JReedEsq

For that price I'd probably have to snap it up.

I have a G19 and a G26. The biggest advantaoge to the 26 for carry is that it's possible to pocket carry with the right pants and a kydex pocket holster. I carry that way a lot in the summer, but this time of year my 26 is taking a rest for a while. BTW, sitnce I don't use a grip extension, I prefer the 26 to the 27.

+1; I've had no problems at all shooting Wal-mart TULA in .223 and 9mm. I do have a problem with guns that are finicky about ammo.

All four of my Glocks have been this way. Even when I had the early "bad" recoil spring in my 4th Gen 17. They all just work. I like Sigs but they are heavier and I don't like that first 12lb D/A pull. The M&P line is nice but I don't have a problem with the Glock ergos and I like the Glock trigger reset a little more. I'm no authority but I started with a Glock 19 (on me right now, btw) and I just haven't found a reason to move to anything else.

+1; IMHO the pocket .380 models have substantially more recoil than something like a Glock 26 or Smith & Wesson M&P9c. My Glock 26 actually shoots much more like a regular gun than my pocket .380. As a result, I feel more comfortable with it and carry it much more often. With a few holster options, it's actually super easy to conceal.

Check out the Glock 26, the Kahr PM9 and Smith & Wesson M&P9c. I own a .380 but I really wouldn't want to have a .380 as my only handgun. The ammo is pricy and can be hard to find. For a first gun I suggest getting a caliber that is cheap and available so you'll practice more. Welcome to the forum.

I'm sure that guy in the chair would outshoot me. Does anyone run a pump shotgun? How about a rife without optics?

I really like my Casio Commando Droid. It's water resistant,shock resistant and even as a little flashlight. My Motorola Droid died when I got caught in a rainstorm during a hike. I know you can put an Otter Box on any smartphone, but then it becomes a lot bulkier in the pocket. Yes I have submerged my phone, because I couldn't resist testing it. The finish is awesome too. It still looks new even though it gets carried with my keys.

That's interesting. For some strange reason I'm slightly better at slow-fire accuracy with my RTF 22 than my 4th Gen 17. I really like the RTF grip but the accuracy is probably because my 22 is the only gun I've bought used and it had a very smooth and slightly lighter trigger when I bought it. Your results don't help me justify my plan of buying a 34. I've even thought about trading my 17 for a 34 since I usually grab my 22 when I want to carry a full-size.

I find that I shoot close to the same in relatively slow fire accuracy. If I speed up some I shoot my 17 the best since it has a little less recoil than my 19, 26, or 22. I find the recoil of my 19 to be similar to my 22 since a little less weight is off set by the fact that the .40 round produces a slightly sharper recoil. The only Glock I've shot that I found to be a little unpleasent was the 27 without a finger extension. Since I wanted the option of pocket carry I went with the 26. I didn't care for the .40 in that small a package but I love to shoot the .40 in my 22. Then again you may want to stick with .40 if you get cheap or free ammo through your department or you want to be able to use mags you already have. My opinion is probably worth what you're paying for it but if you practice with and are accustomed to the Glock trigger, I think any Glock will serve you well.

Three gun looks super fun, but IDPA is less equipment specific so it seems the logical thing to try first.

This movie got rave reviews from some folks I know... I'd like to check it out if we ever get a babysitter.

PJ- As a Dad of two small kids, I certainly understand what you mean by "when time allows". I'm probably not planning to join right now... Just thinking about checking out watching or participating in one of the IDPA matches on a Saturday. Notice I didn't say "competing". I just bought a membership to Coal Creek since I live in West Knoxville. Squeezing in there once every couple of weeks or so is probably about all I expect to have time for in the near future.

