Stoner 63

Quote :

"That's kinda the way I feel, except for replace "Glock" with "SIG", and the gap between how much I like them is probably closer. Glock is OK as a moderately priced, tactical pistol...and they fit my hand well. If they were DA/SA, I'd probably be all over them."

see, I can't stand DA/SA. If I went back to Sig I'd go with one of the DAK pistols. That being said, I'd gladly ditch an M9 for a Sig any day.

11/23/2009 9:21:17 PM

Poly vs classic steel...

I own and have owned many different kinds of handguns.

My style of choice are SA/DAs like Sigs and CZs.

If I could only have one handgun it would be a Glock 19, maybe a S&W M&P.
Glocks suck in general when you have many more guns to choose from that actually have some character.

But, it comes down to:
-Ruggedness. The striker fired polys have few parts and the parts they have tend to be overbuilt. There aren't many parts to break. Also, poly frames absorb recoil thus lessening the stress on metal parts. If the recoil spring in a Glock is worn out then it'll still shoot without taking too much of a beating. Let the spring in a 1911 or Sig wear out and you'll crack the slide, frame, or most likely in a 1911 the link or slide stop.

-Simplicity of design. Those guns have fewer parts and the design of those parts have tolerances that aren't as sensitive. A Glock locks up with just the hood of the barrel vs all the upper lugs and lower lugs of the 1911. DA/SA guns have lots of small parts that can get gunky and fail. Most are high quality and don't have problems, but if you're talking about having one gun then why take the chance?

-Ease of maintenance. Glocks are easy to clean and easy to replace parts just because everything is open to you rather than complicated mechanisms in other guns.

-Capacity. If you only have one you might as well have high capacity.

-and weight.

Like I said, I generally don't like striker fired polys. I own one, but it's not my favorite. The strengths of a poly doesn't really matter to me because I have plenty of aluminum and steel framed guns that are well maintained and parts availability isn't an issue.
If the S ever HTF and I needed to leave with only a minimal amount of supplies I'd have a Sig strapped on my hip...but a Glock in my pack just in case.

11/23/2009 10:57:57 PM

I've been extremely accurate with all but one 1911 that I have shot.
I still don't own one, yet one multiple Glocks. I'm going to stick with plastic for the time being.






Anyone have any experience with Taurus Semi-autos? More specifically:
the new 709 "slim"


or
the PT111 Millenium Pro


I'm looking at getting one of these, and was looking for any info or experiences you may have.

11/24/2009 12:22:56 AM

Quote :

"Anyone have any experience with Taurus Semi-autos"

my first handgun was a PT 24/7 in 9mm (and is still one of my regular CC's)

I like it alot- very accurate and very reliable. The only problem is that it has a looooong trigger pull (it is smooth though). Once you get used to it you can stage your shooting, but it does take some getting used to. The slim looks like it wouldn't have that problem (not enough room even there to talk about the kind of trigger pull I'm referring too) but if I remember correctly, the millenium does have a long pull as well

that being said- I like the guns alot, especially for the price. The 24/7pro came very close to being a service pistol in one of the branches of the military (I can't remember which one I was looking at)

11/24/2009 7:08:24 AM

Used to have a PT111 as an EDC, great little gun, and a PT24/7 PRO. The latter I only had one minor problem with, but ultimately led me to dump both of them and buy an XD.

Be forewarned that the probability if getting even a semblance of customer service from Taurus is slim to none(and slim just left town). For nothing more than the absolutely horrible 6-month experience I had getting a $3 part mailed to me, I sold both of mine and Taurus will never see another dime of my money. If you look around, those who have been screwed by Taurus CS(or lack thereof) are far from a small minority of owners. Definitely the most consumer complaints of any manufacturer out there.

Good guns for the most part, but pray to your god that nothing ever does break, because if you're anything like me, you'll have a $300 paperweight for half a year because they couldn't come up with a part that's used in nearly every single polymer pistol they make.

