guyandarifle

If you are a bad guy "living by the sword" and you are going to be "dying by the sword" the immediate question is...who is holding the other sword?   Answer: someone who is defending themselves from people that "live by the sword".   A movie quote from a similar vein; "Those without swords can still die upon them."

While it's quite possible that was stated somewhere by someone (God knows the media wouldn't know any better or even, as Robert suggests above, were complicit in pushing a SYG angle) I believe it's FL law, nonwithstanding SYG, that if someone claims SD and there's no probable cause for an arrest the person has to be released. In truth I don't know if it's all that different in other states. I know a person can't simply be held indefinitely without being charged.

If I understand how things work that would be much more difficult in a Castle Doctrine state than otherwise. (Assuming of course you were cleared criminally)

I've never understood how SYG kept coming up in this case. The defense is obviously going to have to stick to the story as told by Zimmerman, right? The story he told about what happened (unless I'm badly mistaken) was that he was on his back getting beaten when he deployed his weapon. Whatever decision comes out in court about that claim there's no "ground being stood" when you're claiming to be on your back getting throttled. This is going to be decided as a straight-up SD case, one way or the other.

The first thing I'd note is that if you find yourself in a position where your gun or ammunition are being called into question things aren't going well already. What we're talking about are "complicating" factors. The first example (it being from the 70's and all) is all but dead in any realistic sense. As opposed to 30yrs ago ammo isn't just "ammo" anymore and factory ammunition intended for SD is squeezing just about every last FPS they can without blowing things up and some of them are doing it with proprietary bullets. If one were so inclined a pretty good argument could be made these days that some factory ammo in common SD calibers actually exceeds what can be safely handloaded by a civilian with component bullets and cannister powders. Having said this it'd still cost money to make a fool of the prosecuter's attempts to make the arguement. The Bias case (it's kinda funny that "bias" is the actual case name) is predicated entirely on the galactic outlier of the handload in question bearing almost no discernable similarity to anything any of us would load. In other words there is no load any of us would carry that would have not left GSR 'O Plenty on Lise Bias under the described circumstances and that case would have played out nothing like it did. The above observation of the Bias case isn't without caveats regarding SD handloads. What I'm really trying to show is that even with cases to cite we have to go way, WAY off the beaten path. A LOT of things need to have gotten very much sideways for someone to find themselves seriously having to defend the use of handloads (or X pistol modification or Y caliber) but people have been struck by meteorites too so the only certain way to avoid the risk is to avoid the issue by keeping things "standardized". Honestly though modern factory SD rounds are damn good and if one is a handloader anyway it's not any real hassle to handload for practice and carry factory.

Do you want a ridiculous caliber or a ridiculous gun? A .500 S&W is all kinds of crazy as a caliber but when you really get down to it's just a really, REALLY big revolver. Once you get used to the size of it an X-Frame doesn't really stand out until you pull the trigger. A .50 DE OTOH is pretty crazy just sitting there. It's got an innate funkiness to it that goes beyond just a .44 revolver that's been eating babies and drinking tiger's blood, which for all it's size and power is basically all the .500 has going for it. I will say that, as crazy as it sounds, a .460/.500 is probably a lot more "practical". It's pretty easy to load them up or down and most every one I've heard of has been quite accurate.

This would be a good time to list all those things you DO consider to be "Rights" that have been shown to be totally outside the scope of government regulation. I'll think you'll find yourself conceding that just because something is viewed as a Right hasn't kept it immune from what they call "reasonable regulation". (when you've got another minute to ponder things on your hands toss around why in states where there is no permit requirement at all it's often referred to as "Constitutional carry") As to the overall gist of your postings I'll reiterate what I've said earlier; while you may very well consider yourself a pro-gun type and are sincerely concerned about things like safety and positive interaction with the public at large you are terribly naive in how the anti's operate. In court they've been getting their butt kicked. (Shall issue, Castle Doctrine, Heller, etc) Their best means of getting anywhere at this point is to wail mightily at anything that ever goes wrong and implore that actions be taken "for the greater good". This only works to the extent they want if gun owners get all self concious and WILLINGLY surrender ground. Don't be one of those guys. As an aside I see no harm in doing a better job of educating those that are already in a class environment and paying for their time. (Actually it's that it varies so much. I thought the guy in my carry class did a pretty good job but I've heard stories about other places...not so much)

