East_TN_Patriot

Harris makes a good solid bipod for sure. I had one on a Savage and never had a complaint. I currently have a cheaper Caldwell bipod on on my Remington 700 and I would say it's not as solid as the Harris, but at half the price, it's a decent bipod. More than sufficient for my recreational shooting needs.

I had mine in the garage in my previous house. I just kept bolted to the wooden skids it was shipped on. I also kept dessicant cans and a goldenrod in it. I am in my safe all the time and I've never had any rust issues.

I had a terrible experience with a Nissan dealership in Florida when I first moved there from Kentucky.  We worked out a deal on a vehicle, traded in a used Toyota Tercel, signed the paperwork, got the temporary tag, and drove off.  30 days passed and our new Florida tag did not arrive so my (now ex) wife went back to the dealership to get a new temporary tag and see what the deal was.  She called me up and said that they would not issue a new paper tag and that they had not ordered the new Florida tag because my trade was registered and titled in Kentucky and it would be an extra $300 for the transfer.  I told them that wasn't going to happen because it was no secret that my car had a Kentucky registration and title, we signed the paperwork, and I wasn't paying for their mistake.  I also demanded they issue a new temp tag until the situation was worked out.  My wife called me back and said the sales manager just marked out the original expiration date and wrote in a new expiration date on the paper tag, which is a criminal violation in Florida.  I demanded they issue a new temporary tag or I would have one of my co-workers (I was a cop at the time) come down there an issue a notice to appear for altering a temporary tag.  The salesman got on the phone, cussed me out, and said he would put the new paper tag on the car to make "officer asshole" happy.  Long story short, I contacted Nissan corporate and they contacted the dealership and they ate the $300 transfer fees and I got my Florida tag.  I'll be darned if about a year later I ran into that salesman at the mall and he was all buddy-buddy asking when I would be coming in to buy another vehicle from him.  That conversation didn't go well. I absolutely HATE car shopping.

Well, since you folks have actually gone through their training, I've been hesitant to attend any because I am put off by the arrogance (or what I perceive as arrogance) by the guy that runs the show up there and I visualized the classes as a bunch of him strutting around telling folks how great he is.  Is that an accurate characterization of the guy or is he actually a good instructor?  The fighting rifle course looks decent, but not if all I am going to hear is him telling war stories for two days.

OK, people are not realizing what I am saying here.  I am NOT a LEO anymore. I've been out of law enforcement since 2007 and now I am a criminal justice professor.  My point is that the rules for civilian use of force follow very similar legal guidelines as LEOs, but the rules are actually MORE STRICT for civilians, so they need to be even more knowledgeable about use-of-force law because they don't have a built-in legal authority to use force like the police do.  In fact, it's not a rare argument that people who choose to exercise their right to carry a firearm with a carry permit have an obligation to be even more knowledgeable than the average person when it comes to use-of-force law.      Yes, and that is what I have been saying all along.   I even made that specific point of illustration a few posts ago.  It all comes down to the "totality of the circumstances" issue, but people keep arguing saying it doesn't apply to civilians and it most certainly does.  What I am trying to get folks to understand is that you can't simply say, "Well, I'm old" or "I didn't know whether that person would kill me or not and I'm not taking any chances" and expect that to protect you in court in a shooting that isn't legally justified.  If people don't like the facts of the law as I and many others understand it, or if they choose to ignore it, that's their prerogative, but I'm an educator and that's all I am trying to do here.     Again, the laws regarding use of force are NOT unique to law enforcement, but apply to civilians and LEOs alike.  The police get MORE flexibility than civilians, yet people seem to be arguing that being a private citizen relieves them of legal responsibility and restrictions placed upon them by the law.  I don't want to get into a physical confrontation any more than the next guy, but the fact of the matter is that the law simply does not provide legal justification in using deadly force against someone unless there is a clear and obvious threat of IMMINENT death or grievous bodily injury.  If I am misinterpreting the other points being made here, then I apologize.  

