JReedEsq

First, You are the one making huge generalizations. 95 percent huh? I call BS unless you think their mere presence is doing something dangerous. Second, I'm not holier than thou, just stating cyclist have a right to exist, and I explained that sidewalks can be a dangerous and illegal place for bikes. I drive a car nearly every day so how could I hate drivers?

Why would anyone need to own a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round magazine? Why do you need any gun not designed for hunting? The greenways are not everywhere and they can be crowded, slow and they just aren't designed for a fit cyclist. I've got nothing against greenways. I used to incorporate the greenways as a part of my everyday commute and I like to use them to avoid traffic in high traffic areas. Just because they exist doesn't mean cyclists lose the right to use the road. What it comes down to is that some of you guys just don't like simething because it's unfamiliar to you and makes you uncomfortable. Sound familiar? Broomhead: your first post stated you don't like cyclists and your second one just reinforces it. You have a right to your opinion, no matter how ignorant it may be. You don't have a right to put someone's life in danger because they have caused you a small delay. Some of you guys are hilarious with your talk of survival, SHTF, TEOTWAWKI, etc... And a lot of you coundn't run five miles if your life depended on it.

Two points: 1. You seem to think someone has a defiant, or "dare-devil" attitude just by their presence. This is a very self-centered view. Who knows why a particular cyclist chooses to ride. It could be for exercise, fun, or commuting. I can almost guarantee that they aren't out there to make you seven seconds late to wherever you're going. 2. The cyclist is in a far better position to determine how far to the right is safe enough to ride. From your vehicle you have idea what kind of debris may be on the road, if the shoulder has a "rumble strip", or if the shoulder is about to drop off.

No problem, Erik. Just remember they are probably on that curvy two-lane in an attempt to avoid traffic. You'll find that most cyclists, just like most gun owners, tend to be really safe. After all, they are in far more danger than you.

If it's truly taking a while to pass, I certainly try to waive traffic around me at the earliest safe opportunity. Most seasoned cyclists will do exactly the same thing.

Is your area open carry friendly? Broomhead might be out there....

This is pure bull*****. How can you say you don't like an entire group of people based on the actions of one or two? I don't like drivers who swerve at me, throw things, or yell obscenities. Do I think cars should be illegal? Of course not. I'm sitting in a Cadillac right now.

So the law should treat all cyclists differently because a few people don't follow the rules? This logic is severely flawed.

This is why my Dad always says you should assume you are invisible when you're on a motorcycle or a bicycle.

1. If you are riding a "road" bike, the wheels, tires, and general setup of the bike is designed for going fast on the road, not on a sidewalk. 2. It is actually illegal to ride on the sidewalks in many municipalities.(See #3 and #5). 3. Sidewalks are designed for pedestrians that means people who are on foot. Why should I have to wait on them, startle them, or risk their leashed dog or child causing a collision. 4. The sidewalks are usually where all the glass, tacks, staples etc.. are located, which can result in expensive and time wasting flat tires. 5. Riding on the sidewalk can actually be more dangerous than riding on the road. Why? Because the sidewalks don't expect a 20 mph vehicle to be in in an area designed for pedesrians. Hence they don't see cyclists and pull into the path of cyclist in places where the sidewalk may cross driveway or parking lot. 6. Cyclists have a right to be on the road. Trust me, I pay plenty of taxes, and if there is an alternative street with less traffic, I'll usually take it. That said, I'm sorry if I've ever created a 5-15 second delay for you. I should know that you're probably on the way are on the way to defuse a bomb or deliver a baby somewhere. LOL. Seriously, Just throw your tobacco spit cup at me. That seems what most people do. Or they've really got brass balls, they yell obscenities and then drive off really fast. I've always assumed this is because they are admiring my physique, and would really like to keep watching me ride, but darn it they have a bomb to defuse and don't have the time to stop and talk...

I actually am a fan of the RTF. It's just not my first choice for carry since it can abrade and/or snag on clothing. If I didn't wear dressy clothes I wouldn't hesitate to carry an RTF. For carry, the Gen 4 texture is just about perfect. That said, my Gen 3 19 is still my main carry and even though I like the feel of my Gen 4 17, it's not enough of an improvement to make me want to trade in my Gen 3 19.

Sounds like you've got it figured out. Good luck finding a P226. I'd still recommend 9mm over .40 for a first gun. Nothing against .40, but I own both calibers and I definitely shoot more 9mm.

