JAB

I have a 7 inch SBH in .44 Mag and a 4 inch Taurus Tracker in .44 Mag (no laughter from me, hipower - I like it.) I have an old (partial) box of Remington LRN .44 Special ammo that belonged to my late father (I don't remember his ever having a .44 of any flavor so he must have had that box of ammo for a looong time before he passed and I got it.) I tried a few of them out in the SBH when I first got it and out of that big, heavy hogleg they felt about like shooting mild .38 Special loads. Thing is, though, I bought .44 Magnum revolvers because I want to shoot .44 Magnum. I probably would shoot .44 Special out of them sometimes just for fun but with the price for .44 Special ammo being the same as for .44 Magnum ammo I kind of don't really see the point. Now, if either of them were used mainly for defense against two legged varmints I would probably feel differently but they aren't. Not trying to take anything away from the .44 Special as I am sure it is a great round and, if .44 Special ammo weren't so expensive, I wouldn't mind having a Charter Bulldog. It just doesn't currently fit all that well into my rotation for my purposes is all.

I used my five inch S&W .22A. This was back around 2008 and I think the instructors might have had more autonomy as to where to set the targets. We did six shot strings for a total of 48 rounds fired. We qualified using B27 (full sized human silhouette) targets. IIRC, we did six rounds at three yards, six at five yards, six at seven yards, six at ten yards, six at about fifteen or twenty yards and six that was our choice of distance (I ran it out to twenty five yards for 'my choice', just for the heck of it.) Our shots just had to be somewhere - anywhere - in the black to count. The instructor had us count our own hits and walked down the line as we did, kind of to keep us honest (he shot competition so he could probably tell at a glance if someone qualified or not.) When he walked behind me and saw that all of my shots were in the black he said, "Don't bother counting. You passed." I think I was the only person in my group to whom he said that but am pretty sure that we all passed - except for the one guy who was taking the test for the third or fourth time and still couldn't pass the written part. Generally I believe that pretty much every adult should have the right to carry for personal defense but must admit that, in his case, I mentally made and exception and was kind of glad that the qualification requirement was in place.

No flaming from me, just an opposing viewpoint. Personally, I believe that having the Feds occupy a field that has, until now, been mostly a state decided issue will never, ever be a good thing - no matter the issue. The Fed is already overgrown and bloated - I don't believe we need to be supporting the idea of it getting even bigger and even more involved in such things even if it appears to benefit us, at least in the short term. A Fed that can tell all states that they must allow carry can, when the wind blows another direction, tell all states that they can no longer allow carry - or that they have to meet California, New York and Illinois 'standards' in order to do so, that they can only authorize people to carry handguns that are on the California approved list, etc. Think I am being paranoid? Ask yourself who the Fed and the EPA look to when they want to put new regulations in place. It ain't lower Alabama. It tends to be California. I believe it would be no different when it came to Federal carry regulation. No, thanks. I'd rather avoid those states where I can't currently legally carry or, worst case, deal with not being able to carry while I am there.

That is a beautiful pistol. Still, I have yet to see a single firearm that I thought was worth spending a grand (or more) to me. I'll just have to continue hoping that my .357 and/or .44 Magnums will be 'enough' to guard a camp. That isn't to take anything away from the Kimber. Those are just my own, personal thoughts.

It would be bad to lose an old name like Remington but, honestly, my main concern would be what that might do to the ammo market as they (with their UMC brand) are one of the big providers of cheap plinking ammo. I also wonder how this would impact Marlin. Now THAT is a brand I would really hate to lose.