  Not necessarily.  Most people recognize that they would immediately become a felon armed with a firearm, which will get them an automatic prison term.  Like I said, I was engaged in multiple physical altercations during my police career and not a single bad guy ever tried to get my firearm.  Think about it; you personally get in a fight with someone and you see they have a firearm on them.  Would you go for their gun or would you cut and run in case they decided to shoot you?  At the end of the day, most fights are between people who know each other, and random thugs generally don't want to get shot.  They see their victim has a firearm and they will run or shoot at you if they happen to be armed.   By no means am I trying to say that one shouldn't use their firearm to defend themselves if they genuinely feel that their life is in danger, but it seems that some people try to look for reasons to make it easier to justify using deadly force than the law allows.  If someone is 65-plus being attacked by an 18 year old kid, then clearly they are going to be able to use deadly force before me, a 37 year old in decent shape who has had some law enforcement training.  If an unarmed attacker is violently beating you and you think that you are about to lose that fight and they aren't going to stop (as it sounds like the case may be in the George Zimmerman case), then you are likely to be justified in using deadly force.  If you try to retreat and they come after you, that goes in your favor.  If you have a small child with you and you must protect them as well, then that goes in your favor.  It's all about the totality of the circumstances and being able to articulate specific facts to justify your belief that deadly force was absolutely necessary to protect yourself from imminent death or grievous bodily injury.  

  Perhaps, but you'd have to be able to explain why these stories are relevant to your particular case.  Also, they are such a rare occurrence, it's likely that the judge/jury would not give it much weight.  While your defense attorney presents that, the prosecutor is going to present evidence of thousands and thousands of serious beatings where nobody died and hundreds of cases that show your use of deadly force was excessive and not justified.    

And here is the question you need to ask yourself: what do you do if they don't stop approaching you, but never give any indication that they intend to cause you serious physical injury or death?  Do you shoot him?  If so, how do you justify that your actions were reasonable in court?  If you can't very clearly articulate EXACTLY how you believed deadly force was necessary to defend your life from imminent deadly force, you are very likely to be indicted and convicted of criminal homicide.  Just because you are not required by law to retreat, if you don't make that effort before shooting an unarmed attacker, you are likely to find yourself sitting in court.  Once you draw that weapon, you better be ready and legally justified in shooting that person, or skilled enough to reholster that weapon in a hurry to defend yourself from a non-lethal threat.  Again, you can't simply assume that any hostile person *might* kill you and use that as justification that deadly force is legally authorized.    

Yes, I can make that comparison because the law regarding use-of-force is essentially the same for both the police and private citizens, except that the law gives the police MORE latitude is using force than a private citizen, not less.  Also, a similar "totality of the circumstances" standard is used to judge the actions of private citizens.  If you notice, the first chart I posted is specifically related to civilian use of force, and it's modeled after the old use-of-force continuum used by FLETC.  Just as in law enforcement, possessing and using a firearm is a tremendous responsibility, and that includes being very clear what the law allows and does not allow.  Just because you are an untrained private citizen, the law does NOT give you extra flexibility to use deadly force "just because".  Now, it might be easier for an untrained civilian to justify using deadly force against an unarmed attacker than a trained LEO or trained civilian, which again gets to the "totality of the circumstances" argument.     I am not presenting an "argument", rather I am simply stating the way the law outlines the use of force, especially deadly force.  Again, just see how things are turning out for George Zimmerman.  Like I said earlier, even if he is ultimately found not guilty of criminal homicide, I am certain he wishes he'd kept his butt in his truck that night.  One generally has a tremendous burden of proof to meet in order to justify the use of deadly force against an unarmed attacker, but if a person wants to think that they can win that court battle because that's what they want the law to give them more liberty to use deadly force, then I wish them luck. 

