Thursday, June 2, 2016

Another entry in a crowded field

A seven round .45?  Why would I want that?  So, it's 1911 capable?  Well, I have a 1911 or two I sunk a lot of money into learning about and making fancy and good, so why do I want this?  It's lighter, sure, but weight on the belt doesn't bother me.


Well...  I wouldn't get it to fill that kind of niche.  The niche if fills is the striker fire operating system. 


Yeah, I don't really have one of those.


And I like narrow.  Always have. 


And the powder magazine at Casa De Thunderbolt is all .45 and .38 right now.  For ease of inventory.  So, this is helpful coming out like this.  (Admittedly there is an urge to add 9mm to the pile...  that would require a whole different pistol selection system.  Might as well go double stack while I am at it, too...)


Plus if I were to go plastic-gun, I've been more and more leaning S&W stuffs. 


But I have guns.  Plenty.  So I am lukewarm on all three choices in front of me.  1) Get this .45!  2) Go ahead and take the plunge into the 9's!  3) Meh, just stand pat.  The enthusiasm is about the same on all 3 options right now, defaulting to #3.  Lethargy has struck.  Gonna keep training in the meantime.  While I think on it.  Good use for gun budget money, learning shooting, learning gunsmithing.

7 comments:

Tam said...

A Shield in a state w/no concealed carry would be like a car on an island with no roads or gas stations. Sure, it might be cool to own, but what would you do with it?

JimBob said...

Some states issue non-resident licenses....just sayin'

rremington said...

If you want a 9mm you could always get a 9mm 1911........

Publicola said...

No, a concealable pistol in a state with no law giving the state's permission to enjoy the Right of carrying weapons would be like thinking Stalin is an idiot in 1940's Ukraine, or praying in 1300's France that the pope would depart Avignon for hell. Sure, there'd be trouble* if it was found out. If. But whether the state recognizes it or not, those things are still Rights, just as carrying weapons is a Right.

What you would do with it is carry it. Or not. As you saw fit, not the state. When the ability to do something is confused with compliance with an intrusive law, then pragmatism has gone too far.

(*Of course, it's a good idea to know what kind of trouble you're headed for if discovered engaging in a Right that's verboten & weigh the risks & benefits for yourself, but "cause .gov said so" is never a good reason to do or not do anything.)

John Block said...

We actually (sort of) have a "Mother, may I?" CCW in MD. O'Malley couldn't quite kill it, though I'm sure he'd a loved to. Frikken Commies....

Tam said...

I love when "Publicola" gets up and thumps his chest at me in some sort of wookie-suiter purity test.

You don't know me, "Publicola".

You don't know me at all.

Publicola said...

You're correct Tam. I don't know you, I don't know you at all. I do know of you, through your writing, & what I've found has always led me to have some respect for you. You're knowledgeable in quite a few areas where I am not & perhaps never will be. So much so that in times past I've sought out your opinion on a few subjects. We disagree on some issues, or perhaps sub-issues, but not so much that it diminished my impression of you.

So it's regrettable that you seem to be taking this disagreement personally, as I did not intend for it to be. I meant only to argue with the premise of your comment, as I would have if anyone else had left it.

Therefore I beg your pardon ma'am, if I somehow misconstrued what you wrote (as I am open to correction), or if the point I was trying to make was so in-artfully done that you were personally affronted.

& NJT, I appreciate your indulgence in this matter.