11/24/2009 8:54:38 AM

wdprice3 posted these remarks in the CC guns thread and i couldn't tell if he was in jest or serious and figured i'd get a clear up here.

Quote :

"[quote]3.) There is no such thing as a licensed/unlicensed/registered/unregistered gun in NC. Registering guns is a waste of time and money and a major privacy rights violation. 6.) There is no required paperwork for you to hold in possession, in NC, in order to own a firearm."

explain those a little better. i know you don't need any paperwork to own a rifle or shotgun but thought all handguns had to be registered?

11/24/2009 9:25:59 AM

^Don't worry about clearing this up any longer. It was cleared up in the original thread.


That being said, i do have a question. Is there ever a good and bad time to purchase a handgun? And i'm talking about through the course of the year. Is it like car shopping where if you wait till mid year you can get better deals before the new year's models are released or is it a pretty standard structure?

11/24/2009 10:43:21 AM

well, you pretty much need to look at legislature... if it looks like there will be a scare (see this time last year) then it would be a good to either get it now before the prices rise or wait it out

once people start thinking the gub'ment is gonna take away our guns, they start hording and selling stuff off at super high prices. Some guns that were regularly going for 6-700 were closer to the 1200-1300 range this past year around january. Now they are back down to what they should be. Ultimately, you just want to shop around and see if places will price match.

you typically won't see much of an increase in hand gun prices, but you will in "assault rifles" (I hate calling them that), ammo, and higher capacity magazines

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 11:32 AM. Reason : ovowvne]

11/24/2009 11:28:15 AM

Quote :

"Taurus Semi-autos"

i owned a taurus for a while..never had any trouble out of it.

although i am admittedly pretty ignorant about guns and have since gotten rid of it

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM. Reason : d'oh]

11/24/2009 11:36:05 AM

Quote :

""assault rifles" (I hate calling them that)"

I addressed this in another thread, but it is worth a quick mention here.

We do a disservice to the 2d Amendment by trying to pretend they're purely for sporting purposes. Bullshit. These weapons are tools designed for the efficient killing of other human beings and it is precisely this ability that the 2d Amendment was written to protect so long as it's use remained lawful. Unfortunately, there are times when some humans, through their own actions, abrogate their inherent right to life and should it occur to an individual, the victim has the basic human right to defend themselves.

Yes they can be used for other purposes, and the AR class is especially is becoming more accepted in the hunting field, but that isn't what Eugene Stoner and Mikhail Kalashnikov designed them for.

11/24/2009 10:17:50 PM

I like me pt745. just had it out this weekend, never a complaint about that thing.

11/24/2009 10:51:07 PM

^^

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 12:11 AM. Reason : although, I do think that they are NOT the death-rays that they are often portrayed as]

11/25/2009 12:01:27 AM

i'm sure this has been addressed, but i don't know where: SKS or AK-47?

11/25/2009 8:58:10 AM

Quote :

"although, I do think that they are NOT the death-rays that they are often portrayed as"

You mean, they don't actually shoot "cop-killer bullets" or bullets that automatically target schoolyards filled with children!?




Sorry...sometimes the media really bothers me.

11/25/2009 9:43:22 AM

^^ more details would help answer the question.

11/25/2009 10:47:26 AM

i'm looking at one for target practice use...my basic understanding is that the SKS is more powerful and more accurate (due largely to the fact that it doesn't kick as much) and as such, is better for hunting...the AK-47 has a larger stock magazine and will hold up better under "spray" use, since it's actually made for that...they have different actions and use the same ammo

which would be better? what's cheaper? what's the difference in the guns of different manufacture (romanian, chinese, etc)? what about a saiga?

11/25/2009 11:24:46 AM

Well like you said, they both run 7.62mm x 39mm (unless you went the AK-74 route) so the SKS isn't any more "powerful" than the AK. Quite frankly, I've seen 105lbs women handle the kick of an AK perfectly well, so I wouldn't worry about that. The action isn't remarkably different, both being gas piston operated and reliability / durability runs about the same.

