It used to be that new shooters were only led astray by gunwriter whores, an unrelenting march of magazine covers decorated with a different tightly fitted, pretty and finicky super expensive 1911 every month. You just weren’t a savvy shooter unless you too paid too much for a .45 ministered to by a big name smythe.
Now, the situation has gotten worse with gunbloggers and online forua. The cult of perceived quality has gone online!
For instance, check out the title post in this thread:
Another upgraded Colt classic is brought back in 2008 with the return of the Model O8011XSE; the Colt Combat Elite.
Once again, Colt’s Manufacturing Company LLC returns to its roots. Where quality and workmanship are demanded, Colt has once again met and exceeded the expectations of its customers. With new and exciting features this iconic legend is styled for the combat-style match shooter. A great addition to any collection or avid shooting enthusiast, new features for 2008 bring rosewood grips, a Smith & Alexander upswept beavertail grip safety, Colt single side tactical safety, and other standard features of the XSE Series.
Where history meets Modern Era, the heart and soul of Colt’s quality is still derived from its forged stainless steel frame and forged carbon steel slide. With the helping of a time honored tradition of American Craftsmanship, once again, Quality Makes It A Colt. In today’s world of polymers, investment castings, short cuts, time & cost savings, Colt continues to ask, “Show Me Your Forging”.
The MSRP for this “new” pistol is $983, which does not include the trip to the gunsmith to make it shoot correctly.
In all that faggoty advertisementese is no objective explanation why I would choose this gun over, oh, say, a Glock 17, which happens to cost half as much, hold twice as many rounds, weigh half as much, shoot just as accurately, run more reliably out of the box, and is assembled from armorer friendly parts that do not require skilled fitting. The last point bears repeating: There are no parts on a Glock that cannot be changed in about 30 minutes by a user who has a hammer, screwdriver, and a punch.
I really don’t give a damn what it’s made out of as long as it works properly. The “forged vs. cast” debate is the most asinine waste of time on the series of tubes. If Springfield Armory had modern investment casting technology available in the 30s, the Garand would have been cast, and production wouldn’t have been farmed out to a tractor company.
Unfortunately, the forgings and custom fitting are no guarantee that the pistol will actually work. I have personally seen a Les Baer lapse into full auto, an STI repeatedly fail to feed, and other ridiculousness that their owners excuse as the price of pride of ownership. Attend a high-round count pistol class and see what makes it through the weekend without failure.
The only reason to own a custom pistol is personal vanity. If you want a pretty, prissy gun to admire and treasure, then knock yourself out. I’ve got one (that I’m trying to sell!) or two myself. I covet, and am planning, a 1911 that will be too sexy for mere words. But if you are convinced that the glass-rod trigger, tight fitting, high polish blue and exotic wood grips will make you shoot better, then your training sucks.
Most gun owners are not serious about using their guns defensively, and I don’t mind them for it. The experience of acquiring a firearm and its associated equipment is entertaining on its own, and I understand not taking it any further than collecting some pretty mechanical trinkets.
However, if you are more concerned with putting holes in objects that deserve it than bragging about your refined tastes, I implore you to eschew unreliable high dollar esoterica in favor of plain, reliable weaponry and get some damn training.
[Incidentally, if you have trouble shooting a Glock accurately, the problem is not the Glock.]
Joat | 20-Jul-08 at 9:25 pm | Permalink
I still want a 1911 but I like tinkering, I carry a CZ-75 because it goes bang every time I pull the trigger is much more accurate than I am and it was only $350. If I was going to go out and bur a new carry piece it would almost certainly be tupperware.
AnonymousCoward | 21-Jul-08 at 12:29 am | Permalink
Eh? What do you need a hammer for?
Tam | 21-Jul-08 at 8:24 am | Permalink
It’s okay, I’d be bitter if my Europellet launcher was full of toaster parts and ballpoint pen springs, too. :D
PS: When I was a teenager, I expected a raise from my boss because I showed up at work on time every day. My boss patiently explained that my reward for showing up on time was not being fired; if I expected praise, I needed to go above and beyond. Translated into pistol-speak, “doesn’t jam” is the baseline, not a bragging point.
PPS: I’ve spent enough time on enough firing lines that I don’t believe the hype. Not the Glock hype, nor the H und K hype, nor the 1911 hype, nor the… well, you get the picture. Guns break; that’s what they do.
vinnie | 21-Jul-08 at 10:08 am | Permalink
Milsurp Makarov goes bang every time. Yea it takes 3 rounds to deliver 279grais of knockdown but they are pretty much guaranteed.
