Do I think we should just roll over and allow such firearms to be taken? Hell no! But for the industry to survive the current, growing perception of such firearms among the general public - and to still manage to sell firearms to said general public - putting the majority of their eggs in the 'high speed, low drag' basket may not be the best approach. Like it or not, those of us who are interested in maintaining and even growing our firearms rights as well as the companies which manufacture firearms are going to have to find a way to market and sell firearms to Millennials and their children. I also believe that as life gets more and more hectic and fast paced for these individuals they will increasingly yearn for a 'simpler time' - probably a 'simpler time' that never really even existed, as is often the case with nostalgia - and which they weren't around to experience first hand. Of course, maybe these are just my thoughts because I, personally, prefer revolvers, levers and pumps to semiautos and even with semiautos I prefer some steel and maybe some wood (although I own some semiautos, too - and even a couple of 'plastic' ones) but I really think that the way forward for firearms companies and for the continued strength of gun rights lies with getting people on board who might never dream of owning an AR or a Glock but who might not hesitate to buy a lever gun like Grandpa used or a revolver like Grandma kept next to her bed at night. Get those people 'into the fold', so to speak by increasing the choices and availability of such firearms as well as extolling their utility and virtues and - whether or not they go on to purchase more 'modern' type firearms - I believe that they will be less likely to support the loss of the right to keep and bear arms. Just something to think about.

Do you have the WMR (.22 Magnum) cylinder for it? I would be curious to see if you have the same problems with .22 Magnum. I say that because .22WMR is, to my understanding, slightly larger in diameter than .22LR. So in combo guns (all Heritage Rough Riders have the ability to be combo guns whether they come with the WMR cylinder or not) the barrel has to have an internal diameter large enough to shoot WMR meaning the internal diameter is already slightly oversize for .22LR. That is why 'combo' guns are often a little more accurate with WMR. I am speculating that - if the internal diameter of your, particular barrel happened to be on the high end of tolerances then maybe that could cause problems with .22LR. If .22WMR does not exhibit the same issues then that might be a clue as to what is going on. If, on the other hand, you have the same issues with .22WMR then either the internal diameter is way out of tolerated specs or there is something else going on.

That is certainly a consideration. As for me, I have always been more of a 'revolver guy' and even in semiautos I prefer DAO or DA/SA so I am pretty well accustomed to the long, somewhat stiff trigger pull. I don't like striker fired pistols for carry (just a personal preference), don't like 'cocked and locked' and don't like manual safeties so I actually prefer a hammer fired handgun (whether external or internal hammer) and double action trigger for carry. One thing that I might suggest is that you may want to try different grips on that 686 if the ones that are on it don't fit your hand well. When I bought my 642 it had those abysmal, vestigial grip-like artifices that S&W puts on them at the factory. I honestly wasn't very good with it. Then I put some slightly larger (but still pocketable) Pachmayr grips on it that fill my hand much better and saw instant improvement in control. The trigger pull weight and length obviously didn't change (and it has a pretty long and stiff pull which probably has lightened a little with use) but the slightly different angle and better grip made it seem like it had. I'm not saying I could make a headshot at 50 yards with the snubbie or anything, even with the better grips, but for getting COM hits at the distances I would likely be called upon to use it I do well enough to feel completely comfortable carrying it. With the original grips, although I did carry it some, my confidence with it wasn't nearly so high and I would still carry my P3AT a lot. With the new grips the P3AT rarely gets carried, anymore.

I have gone back and forth on that a little. By the time my HCP next expires I will be 49 and have already had several, different incidences where I nearly died (congestive heart failure with cause still unknown, stage 3 colon cancer with the tumor resulting in my intestine rupturing, a gall bladder that was necrotic (rotten) inside my body, a severe bleeding ulcer and so on.) Whether or not I will live long enough to 'break even' on a $200 lifetime renewal - which would mean living to be 81 if I have it figured right - at this point is a bit of a coin toss. Also, I am the kind of guy who considers $200 to be a lot of money. However, I have decided that I will probably do the lifetime renewal next time, anyway, based on a couple of factors: 1. There is no guarantee that the renewal fee will remain at $50 a pop. In fact, I would almost be surprised if it does. Likewise, there is no guarantee that the lifetime renewal fee will remain at $200 so the idea that, "I'll just wait and if they increase the regular renewal fee I'll go lifetime," is a bit too much of a gamble, for me. 2. If I don't live long enough to break even - so what? I'll be dead and that extra $50, $100 or even $150 won't make a dang bit of difference, to me. That is just my thought process and not intended to be an evaluation or criticism of others' decision on the matter.

It is said that there are three types of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics. That is because 'statistics' can be warped to mean whatever foks want them to mean. I look at the article this way: 1. Non-Hispanic 'white' people are still the largest group in this country. About 63%. Who knows if this study counted only non-Hispanic whites. If not the number is even bigger. So the idea that more guns might be owned by the group that makes up the majority of the population is kind of a, "No, duh," statement. 2. When it comes to hunting, more men hunt than women. When it comes to protecting the family (going to check out the cause behind that bump in the night, etc.) the fact is that if a man is present such responsibilities will usually fall to him. Therefore, due to both factors, the idea that more men might purchase firearms than women is also kind of a, "No, duh," statement and I would say it has pretty much always been that way in every county on earth where firearms are bought and sold ever since firearms started being bought and sold (of course that doesn't mean that the ladies of the family don't know how to use said firearms, just in case.) So, the idea that the gender most likely to use firearms in the race that is by far the largest, single racial group in the country would own the majority of the firearms is just common sense, really. Of course, common sense based on the numbers and traditional roles isn't good enough when some idiot lefty can find yet another reason to criticize or belittle the evil, straight white male. More nonsense in the article: So, where was race mentioned in that statement? Is this Stroud or the author of the article simply assuming that welfare recipients are all non-whites? If so then that seems kinda, well, racist, to me.