Traditionally, the SKS has been the cheaper buy, but you're limited in magazine capacity / options. They're more "hunting" appearing and, with a fixed wooden stock and no pistol grip, are marginally less likely to fall under laws restricting military firearms.


I'm not super familiar with SKS pricing but AKs can run anywhere from a $4000 Valmet M76 to a $2000 custom from Krebs or Rifle Dynamics, to a $900 Bulgy from Arsenal, to a $500 WASR at a local gun shop. The key things to look for in an AK are the dimples on the sides of the receiver over the magazine well, and a straight gas block. Skip the milled receiver, they're heavier, more expensive and frankly unnecessary. I've actually heard some people say that the milled doesn't flex as well as the stamped and will, therefore, fail earlier than the stamped.

But shit man, it is an AK (or an SKS if you go that route). Either buy a reputable one (Arsenal isn't a bad choice) or find a good one at a gun store and just shoot the shit out of it. You can spend as much as your want doing upgrades, but other than maybe an Ultimak rail and a Jim Fuller rear sight I wouldn't do much to it.

11/25/2009 11:49:24 AM

Quote :

"We do a disservice to the 2d Amendment by trying to pretend they're purely for sporting purposes. Bullshit. These weapons are tools designed for the efficient killing of other human beings and it is precisely this ability that the 2d Amendment was written to protect so long as it's use remained lawful. Unfortunately, there are times when some humans, through their own actions, abrogate their inherent right to life and should it occur to an individual, the victim has the basic human right to defend themselves. Yes they can be used for other purposes, and the AR class is especially is becoming more accepted in the hunting field, but that isn't what Eugene Stoner and Mikhail Kalashnikov designed them for."

while I agree with everything you said, I feel like it is bad for the gun industry and owners in general when the media portrays a certain type of gun as something for assault purposes. Semi auto hand guns weren't designed for hunting, but we don't call those assault pistols. If we did, that would be more negative press for them (which guns don't need at all).

11/25/2009 8:47:10 PM

I'd like to pose this question to you guys....

What's the best rifle scope for under $250?

I'll be putting it on my 30-06 right now for deer hunting...

11/27/2009 3:37:49 PM

^did u get my pm about the 710?

11/27/2009 3:56:39 PM

^^nikon's cheap scopes are the best of the cheap scopes imo

but when big boy steps out 5 mins before sunset, you're gonna wish you had a leupold

11/27/2009 6:37:21 PM

got a desert eagle in 44 mag that I'm holding on to temporarily... can't wait to shoot!

11/27/2009 7:22:53 PM

my understanding on that gun is that if you plan on shooting any good amount of ammo, go ahead and wear gloves when firing it, because it puts a hurting on your hands


that being said- i'm jealous! have fun with it!

11/27/2009 10:01:30 PM

IMO the best cheap scope is a used high end scope.

The second best is a cheap Leupold.
I'm pretty sure I made a post about this issue before; maybe even a few times.

Anyway, I suggest taking a look at the Leupold VX-I.
It's around $200.
Other scopes in the price range have more features like click adjustments (vs friction), fully multicoated glass (vs fully coated + outside multicoating) or other stuff.
But for me you can't beat the quality of the glass and construction. The leupold will have less center to edge distortion than comparably priced scopes.
Eye relief is usually more flexible as is exit pupil. There's always the warranty too...