I'd like to see something to give an idea of scale, too. My gut feeling is that it is about the size of a Kel Tec PF9 - at least in length and height. Even fans of the PF9 say that it is pretty painful to try and run more than a couple of mags through. I don't think my P3AT is particularly painful to shoot but many folks do. I will be interested to see if and how much the combination of a PF9 sized (maybe) pistol with the .380 caliber results in reduced felt recoil as compared to the PF9 and the P3AT (or LCP.) I am also interested to hear if the extra length of nearly an inch in the barrel as compared to pocket guns like the P3AT (and, therefore, the Little Copied Pistol, as well) will result in gains in velocity that might produce noticeably more consistent results from .380 SD ammo when it comes to expansion and penetration, combined. There are some rounds on the market that I believe to do okay for doing both even out of the pocket pistols. I'm wondering if the slightly longer barrel won't yield even better/more consistent results. My ex wife has had issues with possible arthritis and with hand strength since she was younger. When I sat out to teach her to shoot and help her work toward getting her carry permit she had trouble racking the slide on most pistols. She could do it using the Cornered Cat method but not smoothly - it was pretty awkward. She also had trouble pulling the trigger on many guns, both semis and revolvers and when she did the recoil often hurt her hand (she could rack and fire my P3AT but could only stand putting about two rounds through it before the pain from the recoil became too much.) She ended up going with a Kel Tec P32 because she could rack it, could pull the trigger and the recoil didn't hurt her hands. My mom also went with a P32 for a carry gun because my P3AT hurt her hands, as well. Mom also wouldn't carry the P32 with one in the chamber because it 'didn't have a safety' despite me trying to convince her that, because it was DAO it was like carrying a revolver in that aspect. My mom is deceased and my ex wife really doesn't shoot much, anymore but I can't help but wonder how well the new M&P might have worked for either of them had it existed when they were looking for a carry gun.

I agree. I believe that by placing such emphasis on the 'ease' of operating the slide and the dual mechanical safeties, etc. S&W made it obvious that the target audience is not hale and hearty gun enthusiasts. Also, I would almost lay odds that many, many people who are interested in carrying a firearm for SD or even having something manageable for HD aren't nearly as caught up in the 'oh, a 9mm is barely adequate and anything less might as well be spitting spitwads' nonsense that many of us sometimes get caught up in. I mean, yes, there is something to be said for increasing the chance of instantly incapacitating an attacker by using a larger and/or more powerful caliber. However, there is also something to be said for the fact that getting shot is getting shot. After all, a .380 is the same diameter as 9mm Luger albeit lighter in bullet weight and with less velocity. I would think that a larger-than-pocket-sized gun with good sights should increase potential accuracy and make the pistol more controllable than 9mm Luger even if one does not have hand strength or pain issues and certainly if one does. This would also probably increase the likelihood that the end user might actually practice with the pistol rather than saying, "I don't like shooting it - it hurts my hands too much," when the subject of target practice comes in to play. It kind of goes back to the idea that a hit with a .380 is better than a miss with a 9mm.

One of my favorite posts on any forum ever was one in which you stated, "I go to restaurants to eat, not to read."

Along those lines I would probably go with a five shot snubbie .357. Although I occasionally carry something else, similar to 56FordGuy my 642 is what I carry 98% of the time I can carry and has been since I got it a few years back. However, when I go camping, etc. I like to have something with a little more 'oomph'. Right now that is usually either my GP100 or my Taurus Tracker in .44 Mag. but if forced to go with only one for everything I'd want a snubbie and would choose .357. For an 'everything' carry handgun I simply believe that the .38/.357 is just about the most versatile caliber that is commonly available. I wouldn't want an Airweight in .357 so I'd probably look at something like an SP101 (would kind of like to have one of those, anyhow.) I have fired and even carried an SP101 that a friend let me borrow for the purpose of trying that out. Being heavier it didn't pocket carry as easily as the 642 but for a 'one gun' it would be doable and I would probably get used to the extra weight. I'd carry .38+P in town and full-house .357 in the woods.

I kind of like it but I am not sure why I would replace (or even augment) my P3AT with it (and, no, the P3AT is not junk before someone throws that nonsense out there as a 'reason'.) I like that it has a barrel that is almost an inch longer than the P3AT. It carries two more rounds in the standard mags than the P3AT but I can get nine round extended mags for the P3AT (and have one, in fact) so that really isn't that much of a motivator. I like that, unlike the P3AT, LCP and most 'pocket' sized guns the M&P looks to have real (and even adjustable) sights. Of course, with the higher capacity standard mags and nearly inch longer barrel will come a larger, overall footprint. I am just guessing this will be about the same size as a PF-9. That means it will not really be a 'pocket' gun but will need to ride in a belt holster, belly band, etc. As I, personally, can't carry OWB that would mean carrying it IWB. In that case I had might as well go with a bigger gun in a caliber such as 9mm (this was pretty much the same reason I got rid of my P-11, I figured if I was going to have to belt carry it anyway I had might as well have something bigger and easier to shoot.) Still, I have wanted to try out an M&P but will not carry a striker fired pistol. The internal hammer fired aspect appeals to me although I am not so sure about the 'cocked and locked' aspect - would rather see DAO with second strike capability. However, the grip safety makes me feel okay about it. All in all, though, it sounds like a good setup for the right person. I honestly do not think that I (or most of us in the thread, so far) are it's target audience. Private citizens with less hand/arm strength or even problems with things like arthritis in their hands who want a pistol they can actually rack and mags they can actually load with a trigger that is easier to pull and for whom the recoil of a 9mm might be downright painful will likely greatly benefit from having this pistol as an option. People who already have a pocket .380 but who would like something a little bigger to carry, sometimes, without having to stock a different caliber of ammo would probably like it, too. Come to think of it, my girlfriend has a LCP and isn't crazy about it because the grip doesn't fit her hand very well (she bought it before we met.) This just might be something she would like better.