Depending on how the wording of the policy is interpreted it might not even be as much about the 21 year old age requirement as it would seem. The policy seems to state that firearms sales be restricted for people under the age of 18. It doesn't say that such sales must be prohibited nor that such sales must be limited to people 21 or older. As I am sure everyone here knows, currently in TN an 18 year old can legally purchase most long guns from an FFL but cannot purchase a hand gun from an FFL. As such, in TN - by law - sales of firearms are restricted (not prohibited) for people under the age of 18. Still, for a financial instution to get into dictating to the companies they work with the legal activities in which said companies are or are not allowed to engage - whether sales of firearms, sales of certain books, sales of adult movies or sales of chainsaws (for environmental 'responsibility') is a step in a very bad direction, IMO.

Hey, if things were changed so that the legal age of adulthood is 21, across the board - meaning you are tried as a minor, sentenced as a juvenile, not expected to sign up with selective service, etc. until the age of 21 - I could get behind that. It is the 'you are an adult in this way but not in that way' idea that I don't like. And you are probably right, it isn't going to happen but as long as things stay as they are I don't think we should be going along with the removal of a right that 18 year old adults currently have.

There are some details there that would need to be worked out but, as the playing field would be levelled and we wouldn't have a group that are adults when it suits the powers that be but aren't adults in other situations then I think it could be a good place to start. It wouldn't ever get off the ground with the age being 22 however. Why? Because currently when a person becomes and adult at age 18 (with certain exceptions) those who are receiving government benefits because their parents receive SSI, etc. stop getting the check at 18. Also, unless I am mistaken, parents' health insurance and other insurance will often stop covering the kids when they hit adulthood at age 18. In other words, there is too much money involved from both the federal government and insurance companies for this plan to realistically get anywhere.

I have thought more about the issue and think I have a good way to illustrate what I am talking about via the usage of two, very similar statements - the only difference being the inclusion of a phrase in one that isn't included in the other. Statement 1: I think we can all agree that there are some legal, adult 18 year old citizens who are capable of responsibly owning firearms. I also think that we can all agree that there are some legal, adult 18 year old citizens who would behave irresponsibly with firearms or, though lack of judgement or conscience, purposefully misuse those firearms to do harm to others. Therefore, while it is unfortunate that we must curtail the rights of the responsible 18 year old citizens to own firearms it is in the interest of public safety and of society as a whole that, for the good of all, 18 year old American citizens not be legally allowed to privately own firearms. Statement 2: I think we can all agree that there are some legal, adult citizens who are capable of responsibly owning firearms. I also think that we can all agree that there are some legal, adult citizens who would behave irresponsibly with firearms or, though lack of judgement or conscience, purposefully misuse those firearms to do harm to others. Therefore, while it is unfortunate that we must curtail the rights of the responsible citizens to own firearms it is in the interest of public safety and of society as a whole that, for the good of all, American citizens not be legally allowed to privately own firearms. See, it is basically the same argument. Now, as for the students walking out of public schools in protest, that is a different issue entirely as the majority of those students are likely minors and I do not believe that minors have the same standing to exercise rights as adults just as minors cannot legally own firearms. It is when the argument is made that, "This person is legally an adult but, even though he or she has done nothing to have his or her rights individually curtailed, he or she does not have the same rights as other adults," that I must disagree. As for the existence of an agenda or lack thereof, just allow me to point out that students were allowed to disrupt class and the school day in order to protest for gun control but if one, individual student were to wear, say, a belt buckle with the Confederate Battle Flag on it then that student would be sent home and possibly suspended (as has happened in the past.) So, if there is no agenda, how is it that one kid wearing a belt buckle is more 'disruptive' - thereby requiring disciplinary action - than a whole slew of kids walking out?

Again, there are also 35 years olds who are not as responsible as some 18 years olds but they still have the full rights and privileges of an adult. As far as going to casinos, buying weed, buying alcohol, adopting, renting a car, etc. I agree 100% - if 18 year olds are legally adults then, just like any other, legal adult they should be able to do every, single one of those things. If not then they should be considered 'juveniles' until the age of 21 and treated so by the legal system when it comes to committing crimes, etc. Adult is adult is adult. These ridiculous, in-between states of limbo our laws and society create need to go away. I also disagree with the idea that only 18-21 year olds who are in the military (through special dispensation) should be allowed to vote. I do not believe in creating 'special classes' of citizens. Either all 18 year olds can vote or none can. Yes, allowing all 18 year old adults (which they currently are in our country) who are expected to have the same legal responsibility as other adults to also have the same rights and privileges as every, other adult might be a bit messy but that mess is the price paid for a country that truly believes in individual liberty. To say that, "Well, you are an adult when it suits us - like when we want to prosecute you as such, etc. - but not when it comes to these privileges," is, to my mind at least, paying lip service to liberty while suppressing individual freedom for the perceived good of 'society'. I personally do not believe that doing so jibes with the ideals of personal freedom and liberty.

I understand that. The problem with me waiting until the last minute for anything is that there is a good chance I will forget and the last minute will pass right on by.