This is essentially what I was getting at before when I talked about the totality of the circumstances and the issue of a person with disabilities or a clear difference in strength. It all goes back to being able to explain my use of deadly force, my decisions being justified based on the curcumstances of the situation as I understood them to be, and whether my interpretation of the situation was reasonable and in agreement with the law. How much force is being used against you, what are the individual factors related to each combatant, what are the environmental factors, etc.? A blanket declaration that using deadly force against someone just because you don't know how much harm they intend to inflict or *might* inadvertently inflict is liable to get a person indicted and/or sued. Here is a chart that is similar to the one used by law enforcement that kind of gets to the point a bit: Here is a diagram I use when I teach about use-of-force that drives my point home:

It won't allow access unless you are a member.  What does it say?

I had one and sold it due to the issues related to shooting commercial .308 in them.  If I were to get another, it would be the 18" Scout model.  

  Exactly.  This Senate couldn't even get up enough votes to pass an AWB or high-cap magazine ban.  Why anyone thinks they'd get a 2/3 majority to ratify this treaty is beyond me.

  Who is saying you can't defend yourself?  Certainly not me, but I do say that the level of force you use to defend yourself must be lawful. I took a couple of butt kickings (one resulting in broken nose) and was engaged in multiple physical altercations during my police career and I never shot anyone and I have no long-lasting effects other than a slightly crooked nose.  I defended myself with my hands, feet, OC spray, a baton, and a flashlight.  I worked with cops who had a Taser or even pistol-whipped a suspect during an altercation.  I was in one lengthy fight where I grabbed a guy's hair and bashed his head on the sidewalk.  I even had an encounter with a guy brandishing a sword and due to the unique circumstances I did not need to shoot him; OC spray and hands-on tactics were sufficient in disarming and arresting the guy.  You fight until you think the fight is more than you can handle, then you try to disengage if possible.  If you can't retreat and you believe the beating will continue, then you might be justified in using deadly force.     I'm far from being a tough-guy, but I do understand the law and the ramifications for unjustified use of deadly force.  I'd like to think you are visualizing a very serious physical attack here, but based on your comments it sounds like you think you have a defense if you shoot someone for even a minor altercation.  The fact of the matter is that the law is the law and just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you aren't obligated to face sanctions if you violate it.  Again, it's your choice, but if deadly force isn't justified, don't be surprised if you end up a guest of the state for the remainder of your natural life.    

Based on that logic, it's not a far step to say that anyone acting remotely aggressive and/or belligerent can be shot because they *might* pose a lethal risk because you don't know what could happen.  Having spent a decade in law enforcement and almost another decade teaching about use-of-force, I promise you that the law is not on your side.  Even the police have pretty strict use-of-force guidelines and they have even more latitude in their application of force, at least until they get to deadly force then they have to meet the same legal standards as the rest of us.   Ludicrous in your book or not, if you shoot and kill someone over a bloody nose, you are extremely likely to end up in prison and/or owing your entire financial life to the decedent's family.  If you are OK with that, then so be it.   

The answer to your question is simple: injuries heal and death is permanent.  Our legal system generally believes that every human being has a fundamental right to exist and we don't take people's lives except in the most serious of circumstances.  Seriously, how many people do you know who have gotten a serious butt kicking who didn't survive and were no worse for wear?   Add in the reality that most physical altercations are predicated upon an exchange of verbal jabs and if we allowed the use of deadly force in the face of a simple physical assault, people would have a ready-made defense should they want to kill someone.  All they would have to do is start a verbal altercation, wait for the person to attack, and then kill them claiming self-defense.   Of course, the totality of the circumstances is important.  Take RichardR above for instance.  A person with numerous ailments that limits their ability to effectively defend themselves is quite different than a young and fit individual.  A small person going up against a larger and more physically fit person is another situation.  What you must do is be able to justify that you reasonably believed there was an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury as outlined in the TCA, and that deadly force was your last option.  Even the castle doctrine is based on the idea that an intruder poses an immediate risk of death or serious injury to you and your family, not that you are protecting your residence or property. Also, you have to live with yourself and your decision, so do you really want to live with the idea that you killed some loudmouth to keep from getting a bloody nose?  I certainly don't, especially on top of the risk of being criminally and civilly liable for my actions if they weren't absolutely and clearly justified.  Those who say "better to be judged by 12" have never been the subject of civil and criminal action for an unjustified shooting.  I'd bet a dollar to a donut that Zimmerman wishes he'd kept his butt in his truck, even if the shooting is ultimately ruled as justified.  