Well, they aren't nearly as pretty but Heritage makes a couple models of the Rough Rider with bird's head grips. They have the 3.5 inch model and a 4.75 inch model. As I said, not as pretty - not stainless, not engraved - but might fill a bird's head .22 shaped hole in your collection for a good bit less $$$. Like all the Heritage models, they can use both a .22LR and a .22WMR cylinder. This is a pic of the 3.5 inch model, from their website. http://heritagemfg.com/product_detail.cfm?prod_id=1

Glad to hear you are at home with Darby and doing better.

This comedian (who, apparently, used to be in a death metal band) has a great take on 'being offended':

I am offended by the obviously male arm wielding that hammer. The logo needs to be more gender neutral. Think that is just a silly, off the cuff comment? Nope. Now, I don't watch stupid awards shows but saw an article about this a day or two ago. Morgan Freeman, of all people (who I used to think had at least a halfway reasonable head on his shoulders) received a lifetime achievement award from the screen actors guild. His award was, unlike the standard award, simply a mask of comedy (as in the masks of comedy and tragedy.) The standard awards, however, depict a male nude holding a smaller version of said mask. During his acceptance speech Freeman criticized the award as being 'gender specific'. Oh, please, give me a break. Thing is, if the award depicted a female nude then people would be bitching about it 'exploiting women'. Further, I guess we should go around the world and make statues such as Rodin's "The Thinker" and Michelangelo's "David" more gender neutral.

Signed up and verified a few days ago. The confirmation email took roughly 12 hours to arrive (I still use aol - hey, it's free and I have had that address since I actually used dial-up AOL back in the '90s - they let me keep the email address free even after I dropped the service years ago.)

I am not so sure about that. I think some people just feel like they are either obligated or entitled to stick their nose in where it doesn't belong. I am not the biggest Hank, Jr. fan but your post made me think about this song from back around 1981, well before the Internet. BTW, this has long been one of my favorite songs of his. Of course that song pretty much re-iterates the sentiment in this song from his father (and I am a Hank, Sr. fan)

That is the beauty of Rough Rider knives - they make it so that you CAN afford to collect them. Not likely to ever increase in value, I would say, but still gives a good feeling and they are, in my experience, good knives. It is worth buying in person, though. I usually inspect every specimen SMKW has of a model I am planning to get. Normally, there may be one with really bad fit and finish, one with not great fit and finish, the majority with acceptable fit and finish and one or two that are just about perfect. I recently picked up a Rough Rider stockman in which the main blade is a lock-back. It is from a line that they have which feature glow in the dark handle scales. I already had a Trapper in which the main blade locks, also with the glow in the dark scales. I think they were around $10 each and I can see eventually trying to have the entire 'glow in the dark' line. The steel Rough Rider uses is just a basic stainless and they are made in China but I would not be ashamed to be seen with them in my pocket.

I currently have a Spyderco Resilience clipped into my right, front pocket, a Case Sodbuster, Jr. (yellow handled, CV model) riding in the bottom of the same pocket and a Victorinox Super Tinker SAK in my left pocket. Do I need to carry all of them? No, not really. But I really like the Resilience for its size, the edge I have on it and the one-hand opening aspect. That said, the Sodbuster and Sodbuster, Jr. are two of my favorite pocket knife styles ever. A Jr. was my daily carry for years back during high school and after. Victorinox are also high up on my list and an SAK was my daily carry through much of college, before I had ever even held a plier-based multitool. So I pretty much daily combine a new favorite with two old favorites and it makes me happy - whether I ever 'need' all of them or not.

Based on the existing edge demonstrated in the video if you do that we just might see a mushroom cloud from the Mt. Juliet area when you accidentally split an atom with the danged thing!