Jim | 21-Jul-08 at 10:37 am | Permalink
Though I truly enjoy my Colt 1991-A1 Commander, it’s because it fits, it hits, and with the right ammo, never misses a beat.
Still, when the chips are well and truly down, I’ll hope that I’ve got my S&W M-28 Highway Patrolman close to hand.
So sue me, I’m a Luddite.
Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX
DirtCrashr | 21-Jul-08 at 10:57 am | Permalink
Factor in that if you ever DO use the multi-paycheck fine wine arn’t-you-fabulous gun with the Hamilton-Hootchmeier Handswell in 11th hour self-defense mode it will go off to the “evidence locker” (or black hole) for a very long time often measured in multiples of years, possibly never to be seen again.
Carteach0 | 21-Jul-08 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
I buy the Glock accuracy, and the sights being fine for close or distance. Honestly… thats mostly in the shooter as you say. I never blame the firearm… most are more accurate than the shooter.
As for tupperware…. I carry a S+W M+P. Nuff said about that.
I have a problem with that video….. a safety issue. At the end, in closing, just after the 100 yard shot…… there is person walking up the left side of the range right next to the backstop.
In other words… he was shooting with a man down range at 90 degrees to his target, and shooting at a steel target.
Bad idea, that. His badge didn’t impress me just then.
DaveP. | 21-Jul-08 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
I’ve carried both, and the reason I still carry the Glock is that it’s simply a better gun for the desired purpose…to wit: being carried all day, in all kind of weather, concealed under a minimum amount of “Hey I’m carrying a GUN!!” clothing, while performing all kinds of tasks… and then (and only if absolutely needed) to be employed as a last-ditch emergency defensive weapon to end a threat to my life.
If polymer, MIM parts, and all those other things 1911 fetishists profess such a hatred of had been available in JMB’s day he would have used them: he was an engineer and a practical man and he was building practical weapons to be used in military service.
MauserMedic | 21-Jul-08 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
Way back, when I had an FFL and sold to cops and soldiers, I found that Glocks were among the most reliable handguns out there. But they felt *wrong* in the hand when you were trained up on the 1911A1, and the trigger would give me the creeps just looking at it. They’re good, but go with what works for you. A $400 Springfield Armory 1911A1 and 230 grain Hydra-Shoks, or a S&W Model 19, and I’m pretty comfortable wherever I happen to be.
workinwifdakids | 21-Jul-08 at 1:29 pm | Permalink
Thank you! Thank you for saying what I’ve always wanted to say. If you spend $900 on a firearm that works like it should, then by all means spend another $1,000 making it perfecter.
But when I spend $300 on a Sigma and you spend $1,900 on a Splendiferous 7.9, and yours won’t spit 50 rounds without a malfunction of some sort, don’t turn your nose at me. Gun snobbery is still snobbery.
James R. Rummel | 21-Jul-08 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
Tam posted a comment on 21-Jul-08 at 8:24 AM.
“Translated into pistol-speak, “doesn’t jam” is the baseline, not a bragging point.”
Oh, I agree completely! Unfortunately, 1911’s more often than not fail this very basic test.
Will a design reliably cycle the common hollowpoint loads on the gun shop shelf? Pull ten brand new, factory fresh guns out of their boxes, clean and oil them, and see if they will perform.
Try proprietary designs from S&W, Beretta, Taurus, Glock, etc etc. You will have to test a LOT of guns before you find one that won’t cycle Sivertips.
1911’s? Meh, it’s chancy at best. I’d say that you might expect 3 of the guns fail to feed, and that is only if you carefully pick the brands. Back when Colt was the only major manufacturer you would think you hit the jackpot of reliability when even one of the ten would cycle without sending it off to the gunsmith.
James
Weetabix | 21-Jul-08 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
Carteach0 - I wonder if that was the cameraman shooting the side view of the target that popped up at each range. Any chance he was behind good, actual cover? Seems unlikely, but just asking.
Tam | 21-Jul-08 at 4:25 pm | Permalink
Mr. Rummel,
One thing I have learned over the years: I neither buy, nor carry a BRAND. I buy and carry a GUN.
