TGO David

  :rolleyes:   There's a lot of other crap a 1911 won't do either.  Like run when it's full of mud, or carry 15 rounds in the same size frame as that Glock 19, or get carried by more police forces than any other handgun, or.... you get the point.   I'm a huge 1911 fan but I am also a huge Glock fan, and a huge M&P fan, etc.  Each have their strengths, each have their weaknesses.  But this slide breakage isn't an inherent weakness of that Glock any more than a freak frame-crack on a 1911 is a weakness of that platform.

  He also said,  "Where's your parts?  What do you mean where's your parts?  I stole from from you and sold them to other people?  Whaaaaaaaat?"

Welcome!

Looks like more nasty weather predicted between noon on Wednesday and noon on Thursday for here in the mid-state area.  Between 3-6" of snow and ice again.

Clearly we all should have done something about that pesky ammo tax before he showed up.  Who the heck forgot to do that?!?   Trust me, folks, we're going to have a stern discussion about this at this week's meeting.  And whoever keeps leaving the toilet seat up, Marge in Accounting is plenty ticked about that too.

  This.   My thoughts when I saw the skit were:   1.) It wasn't very funny.   2.) It was fairly tacky for all the wrong reasons.   3.) It seemed like the SNL writers wanted to make fun of ISIS but at the same time hoped no-one would "Charlie Hedbo" the SNL offices because of it.  They played the middle of the field as if to say, "Hey ISIS... don't cut our heads off or shoot up our offices because we make fun of everyone else in this video too!"     Overall it felt like a 1990's SNL skit.  Lame.  Short on the funny and not worth the time it took to produce it.  The writers didn't fully commit to making fun of ISIS by going in for the kill, so to speak.  They could have done so much more with an anti-ISIS skit and apparently left the good gags on the cutting room floor.

  Ok you've gotta review that once it arrives.  I'm curious!

Every time I think about selling a gun to buy something non-gun, I remind myself that the government isn't trying to ban whatever that other thing is. :)

Got to say that those were all simply shot with the iPhone 6 this time. I'd be glad to break out the light-tent and Canon for your collection though!

  It's definitely deceivingly smaller than it looks, which is what appealed to me.  I've got a couple other smaller fixed-blade knives coming to me soon so I hope to do some size and quality comparisons.

  Bottle opener, lashing point, prying tool... whatever you want to use it for I suppose.

  All specs are here:   http://www.bladehq.com/item--ESEE-DPx-HEST-Folder--6996   OAL is 7.75" Blade is 3.25"

  Meh.  Should've kept the 1911.

My next purchase for this knife is going to be a horizontal-mount kydex belt sheath.  The MOLLE sheath that it comes with has a kydex insert, but it's big and clunky.  This could easily be a belt knife with the right sheath and several people out there are making them.   More to come!

I'm picking up various smaller fixed-blade knives lately and this one just arrived on Friday. I specifically hunted down the NIlox steel version of the DPx H.E.S.T. II because I wanted something with corrosion resistance that would hold an edge fairly well. There are other versions of this knife that don't use a stainless steel and instead rely on their powder coated blades and your common sense to keep them wiped down with oil to prevent rust from forming. I haven't bothered to see if anyone else on here has posted about the HEST or HEST II so pardon me while I just drop some knife porn...

  Check again now.  Are you still seeing it?  I think I fixed it based on my own test.

  Hmm.  Let me check on that.

I found the solution to the problem and applied it to our forum.  Seems something changed with some alterations in a recent software release.     For my own future reference if this happens again... [solution]

That's interesting about the chat indicator. Let me try to track that down.

Welcome.  :wave:

Honestly I don't mind the OP posting here and sharing good info even if it does help drive up YouTube visits.  I'm all for seeing someone contribute solid, useful information to the gun-owning community at large and will gladly support folks like that with traffic whenever I can send it their way.  But this idea of adapting a mag carrier to fit something it wasn't made for, with folded up bits of paper, really seems like stepping over a dollar to pick up a nickel.  Mag pouches just aren't that expensive, and if you can afford to feed your gun with ammo, you can afford to spend a little on good carry gear.   I've seen too many people give up carrying a firearm because they found it to be uncomfortable, or unwieldy, or inconvenient.  What's worse is that maybe 9 times out of 10, if they had just tried a good holster or a good belt or the right gun for their purposes, they'd have been successful and not ended up going unarmed.   This seems like it almost begs someone to "give up" after an what will invariably be an otherwise avoidable bad experience.

Nearly choked on my coffee. Well played, sir. Well played. :)

Look, I know you signed up on a multitude of gun forums the same day you signed up here (Google is a wonderful tool) and it really seems that your reason for doing so is to post these videos on all of them and drive traffic up on your YouTube channel.  Don't care.   What I do care about is good information.  Stuffing cardboard into a cheap mag holder to force it to work with mags it wasn't designed for is thrifty, but not really the sort of gear you or anyone else should be trusting your life with.  This seems like a really bad idea.

I don't mind gay people any more than I mind anyone else.  I don't support the lifestyle, I don't engage in the lifestyle, but what two men or two women do in the privacy of their own home is between them and God.  I just don't care to have to witness it.  Men or women.   The gay kiss and the fawning of Eric over Aaron was completely unnecessary and made both me and my wife gag.  The writers could have added gay male characters without gratuitous spit swapping and it would have been just as effective of a story-arc as what they have now.  It was done for (a.) shock value and (b.) to push the envelope of what is socially acceptable on television, period.   Anyone who wants to argue that 30-40 years ago it was just as edgy to feature interracial, white/black, kissing on TV -- for example -- is arguing from a disadvantaged position.  The parallel simply is not there from a biological perspective.  Someone else pointed out that the media is slowly shaping what the public is willing to deem acceptable, and I agree with that 100%.  Just beware that 30-40 years from now if the leftists have their way and keep eroding society's morals and ethics, someone may be having the same discussion we're having but instead of two men kissing and fawning over themselves, it could just as easily be a grown man and a 12 year old girl.   Today's taboos are tomorrow's topics of cultural diversity and inclusion unless people stand up for what's right.   The Walking Dead may have lost me as a viewer if they can't find a way to tell this story without two dudes graphically finding love inside of each other's sweaty, hairy butts.

Welcome.  Wipe the Bloomberg off of your shoes, come in and stay a while.