If you're really talking SHTF for $600 or so you can have a Glock with conversion barrel that'll fire either the .40 or 9mm, whichever is at hand. (If you really wanted to fudge it you could still be under $900 and throw in a .22 rimfire conversion...all for less than many 1911's alone) Also, if the situation were bad enough that maintenance was iffy, even such rudimetary things as lubrication, then I'd much prefer a Glock. I've got a 1911 and a Sig Elite and prefer "shooting" either to my Glocks. For the scenario presented it'd be a Glock.

Any responsible gun owner should HATE hearing about something getting sideways with permit holders (or gun owners in general for that matter) but you seem terribly myopic on how those that would try to put the screws to ALL of us work. This is to say, have us concede, incrementally, ground we already have that's veiled as "for the greater good". There is no true defense against stupid. We are forced to live with it in some individuals everywhere every day. Don't give ground on their account.

True, but that's a state thing. I'm pretty sure there's at least a handfull of states that have "Constitutional Carry" as it's sometimes referred. (Sometimes called "Vermont Carry" as that's where it was first adopted unless I'm sorely mistaken)

The boldened above is the only one that really carries much water IMO. Specifically for some others: What specifically do you mean by "stronger" BGC? What exactly are you advocating? WHAT "gun show loophole"? If you are advocating all firearm transactions must go through a tracked FFL so be it but the idea of a (current) GSL is entirely erroneous.

I will carry what I want (well, there's a few things I want I'd like to carry but don't have...maybe someday) thank you, as I assume you will. "I just have never had a "coherent" explanation of the purpose or practical use of a trigger safety." I gave you a quite coherent and congenial explanation of the purpose of a trigger safety. As for your hypothetical 2:00 AM scenario (which moved the goal posts from your original statement) you have perfectly described a negligent discharge which has always been and shall ever be USER ERROR. For that matter once you invoke the "unintentional" you are logically bound to it's application in all directions. For instance, what if you had "unintentionally" left the safety off to begin with? For that matter, what if you "unintentionally" forget to take the safety off in the stress of the moment and get yourself killed? (See how hypotheticals work?) How many ND's have 1911's accounted for over the years (including the subject of this thread) which have a manual AND passive (grip) safety? In fact, while we're on a roll, how about all those rifle/shotgun ND's? ALL of those involved weapons with manual safties. Look, if YOU are uncomfortable without a manual safety it's no big deal...your weapon choice is yours. Your problem is that you came here with this; "I don't know what model gun he was carrying, but I would bet that it was a trigger safety "safety-less" gun." and were wrong. I'm not going to give you a hard time about it but you were wrong. Then you doubled down by casting derisions on a whole swath of weapon platforms and by association (intentional or not) those who would carry them. Sorry dude, but taking heat for that isn't something you get to play "victim" over.

It's nothing more than having a system where a weapon is prevented from firing unless the trigger is depressed in a manner consistent with an intentional pull of said trigger. The intended upside is that one doesn't have to train to manipulate a safety while facing a rather time intensive/high stress/life-and-death situation. Some simply aren't comfortable without that added step. The real upshot in weapon safety however doesn't change with weapon platform; far and away the biggest "safety" involved with ANY weapon is between the ears of the user.

DA: Robbery victim, 65, justified in shooting of teens on trail | Regional: Berks - Home

When I ordered my Crossbreed Supertuck holster I went ahead and got one of their gun belts too. No complaints. The only other belt I wear is a Wilderness Instructor. If you've got the cheddar to burn I've never heard a single bad thing about Beltman but the above are cheaper and I'm happy so far with both.

I have a Kahr that is VERY nervous about it's future role once the 938 is released.