Don't let me sway you one way or the other without looking for yourself though.
[rant]
Actually, don't listen to anyone. People generally don't know what they're talking about.
"It's clear and bright" doesn't mean shit coming out the mouths of 96% of gun owners. Hell, you can't explain to half of them why "three by nine by fifty" is incorrect or that it's "loo-pold" instead of "leo-pold."
There's more to scopes than clear and bright. There's center to edge distortion, tint, white out, depth of field, field of view, internal glare, front vs rear focal plane reticles, mechanical adjustment range, parallax, blah blah blah
[/rant]

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2009 9:48:21 PM

^all that is very true, but the most important scope criteria for a north carolina deer hunter should be how bright it is in low light conditions imo

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 9:59 PM. Reason : as long as it pulls in enough light, then it'll get the job done across a beanfield]

11/28/2009 9:58:43 PM

Pretty good article about scopes and why the obsession with being the "brightest" isn't as important as some make it out to be: http://www.chuckhawks.com/straight_scope.htm


I'd look for one that is clear, has solid magnification adjustments, holds a zero well and, if possible, comes with a solid warranty. Quarter-click MOA adjustments are completely unnecessary east of the Appalachians for hunting purposes and probably unnecessary period for 90% of weekend hunters. Personally, I don't even want a 3x9 for most of the stuff around here. The lower my initial magnification the easier it'll be for me to pick up the deer that seem to always pop out right under you. Finding that asshole with a 9x magnification can make or break you.

Now, when you draw a tag for an antelope hunt out west and know you'll be making 300 yard shots, I'd worry about top end. Not so much now.

11/28/2009 10:11:56 PM

If all you hunt is beanfields at sunrise or sunset then yes, brightness is all that matters. Get the biggest objective you can find. A huge objective with lots of light will make up for poor quality.
Actually, the Simmons Whitetail Classic would make a great eastern NC scope and it's very cheap.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=746570

Quote :

"I'd look for one that is clear, has solid magnification adjustments, holds a zero well and, if possible, comes with a solid warranty. Quarter-click MOA adjustments are completely unnecessary east of the Appalachians for hunting purposes and probably unnecessary period for 90% of weekend hunters. Personally, I don't even want a 3x9 for most of the stuff around here. The lower my initial magnification the easier it'll be for me to pick up the deer that seem to always pop out right under you. Finding that asshole with a 9x magnification can make or break you."

I agree and that's why I have a VX-I on my deer gun. It has friction adjustments and is only partially multicoated, but the glass geometry is just so much better than other $200 scopes. The friction adjustments don't need to settle unlike click adjustments of other cheap scopes. It's a two piece tube...but hey, it's a $200 scope and still has a Leupold warranty.

My ideal hunting scope would be a high quality 4x42mm but the cheapest decent one would be around $400

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2009 10:15:22 PM

Quote :

"beanfields at sunrise or sunset"

welcome to NC deer hunting. if you're not hunting on an open field, you're in the woods where the shots are gonna be 50 yds max and any cheap low power fixed scope will be just fine.

it ain't that hard, the vitals on a deer make a pretty large target.

i use a leupold vx-III 4.5-14x50 long range (30 mm tube instead of 1"). only reason i went with it is because i wanted the 50 mm objective and the long range version wasn't that much more expensive

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 10:46 PM. Reason : fdsa]

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM. Reason : only time i move it from 4.5x is when i wanna check out a squirrel or hawk or something ]

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM. Reason : and 4.5x is way too powerful in the woods]

11/28/2009 10:42:50 PM

Yes, I'll be hunting beanfields, but also want something I can use in the woods as well. I dont have ironsights.

I see that the Leupold VX-1 comes in 2-7x33mm, 3-9x40mm and 4-12x40mm.

The Nikon Pro Staff comes in 4x32 and 3-9x40 for rifles.

Which is the better option for eastern NC hunting?

11/29/2009 10:55:53 AM

I'd go with the Leupold 2-7x33mm. You can make a 200 yd shot on a deer with a 7x and most shooters don't know their gun well enough to hit consistently beyond that general vicinity anyway. The 2x will serve you well in close woods. You could argue for the 3-9x but I wouldn't go with either of the 4-12x.