I don’t care if John Moses Browning, Gaston Glock, and some guy named Heckler all worked on it with their own six hands, the individual firearm in question is going to have to demonstrate its reliability to me before I tote it, no matter what name is on the label.
As far as cycling all different brands and types of ammo, that’s another thing I no longer worry about. Whether or not it works with Brand X if only ever purchase or carry Brand Z is immaterial. Does the piece on my hip work with Silvertips? Maybe. How the hell should I know? I never put Silvertips in it, nor do I ever intend to. It has proven its reliability to me over the better part of a decade with 230gr Golden Sabers, and that’s all I ever put in it. If someone else wants to use a different load, more power to them, but they need to test statistically significant amounts of that ammunition in their gun and stick with it, not try some other brand because it was on sale or the gun shop commando/gun magazine/intarwebz told him it had a .02% better “One Shot Stop Rating”.
ATLien | 21-Jul-08 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
I’m with most here: if it works for you, it works for you. I have a 1911 cause i just wanted to own one. It’s pretty easy to customize, and neat to mess around with. But not to carry. It’s just too big.
And DirtCrshr, you REALLY need to get out of Californistan. Cause if it’s self-defense, they’re not going to take your gun here, i don’t think, and they’re sure going to give it back to you.
James R. Rummel | 21-Jul-08 at 5:33 pm | Permalink
“One thing I have learned over the years: I neither buy, nor carry a BRAND. I buy and carry a GUN.”
Spoken like a true believer. “It doesn’t matter if 1911’s, factory fresh, are more likely to fail than other designs. MINE works!”
Let us not forget the point of this post, outlined in the very first sentence. “It used to be that new shooters were only led astray by gunwriter whores,…”
New shooters. pdb says so right out of the gate.
If you have the time, money, experience, inclination, and knowledge base to work on your favorite 1911 so it actually becomes reliable, great! It is risible to expect someone new to the shooting sports to show that level of dedication and knowledge, though.
And let us not forget where I stand. My students are violent crime survivors, most never even saw a gun up close before, and they are usually of very limited financial means. They need something reliable right now. Today! Not after months of tweaking so it will actually work like it is suppose to.
The biggest problem I have with 1911 owners is that they are extremely reluctant to admit that there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to their favorite handgun. Alternatives that are cheaper, more reliable, and which work just as well when someone is breaking down the back door in the middle of the night.
This snarky attitude from 1911 owners concerning every other design is not doing anyone any favors. Want to attract more people to the shooting sports? Stop trying to denigrate more reasonably priced and more reliable firearms, like Glocks.
James
ZerCool | 21-Jul-08 at 6:00 pm | Permalink
@ Jim on the boat:
I agree with you 110%. I have a Springfield “GI” 1911 and love it. It has cycled everything I’ve thrown at it with nary a hiccup. It lives in the safe with a full mag of JHPs right beside it.
But the slot in front of it is occupied by a S&W 28-2 with a speedload of 125gr .357s.
It goes click, I pull the trigger again. I like that kind of simplicity.
Rick C | 21-Jul-08 at 7:48 pm | Permalink
I understand that plenty of people worship at the altar of the sainted JMB. I also hear a lot of issues like this–not being reliable out of the box.
What’s the deal? Is the 1911 design defective, or are the manufacturers suffering from crap QC?
James L McManus | 21-Jul-08 at 10:46 pm | Permalink
We are old and not very ’situational aware’.
But we are shooter’s, who practise, alot!
My Kimber has never failed, weak hand, limp wrist, reloads, cheap shit, whatever.
Her’s is a POS S&W 9 with 17 in the mag and she point shoots the hell out of it, 100%, 3000 rounds, all the time.
We have wheel guns in drawers, semis on bed stands, shotguns in closets, and short Mausers to work to.
We like metal.
Mark@Sea | 21-Jul-08 at 11:56 pm | Permalink
In my experience, the biggest problem with the 1911 is that it IS so easy to modify. Thus, everyone and their brother is a “1911 ’smith”.
Yeah. Okay. The only 1911 I ever owned that consistently found new ways to ruin my day was one I bought when I was much younger, and immediately ‘customised’ to the failure point with drop-in parts.
On the line at the navy matches, when pistols were inspected for compliance I never experienced a malfunction, and the only malf I can recall was a poorly staked front sight coming off under recoil.
Golden Sabers work well in my pistols. I usually shoot ball, and don’t feel it to be a terrible disadvantage. It is, after all, a very big ball.