I have an RTF 22. I love the grip and it doesn't bother my hands at all. My normal EDC is a 3rd Gen 19 but I've carried it (the 22) on occasion. The only issue I've had is that I was wearing it owb in a holster with a suit and tie and the grip is so sticky it made the gun stick to my jacket when getting up from a table at a restaurant one day. I've never had that issue with my 19 or my Gen 4 17. I really like the RTF for range/home defense, but it's not my first choice for a primary carry.

I planned on getting one of these but learned they have a bad reputation for quality. Instead, get a Glock and then get an Advantage Arms .22lr conversion kit. That way you are using your actual Glock trigger. My works great as long as you stick to the ammo they recommend. To the OP. I'd suggest you decide whether you want the same trigger pull every time or if you like the idea of a harder double action pull for the first shot then a smoother, shorter single action pull. If you want the same trigger pull every time, look at Glock and M&P. If you want a DA/SA design look at Sig Sauer and call around to try to find a CZ 75. If you get tired of all the advice, just plunk your money down and buy a Glock 17. You won't be dissappointed.

I would think you'd want the hottest FMJ you can find. JHP may not provide adequate penetration.

This is pretty much my situation except I only have one rifle and one shotgun. They are fun to shoot but not fun to shoot indoors which is usually all I can make time for.

+1; He defended his family from a life-threatening situation; that's really all that matters.

I suspect it may have been a .44 special.

I haven't tried one. I have tried a P226 and liked it, I just think I like the DA to SA transition. That da/sa transition issue would be the same with a CZ. Consistent trigger pull, positive reset, and superior weight/capacity all make me think I'll stick with Glocks for carry. That said, there is something I really like about the look and feel of a Sig. I particularly like the models with the rosewood grips. Since I don't really care for 1911s, a high end Sig would be nice halo gun to add to the collection someday. That's why I like to hear from guys who own both Sigs and Glocks.

Eric, If it's working fine with your other magazines, they'll probably send you a new one if you ask... To the OP: How do you like that Sig compared to your G19? I'm satisfied with my Glocks, but intrigued by Sigs.

My 17 was a very early Gen 4 and I did call Glock and have them send me an updated recoil spring, (had strange creaking noises with the first one but no malf.) Both the 17 and 19 Gen 4s were initially shipping with recoil springs that were sometimes too stiff for lower-powered target ammo but worked fine for the hot stuff. Again, I never had malfunctions with mine even using wally-world ammo, but the Glock rep I dealt with said that the 9mms initially had the same recoil spring as the .40 which could lead to problems. I think they have corrected the issue by going to a slightly lighter spring for the 9mm and I'm satisfied that a solution is a phone call away for anyone that does have an issue.

To the OP, nice pistols. Looks like 3 good choices. To Knoxville Eric: I have a Gen 4 17 and I haven't noticed any difference in the finish between it and my Gen 3 guns. I haven't carried it often (usually carry my 19) but I happen to have it with me today and it still looks brand new.

I had the same issue with my P3AT for the first 50 rounds. I had one FTF during the second 50 rounds (using Tula) and by the next 80 rounds of Remmington UMC I had no issues at all. The LCP I traded away fed everything as long as it was clean. I got rid of it just because I didn't enjoy shooting it and then decided I should have kept it since my Glock 26 is too heavy to carry while running/cycling. Personally, I think any pocket .380 will probably finicky. I'm not even planning to mess with JHP for now in the P3AT. It is a very specific use gun for me. It's only for times when I wouldn't otherwise carry. If I want to pocket carry for EDC I just move up to my Glock 26 and avoid tight pants.

I just hardly ever see anyone OC period. I must not get out much... I've only ever seen one guy who I thought looked a little too much like a mall ninja. Other than that it just seems to be grumpy, gray haired old men with 1911s and one guy with a huge revolver we saw in the smokies. The last time I saw anyone OC, it was a clean cut, older guy, probably early 60s, walking around West Town Mall with a 1911. No one seemed to notice.

I understand your sentiment. Just so happens that when I'm looking scroungy I don't have my shirt tucked in, hence I can conceal. This fall/winter, I've started going owb often with my suit/tie lawyer costume on. Most of the time I still toss the coat on when out and about or when clients are in my office, but I think my chances of making someone uncomfortable are far less when I'm clean shaven and wearing a tie.