And I already have the LW barrel for that reason.  When I reload, I typically use lead bullets, so it was one of the first things I ordered after I picked up the pistol.   And gosh darn you!  Just when people about had me convinced about the Glock.  You are quite right.  I carried a Sig P-229 for 8 of the 10 years I was a LEO and have thousands of rounds behind the Sig platform.  Truth be told, I wouldn't mind having another P-229. I've thought about this all day long.  I guess that I'll be heading to the range this week with both, shoot them side by side and see which one makes me happier.  

Why?  I also got off of the phone with Glock this morning to make sure it was not one of the models that was subject to the recall, um... "upgrade" for the internal parts a few years ago.  I recently picked up this G17 at a gun show for a great price and it's in like new condition.  I am pretty sure it was a LEO firearm, but it sure looks like it was never carried or fired much at all.  Even the night sights are like new.  

OK, so I already own a nice Gen 2 Glock 17 and a Sig P226 in 9mm.  I shoot both equally well.  I have several spare high-cap mags for both. I have decent holsters for both.  Both have night sights.  The Sig has a milled stainless slide so rust is less of an issue than with the stamped steel slides.  In other words, I feel that these basic points are all covered and equal between the two guns.  These are the two platforms I am committed to and I feel confident that these are the two best combat handgun designs out there and the most common so parts/mags will be easier to come by.  This is not a slight to the CZ, H&K, 1911, etc.  I am also sticking with 9mm because of the capacity, its status as a standard NATO cartridge, and a common civilian cartridge.  It is more than sufficient for self-defense as long as the shooter does their part.   With all of that out of the way, here is my question and why I ask: I am of a mindset that I need to focus on training with one of these two handguns and keep the other in the safe for those days when I want to shoot it for enjoyment.  In other words, I'm trying to pick one of these two pistols to be my primary defensive pistol, the one I consistently train with, the one I shoot 3-gun with, the one I consistently carry, and be the one I would have in a SHTF or EOTWAWKI situation.  If you were faced with this conundrum (I appreciate how fortunate I am to have this conundrum), which would you go with and why?  Whichever I go with, I will very likely get the compact variant as well (Sig P225 or Glock 19).  Here is my logic so far:   Sig P226:  I carried a P229 when I was in law enforcement and I never had any issues with that pistol and I am already comfortable with the controls, maintenance, etc.  The P226 design has a long track record of durability and reliability, which it is the primary sidearm for many police agencies, military units, and special forces groups across the globe.  It's a beautiful firearm and comfortable in my hand.  There is something to be said about the traditional DA/SA trigger system for use in a defensive situation and training will help anyone overcome the challenges with the initial DA shot.  The biggest negative to this platform (AFAIK) is that the gun is less user-friendly when it comes to maintenance.  It is my understanding that the trigger is much more complex than in a Glock and in an EOTWAWKI situation, I don't know how easily I would be able to keep it running if I had any issues.  Armorers are hard to come by now, much less if the world goes all to crap.   Glock 17:  I know all of the benefits of the Glock and it's track record and I know that the majority of people consider it a slightly less accurate design overall, but still more than accurate enough for defensive carry.  The reasons I am thinking about the Glock is because of the simple design (fewer small parts make for a more reliable platform in most cases), and the ability for a minimally knowledgeable person to completely detail strip the pistol with a single handheld punch is a huge benefit.  If I did need an armorer, they seem to be a dime a dozen and getting into an armorer's school is much easier and cheaper than the Sig armorer's school.  It seems that spare parts are much easier to come by, are pretty much interchangeable between Glock pistols, and since they are so darn common, it would be pretty easy to scrounge up parts if I ever needed to.  The function of the pistol is so simple that I feel as if I could hand it to my wife or kids and tell them how to use it with very minimal training.  In short, it seems the Glock 17 is much more in line with the K.I.S.S. philosophy, which is likely to be extremely important in a SHTF scenario.  My overall experience with the Glock is very limited, so I've not shot one enough to fall in love with it like I have the Sig design.  If I settle on this choice, I am strongly considering trading it in towards a Gen 3 to gain the accessory rail in case I ever want to add a tactical light.   So with all of that said I am leaning towards the Glock, but I wonder if I am being too critical of the Sig I love so dearly.  I know; go with the one that feels more comfortable to shoot.  Like I said, I am equally comfortable and shoot just as well with either and any deficiencies with either platform would be overcome with the dedicated training I want to commit to the pistol.  What say my fellow TGO members?