The pistol is large for summertime carry - so I have a pair of Combat Commanders. Works for me. YMMV.
Most of the tupperware guns are serviceable out of the box. Most of the 1911’s I’ve bought were serviceable out of the box. I don’t buy plastic, because as someone once said, steel wears well, plastic wears out.
If plastic works for you, well and good. If you buy a 1911, go with neither the cheapest, nor the most expensive. Find one that doesn’t wander too far afield from the original. Use ammo that works.
The 1911 is not a do-everything design, but what it does, it does very well indeed. The Glock was designed to be adequate for the mediocre, and fills that market niche quite well.
xyz_pilot | 22-Jul-08 at 3:17 am | Permalink
Rick C
I think a large part of the “problem” with1911’s is with the ammo.
The guns were designed for 230g round nose FMJ. A lot of the problems come when you ask a standard gun to feed hollow points. At this point you often have a prob and may need a trip to a smith to sort it.
DJ | 22-Jul-08 at 4:05 am | Permalink
In comment #2, AnonymousCoward said:
“Eh? What do you need a hammer for?”
Actually, I was thinking the same thing about the screwdriver…
James R. Rummel | 22-Jul-08 at 6:39 am | Permalink
“What’s the deal? Is the 1911 design defective, or are the manufacturers suffering from crap QC?”
Oh, there is certainly nothing at all wrong with the 1911 as long as you keep the time in which it was first designed in mind.
The 20th Century was only a few years old, engineering and manufacturing processes were decidedly Victorian, and hollowpoint ammo was not even a distant gleam in a ballistic designer’s eye.
The 1911 was ergonomically designed, and feels comfortable in the hands of most people. It is accurate, rugged, and most enthusiasts think that it has an elegance about it that is very pleasing to the eye. It has been so popular for so long that there are thousands of after market parts and accessories available, so much that anyone with deep pockets and a great deal of time can fine tune their 1911 so it fits them like a glove.
The problem is that technology has passed the basic design far behind, leaving it coughing and choking in the dust left by advances in materials, bullet design, and manufacturing processes.
The basic 1911 design balks at hollowpoints because it was never designed to feed them. It usually takes some work by a gunsmith to get the gun to work with modern ammunition, and then (as Tam points out above in her last comment) the owner usually has to carefully select through trial and error a particular load that will function in their own gun.
All this tweaking and shooting takes money, although you can cut the cost down if you know enough basic gunsmithing to do some of the work yourself. Usually, though, it requires a skilled professional. Some gunsmiths actually specialize in 1911 work.
The majority of modern designs will feed hollowpoints right out of the box, will shoot more accurately than the owner can, and will last for thousands upon thousands of rounds without requiring anything more than minor repairs, if that. But it is virtually impossible to customize the gun beyond a few cosmetic changes like after market grips or new sights, and most people agree that they are not as ergonomically designed. (This is why you get 1911 enthusiasts complaining about how modern grips feel odd, or how the trigger isn’t as crisp as their own favorite.)
Another factor is price. As pdb points out in his post, the parts of a 1911 require a great deal more skilled fitting than modern designs. This not only drives the price up for the gunsmithing required to smooth out the reliability problems, but also the basic gun itself has a hefty cost. The bottom line is that a 1911 will cost about two or three times as much as a modern design that will protect you just as well.
James
Rick C | 22-Jul-08 at 9:11 am | Permalink
Ok, makes sense. Also makes me wonder why someone doesn’t come up with, for example, a more ergonomic modern design.
Reno Sepulveda | 22-Jul-08 at 11:24 am | Permalink
I’m glad you like your Glock. I liked mine. I like my SA Milspec (1911) more. The trigger pull was superior to the Glock right out of the box. It is even better now. It feels better in my hand and in my pants too. Right out of the box.
I’ve got over 5,000 yds downrange on this pistol ranging from 185 grain Silvertips, 200 grain cast SWC and 230 grain hardball. 0, zip, nada malfunctions. Period. Other than a trigger job, Yost sights and a new recoil spring after 3,000 or so rounds, this is a bone stock $500.00 SA Milpec 1911 A1.
hank | 22-Jul-08 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
i have had more 1911’s than i can remember or list here , every size and flavor ever marketed to poor unsuspecting customers …
most worked , some didn’t , some were hopeless …
when i gave up on 1911’s i bought an H&K P2000 , i never have to worry about it , it just works…
glocks are ok i guess , just not what i want in a plastic pistol…
i have had H&K’s since the vp70 first came out , never had a problem or failure in all these years (fingers crossed)…
if you find something that works for you stay with it …
maybe someday QC will become an american standard again and things will work like they should…
Laughingdog | 22-Jul-08 at 3:14 pm | Permalink
“[Incidentally, if you have trouble shooting a Glock accurately, the problem is not the Glock.]”