Because on the average weekend ride you might do a 60 mile loop. Let's say in order to make it a loop instead of an "out and back" you have to ride 1/3 of a mile on a highway on the way out and 1/2 mile of a different stretch of the same highway on the way back. The rest of the time you're on roads with little to no traffic except for the occasional tractor and your biggest issue is stray dogs (which we just covered in another thread). That means 95% or more of your time is really relaxing and fun. Believe it or not the time spent on the highway isn't because you want to be there or you want to block traffic, it just may be the only way to get to another farm road on the other side. As for blood pressure, cyclists are some of the healthiest people I know. Many of the folks I've ridden and raced with over the years have been excellent athletes in other sports and they've always enjoyed a little friendly competition. I know several collegete runners and two cyclists who were college football players, (one at MTSU and one at UT) You see tons of former runners with knee, ankle or other injuries that make them transition to the bike. I've been trying to stay off of this thread but this seemed to be a respectful and honest question that I thought deserved a response. At this point I think it's run it's course. Let's move on the something insightful and productive: What do you think of open carry? Do JHP .380 rounds provide adequate penetration? Why are AKs so innaccurate? Isn't .45 an antiquated caliber now that the .40 is around and 9mm JHP technology has improved so much?

What statistics? Where? Statistically, heart disease is the number one killer of Americans. Not to mention diabetes, arthritis and any number of other conditions that deteriorate qualitiy of life and are caused or exacerbated by being overweight. With reasonable precaution, most people have far more to gain from cardio-vascular exercise than the risks of being in an accident.

When you post that the cyclist shouldn't be surprised if they get injured, it implies they are at fault.

I've got no problem with this. My problem is that you blame the cyclist if a negligent driver causes an injury.

I actually misunderstood. I thought the implacation was that the you would take out a cyclist like you'd take out a deer. I didn't watch the video because I thought it would just piss me off. Please apply my earlier statements to the sentiment that cyclists "should" be hit which I know was on the first or second page of the thread. I think the antelope thing was posted on the page for a cycling club I'm a member of so I've probably already seen it. Interestingly, it was posted with the caption of "Why I ride on the road". A few years ago their was a news story about a mountain lion attacking a mountain biker in California with a similar caption. There have actually been two documented mountain lion attacks on cyclists in the last few years. I guess we look tasty. I'll admit I misunderstood your post Batman. Maybe I am sensitive. It's just the whole my car/truck/SUV is bigger than your bike so you don't deserve to be here thing gets a little old.

I'm done. If anyone wants to see my thoughts they can search for the old thread. I'm astonished by all these folks that talk about individual liberties etc... but don't think that basic safety rules and common courtesy don't extend to those who are different from them. Next someone will say cyclists don't follow the rules of the road even though I clearly advocate that cyclists should follow the rules of the road. Then they will flip things on me and say that cyclists shouldn't be on the road specifically because drivers don't follow the rules of the road by texting etc... and (they won't even see the contradiction. )

When did I advocate breaking any laws or doing anything undesirable? The only thing I'm advocating is that I don't need your permission to do something that's well within the law. I guess that's thin-skinned of me.

First page, deer on bike. You posted it.

There's a huge difference here. What you don't get is that, all joking aside, no one is questioning your right to be on the road. You seem to start from the position that if you don't like someone they shouldn't be there or they are stupid if they make a different choice than you.

I guess you'd outlaw motorcycles if you were king? How about small cars? Convertibles? All drivers should wear helmets?

Except that I was being sarcastic. Although, if you really think cyclists want to be hit then you should stay home. How is it overly sensitive to be pissed about jokes implying serious injury or shooting at cyclists? Imagine instead of a deer target on a bike it's a statement that some other group "deserves" to be shot at or seriously injured? That's not overly-sensitive. Thanks a lot. I'll speak for most cyclists when I say I don't give a rats a$$ whether you like me there or not. If I have a chance to let you by I'll make room ASAP. It's when you laugh at threats, imply cyclists deserve to be injured etc... That's when I have a problem. Like others on this board, I've been spat at, had things thrown at me, cussed, threatened etc... Guess what? On every occasion that I can recall it has been on a back road somewhere when I was not blocking any traffic etc... This leads me to the conclusion that the perpetrators that did it weren't really upset about their inconvienence or concern for anyone's safety. They did it because they saw the opportunity to act like a jerk, drive off, and get away with it. Sorry if you think we're overly sensitive, I guess if someone joked about shooting you, you'd laugh it off.

Fortunately, you don't get to decide what's best for other people. It's a dangerous world out there. You should probably just stay home.