I generally like Academy, although I do find their policy of walking you to the door with a firearm purchase rather insulting. One note on Gander, try buying a set of handgun grips there.  I recently looked for a set of 1911 grips, asked the guy at the counter where they kept them since I couldn't find any, and was told that they require gunsmithing service since grip panels must be installed.   :squint:

Their blemished uppers and lowers are perfectly fine.  The blemishes are so minor that it's usually darn near impossible to determine what the imperfection is.  It's a given that you are going to ding your AR at some point if you shoot it regularly, so it's not even a question for me to get the blemished PSA parts for builds.

I keep hearing that, but I can't ever get in touch with him.  I've sent him 4 or 5 PMs on here and never got a response. EDIT:  I reckon he saw this and just sent me a PM.   :up:

I have gotten it down to two: 9mm and .32ACP (for my Seecamp).  I also keep some .45ACP around for my 1911 and some .38/.357 for my wheel guns, but I don't typically use them as a defensive carry piece.  I used to keep .40 S&W as well, but I decided to consolidate my carry guns to 9mm thinking that in an ammo shortage it would be easier to find than .40; so much for that stroke of genius.  I think that 9mm is more than sufficient for defensive carry as long as I do my part.  

Had the moron actually fired off the shot, OhShoot would have pulled through.  He's to mean to die.  :)

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" isn't perfect, nor is the concept of "free-market" economics.  These are known as "ideal types" and are just as Utopian as Marx's communist ideal.   I think people are missing the issue of the monopolist and the inability of the individual consumer to make a fully-informed decision, which is the case in most economic decisions.  There are a handful of people who are trying to monopolize the ammo supply at the local level.  It's no secret that they are making the rounds to every store they can find and using any sort of creative means available to skirt the limits placed by retailers.  This does, in fact, create an illusion of the supply being more scarce than it actually is.  Add into that the fact that many consumers did not anticipate this shortage, and/or did not have the resources to stockpile ammunition.  Add in the actual efforts to pass gun control legislation coupled with the hysteria posed by certain segments of the right-wing media suggesting that the Obama administration is intentionally trying to manipulate the ammunition supply, this encourages people to purchase more ammunition than they had previously.  Finally, there is an actual problem with limited ammunition supplies from the manufacturers.  This is not a new problem, but has gone on for several years.  I guess what I am saying is that the problem is bad enough on its own without the local profiteers making the problem worse by taking advantage of the situation.  I will complain about it, but I won't suggest that there is anything else that can, or should, be done in response to it.   One thing that the high prices will do is finally get people to limit their ammo buying and encourage people to be more conservative with use of limited ammo supplies.  It sucks, but it is what it is.  If you are willing to pay $50 for a box of .22 to plink soda cans and golf balls, or rip through 30 rounds in a few seconds with your AR conversion, then have at it.  I'm not, so what I do buy and do have on hand I will use more wisely.