Ain’t that the damn truth. I had a really amusing time the other night listening to a couple Norfolk, VA cops insist that Glocks shoot to the left. They refused to believe me when I told them that only two things would make them shoot left: misaligned sights or poor trigger technique.
I just wish they had been confident enough in their beliefs to accept my offer. I bet them $1000 each that I could shoot their guns from a rest and not shoot left more than one shot (on the off-hand chance their sights really were hosed) out of the whole magazine.
God how I wish I could get just half of those idiots into my class at the range, except I know deep down that they wouldn’t actually listen to anything that they’re told.
“Police Officers: Like the average man, but worse.”
Arcticelf | 23-Jul-08 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
Rick C.
I suspect the issue of 1911 failures to be a historical artifact, if it was ever real at all (I’m relatively new to hand guns, so I just don’t know), but its certainly a thing of internet legend.
My experience, and that of all the folks I’ve shot with recently has been: new production, name brand, 1911’s work just as well as any other new production, name brand semi-auto.
Part of the issue, I think, is that when a Glock jams it gets cleaned and works fine. When a 1911 jams its proof that the design is outdated and needs an extra kilo buck to make it right.
All that said: if you buy crappy cheap GI mags at the gun show, or build a gun from miss-matched parts, or take your dremmell tool to it, your 1911 will fail. Of course if I abuse a glock the same way I’ll probably get the same result.
I advocate shooting a gun that fits your hand, with a trigger you like, that you can carry every waking hour. For me thats a 1911, whats it for you?
AE
Chris | 23-Jul-08 at 4:48 pm | Permalink
“[Incidentally, if you have trouble shooting a Glock accurately, the problem is not the Glock.]” Actually I have discovered that the grips on the current generation of glock don’t work for me at all the premolded finger grooves throw my grip off and as a result my accuracy. That being said i could prctice and learn to hold the glock differently but my choice was to keep shooting the same and buy a XD which didn’t have the finger grooves molded into the grip. So lets call the bleam 50-50 me bing stubborn and glock putiing the grooves in the grip.
Chris | 23-Jul-08 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
also I am not drunk just a horrible typist
Tam | 24-Jul-08 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
I used to say the same stuff James is saying.
Thankfully GlockTalk has had a core dump or two since my moderator days there (back when a fan of those outdated 1911s called me “The High Priestess of the Glock Gestapo”), but TFL still has complete archives of stuff I believed eight years, hundreds of guns, and many cases of ammo ago.
I was wrong.
Steven Den Beste | 25-Jul-08 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
Also makes me wonder why someone doesn’t come up with, for example, a more ergonomic modern design.
I’m no expert in this, but wasn’t that the point of the Browning Hi-Power?
pdb | 25-Jul-08 at 8:24 pm | Permalink
I’m no expert in this, but wasn’t that the point of the Browning Hi-Power?
Right, the BHP is a much slimmer grip back to front, and just a tad wider, which makes it more comfortable to shoot … except that the hammer punishes people with giant hands like myself.
It also eliminated the barrel bushing and barrel link (which has been copied on pretty much every other autopistol other than the Berettas), eliminated the grip safety (which was an Army requirement and not JMB’s idea) and had a few other design improvements that made it easier to assemble, but it still benefits from careful fitting. Browning died before the design was finalized, I don’t know how much was his work and how much was Dieudonne Saive.
It’s a great gun, but it’s still expensive to make compared to polymer framed guns.
Ninth Stage | 26-Jul-08 at 9:03 pm | Permalink
“The only reason to own a custom pistol is personal vanity.” Au contraire, the only reason to own a custom pistol is to compete with it - a custom race pistol.
Sure my STI double-stack is finicky but it holds a lot of major power-factor rounds, and that is why I use it. Trust my life to it? Not likely, for that I carry a Glock or a revolver.
Sure I’ve seen 1911s double and triple. That’s what comes from shooting tens of thousands of rounds through a race gun with a 2# trigger, (or kitchen table gunsmithing) it kinda tends to wear the sear surfaces round.