I've got a .500S&W and it's awesome. I reload and that'd be a pretty big deal if you planned to shoot much. I point this out since if you plan to become proficient enough to use it for hunting, particularly at longer ranges, you'd be doing yourself and your quarry a disservice to not practice often. With optics on board my .500 or .44 (Redhawk) are both quite capable of 100yd shots at game, though the .500 brings a lot more beer to the party when it arrives. (Actually I'm sure they're capable of shooting a good deal further but I don't like pushing it much past that) If you really want to shoot long, 150yd+, I'd look into a TC Contender/Encore.

Another bump for Bowen if we're talking wheelgun work. I've got a Redhawk that's got his name on it somewhere down the road. + Bowen Classic Arms + Home

They're actually pretty well thought of in most circles. (at least the non-snooty ones) They're basically a Weatherby Vanguard as far as the mechanics are concerned. I've got an older one in 7mmRM but it's been souped up a bit (trigger massaged, bedded into a Boyd's laminated stock, etc) but even OOTB I had no real complaints other than maybe the trigger being a touch creepy for my taste. I've heard more recent ones (mine is mid 90'ish) have better triggers. If you get a chance to handle a couple somewhere they're certainly worth a look for the money.

Tikka T3 lite stainless with 2.5-8x36 Loopy VIII. In only a couple years the darn thing is now the most likely thing for me to pull out of safe if heading to the woods. The aesthetics aren't for everyone but if you don't have a problem with the looks it's, IMO, maybe the best combo of light and accurate out there for the money.

I've read all manner of opinions on this subject from a myriad of sources and come to a few conclusions. 1)The risk of carrying reloads is greatly exaggerated. If the prosecution is in a position to throw that into the mix this was NOT a very good looking shoot to begin with. 2)While the above is true so is the fact it is incredibly unlikely that you'd ever be attacked by a shark while swimming at the beach...that doesn't mean it can't happen. 3)There are absolutely viable counter-arguements to make against those you'd face for the use of reloads. The problem is that, if you're having to do this, it means you're already in a courtroom having to defend yourself and paying a lawyer. There's not exactly an upside to this scenario. It's quite unlikely any of us are ever going to shoot someone in SD. It's even more unlikely the type of weapon or load used is going to have any bearing on the case. That doesn't mean carrying factory ammo might not make a positive difference. Personally I shoot reloads for practice and carry factory.

Inasmuch as it being a shame that the bear in question was accidentally shot in the first place (being a protected Grizz vs a legal Black) I can agree. Beyond that it's still a tragedy all the way around.

I'm late to this party (and apparently missed some good stuff) but I would have thought the easiest thing to do would be energy figures associated with caliber. If the caliber in question is "known" to meet the energy requirements then that's that. Would someone be able to, for instance, handload some .44 Magnum cases with .44 Special loads? Sure, but how many would actually bother to do that? If you're carrying a .44 Mag and your rounds say .44 Mag don't sweat it. There's no point in turning up the heat on everybody on the "chance" that .000001% of them might be fudging their energy figures with watered down loads. Other than that it's as simple as looking over the weapon, verifying the caliber and telling everybody to be safe out there. As for HCP that could double as a hunting gun I would absolutely use one my 10mm's on deer, though the actual type of bullet used would be different. (I'd go for max penetration rounds for hunting) Still, I've got better handguns for that purpose. In any case, and this is probably self-evident, practice hunting shots with whatever you're going to hunt with. Being confident you can hit a deer in the vitals a 45yds is not the same thing as being happy with your groups at 15yds and assuming you're all set.

Try a good JSP 200+gr or two and give a go with at least one good hardcast load then take whichever you shoot most accurately hunting. I've personally grown fond of 300gr hardcast over stout loads of W296 in my Redhawk. (Though if I can this season I plan on trying to bag one with the .500) Good luck and remember...accuracy nearly always trumps caliber/bullet selection.

There may be others but I'm certain Remington makes a "managed recoil" load for the .270. It's listed with a 115gr bullet at 2710 which is roughly a warm load out of a .257 Roberts. Something to look into anyway.