Just saw this. I am keeping him in my thoughts and wishing a speedy recovery.

Maybe. My first point was that the Kel Tec has been doing what Sig wants to claim is 'unprecedented' for almost 25 years. Longer than the Taurus and certainly long before the P365 was even thought of. My second point was that, at least for me (and likely others), rather than being the 'sweet spot' for carry pistol size this size range of pistol compromises ease of shooting and practical accuracy without really being markedly easier to carry or conceal than slightly larger, easier to shoot pistols.

Sig is surely making a big deal out of the fact that this pistol holds ten rounds in its standard mags for a 10+1 total capacity. They go so far as to call it 'unprecedented' in a pistol this size. The problem with that 'unprecedented' claim is that the Kel Tec P11 is about the same size (maybe a hair smaller), about the same weight (maybe a hair lighter) and holds ten rounds in its standard, factory mag for a 10+1 total capacity. Further, there are flush fit mags available for the P11 that hold twelve rounds for a 12+1 total capacity for those of us who live in states that don't limit mag capacity to ten rounds. Of course the P11 isn't striker fired (but I don't personally like striker fired.) The P11 has been on the market for almost a quarter of a century so 10+1 (or 12+1) in flush fit mags in a pistol that size is nowhere near 'unprecedented.' The Sig costs 2 1/2 to 3 times as much as a P11. Yes, it is a Sig and not a Kel Tec but, meh. The problem with 9mm Luger guns in this size, to me, is that they are the worst of both worlds. I can't carry IWB, period. Therefore, a gun this size is too large to carry more than 'casually concealed' in an OWB holster but is too small to shoot as quickly and accurately as a slightly larger pistol which will 'casually conceal' just as well and just as easily as a pistol the size of the P11 (or the P365.) That is the biggest reason I got rid of the P11.

Meh, they were probably just setting Ruger up. They figure it won't hurt Kel Tec sales much as most people probably won't pay much attention to a Kel Tec ad but when Ruger copies the ad and claims it was an original idea they had people will notice Ruger's 'brand new, innovative and unprecedented' idea for an ad and it just might hurt Ruger's sales.

I am late to this party but here is my idea of 'common sense gun laws' for a free people whose country is supposedly built on the ideals of liberty: 1. Any citizen or legal resident alien with no criminal record can legally purchase any firearm he or she wants. With exceptions for heinous crimes such as murder or violent rape (in which case the person in question should be in prison, not standing in a gun store) those with a criminal history, even a felony, can have full gun ownership rights restored once a] their debt to society has been paid and b] subsequent to paying their debt to society a period of no less than ten years without any criminal activity has passed. 2. No firearm shall be used to shoot anyone else unless the party on the receiving end of the shooting commits an act or acts which justify said shooting 3. No firearm shall be used to commit a robbery or in conjunction with any other criminal act 4. Violation of 2 and/or 3 will result in a world of hurt Yes, #1 means that potentially dangerous people can purchase firearms. However, in a free society the trade off for freedom and liberty is that a person cannot be made to suffer consequences of actions that he or she might (or might not) take but has not, in fact, taken. Being free isn't always necessarily safe. Laws cannot prevent crimes. Placing general restrictions on gun rights in an attempt to prevent crimes merely punishes those who would not have committed a crime in the first place. We don't need more laws - or ANY laws, for that mater - to curb the rights of the law abiding. What we need are consequences that will fall like a ton of bricks upon the heads of people who use guns in a criminal manner rather than a slap on the wrist and a, "Now, sonny, don't do it, again." As for mass killing events, the answer to how to stop them is that we can't. Look at other countries where guns are restricted - they use knives: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367 29 dead, 130 injured and the only people shot were some of the attackers. Heck, even in areas of this country where firearms are more restricted - they use vehicles: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/us/new-york-shots-fired/index.html or even pressure cookers: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boston-marathon-bomb-devices-made-pressure-cookers-filled-nails-ball-bearings-report-article-1.1318278 I mention this often but the worst school massacre in the history of the United States was carried out by a lone individual who didn't need a gun to do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster No law will stop crazy and no consequence - preemptive or otherwise - will stop someone who is willing to die, or who maybe even wants to die, from carrying out an attack. It is just that simple.

Am I misunderstanding or do you mean newer standards for no-gun signage? If so I must have missed something that I probably need to know.