Race guns are to F1 cars as Glocks are to Toyotas.
Oh, and thanks for the fun thread!
Roberta X | 29-Jul-08 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
I own and carry, well, crap. A beer-can Colt .380 Pocketlite. Star BM and BKM, 9mm. Star PD, .45 They’re not especially pretty by gunnie standards — but if I keep them clean, they go “bang” when I press the trigger and rounds go where the sights tell me they will. That’s all I’m lookin’ for. Twice before I started shooting handguns, I’ve needed a gun and didn’t have one. Not again.
Glock vs. H&K vs. Cold vs. S&W? Don’t look at me. Custom? I’ve never even owned a new gun. Tam’s seriously practical and she thinks I’m gauche. She’s right.
Ahab | 30-Jul-08 at 9:10 am | Permalink
Yeah, Tam sure does love the 1911, in fact it’s the only gun she ever recommends. Like when I asked her what she thought about Beretta 92Ds, she said “fuck that, get a 1911″, or when I asked her about getting a Glock 24 for competition and she said “fuck that, get a 1911″.
You know, except for the fact that she didn’t. Saying that Tam only pushes 1911s is, well, kind of dumb, actually. Tam pushes guns that aren’t crappy.
ATL | 30-Jul-08 at 9:41 am | Permalink
What a great post on the temperamental 1911’s. My favorite thing to say at IDPA or USPSA matches when a 1911 breaks down is,
“Hey, if you want, you can shoot my Glock: It always works!”
LOL, anyway us “dilettantes” (sic) have to understand that unless you have dumped over a grand on pistol you are not really shooting!
Glock with minor (or in my case major) tweaking is a wonderful pistol.
In my Glock 17 ($500) I have:
Tru-Glo Night Sites ($115.00)
Serrated target Trigger (Free-exchange)
EFK Firedragon Stainless Steel guide rod ($75 w/ shipping)
Trigger Job- 4lb ($40)
Storm Lake Match Barrel ($95)(I didn’t need this, but I wanted to save the stock barrel in case in the future I decided to sell the pistol)
So with about $825 I have a pistol that will more than compete with any pistol out there.
How much was that stock Colt? LOL
Tam | 30-Jul-08 at 5:43 pm | Permalink
PDB,
“It also eliminated the barrel bushing and barrel link (which has been copied on pretty much every other autopistol other than the Berettas)”
Really? Which Berettas have a barrel bushing or swinging link?
I know that their short-recoil guns are locked via a toggle/locking-block design copied from the Walther P-38, but was unaware of the other.
Hey, when I posted about my Smith Model 53-2, KdT said “Aaaaahhh the old .221 Jet (or, as it’s known to the rocket dorks, the scramjet).“, and I thought to myself, “Wow! I’ve never heard of that cartridge! I thought the gun only came in .22 Remington Jet!”
Timmeeee | 30-Jul-08 at 7:07 pm | Permalink
I think he meant .221 Fireball. He’s old and drinks, know what i mean?
pdb | 30-Jul-08 at 7:42 pm | Permalink
Really? Which Berettas have a barrel bushing or swinging link?
None, except for the 1911 clone that they ought to bring out, as S&W, SIG and Taurus have shown.
What I was poorly trying to say, was that pretty much every modern autopistol, except the Berettas with their P38 style locking block, has aped the BHP’s arrangement (except for moving the locking surfaces outside), including Gaston, who knows a good thing when he sees it.
There, that should unclear everything up.
Hey, when I posted about my Smith Model 53-2, KdT said “Aaaaahhh the old .221 Jet (or, as it’s known to the rocket dorks, the scramjet).“, and I thought to myself, “Wow! I’ve never heard of that cartridge! I thought the gun only came in .22 Remington Jet!”
Well, of course. You wouldn’t want someone accidentally loading the brutal power of the .221 Jet in a mere .22 Remington Jet gun.
Tam | 30-Jul-08 at 9:41 pm | Permalink
Hey, we are still allowed to deliver Canuck hockey style body checks in here, right? This isn’t turning into TheOtherSideOfPDB, is it?
;)
pdb | 30-Jul-08 at 10:04 pm | Permalink
Hey, we are still allowed to deliver Canuck hockey style body checks in here, right? This isn’t turning into TheOtherSideOfPDB, is it?
I would be dismayed if people stopped!
Even though you’re mean and scary and make me cry sometimes.