11/29/2009 11:25:06 AM

I went from a 3x9 to a 2-7 on one of my rifles. I really like the way it makes the rifle handle, it is less obtrusive I kept the other larger one on 3 all the time anyway. I put the 3x9 on my .22 4x12 makes the rifle too chunky for me, either a 2-7 or the 3-9 would do fine, Leupold is my favorite but the prostaff I have messed with was a good scope too. 4-12 x50 may require high rings and could cause shooting to be uncomfortable if you have to raise your head to get the sight picture.

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 11:52 AM. Reason : 4]

11/29/2009 11:45:30 AM

i'd get the 3-9x40 nikon

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM. Reason : or the leupold if you wanna spend the extra money. that leupold warranty is nice]

11/29/2009 12:28:36 PM

We have a Leupold VX-II 3x9 on .270 and it's great.


The 30-30 has a Bushnell Sportview 2.5x10 that i have had pretty good success with also. I'm pretty sure this particular model is discontinued by now.

11/29/2009 2:31:10 PM

11/29/2009 3:22:12 PM

Decided on not getting a Taurus. I handled the 709 and the 111. They really aren't that much smaller than my G27. Then I handled a PF9 and a LCP.

I'm getting a S&W 642 Airweight

11/29/2009 4:14:44 PM

^^is that a joke?

11/29/2009 4:59:22 PM

^^i love my 642


you should also take a look at the ruger LCR- it is pretty slick

11/29/2009 5:31:55 PM

^^^
http://www.monstermarketplace.com/Sports/Landing2963a720.html

11/29/2009 5:33:03 PM

11/29/2009 6:07:20 PM

Looked at the LCR as well. I like the trigger of the S&W better, though the LCR was still nice.

11/29/2009 7:48:29 PM

Quote :

"I'd like to pose this question to you guys.... What's the best rifle scope for under $250? I'll be putting it on my 30-06 right now for deer hunting..."

Leupold VX-I, Nikon Pro-Staff, or Burris Fullfield are the ones I'd consider. Most choose a 3-9x with a 40 or 50 mm objective.

I generally prefer Leupolds on everything that goes bang as I've been using them for quite some time and have never had a problem of any kind. My current deer rig sports a VX-III 3.5-10 50mm. I could very clearly make out the deer feeder in the woods 130 yards from my stand this past weekend 20 minutes after dark in the moonlight. The thing is bright.

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 12:27 PM. Reason : /]

11/30/2009 12:25:19 PM

I think I'm pretty much sold on the Leupold VX-1.


Now on to my next question. Probably doesnt belong in here, but whatever.

If anyone has any hookups on land around the area and you'd be willing to let me hunt it a few times this season (willing to pay a small amount), shoot me a PM.

I havent hunted since I moved to Raleigh, and dont really know many people with any land around here. I probably wont get a chance to go more than twice I'd bet before the season's out.

11/30/2009 12:32:30 PM

good luck. trying to find land to hunt on is ridiculously difficult/expensive.

11/30/2009 12:49:42 PM

^no kidding!

^^check out the chit chat 2009 hunting thread, you may have a friend in there already or at least find someone who may be able to help you out. I don't have much land, i'm just lucky that what i do have is a highly trafficed area by deer.

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 1:24 PM. Reason : add]

11/30/2009 1:23:14 PM

Trust me, I know. I hate to join a club for $1k/year if I know I'll only get to go like 2 or 3 times a season.

11/30/2009 1:23:55 PM

if you're more concerned with just getting out there and enjoying nature and less with actually killing something, you could try public game lands.

11/30/2009 1:34:13 PM

Yeahhhh...I'm not a fan of gamelands. I got shot at TWICE (two different occasions...and YES I was wearing blaze orange hat/vest) years ago while hunting some gamelands in Rockingham County.

11/30/2009 1:35:46 PM

shoot back?

11/30/2009 1:36:33 PM

put about 400 rounds downrange with the g19 this weekend

love this gun

11/30/2009 1:43:18 PM

I was too busy trying not to sh1t my britches!!!1

11/30/2009 1:43:44 PM