Looking for compact single stack 40 caliber pistol.

[corneileous]

Gun handling in movies is typically substandard or outright wrong. Action movies are about looking cool and explosions......

Oh I know, that's why they call them movies.

......reality is about survival. Big difference.

Of course it is but I wasn't trying to compare the two. I just figured since they showed Jet Li take apart Rigg's Beretta 92 in Lethal Weapon 4 with one hand that someone in some other movie could rack a slide back one handed.

For some movies, actors do get appropriate professional firearms training that sometimes transitions over into the movie when the writers, the camera men, and the director are not hellbent on screwing it up for effect. Jeremy Renner took the Fighting Rifle course with Tactical Response, for example. Sasha Jackson, a British actress, showed pretty good AK handling skills in Jarhead 3.

I agree but that's Hollywood. Real life scenarios is boring to the majority of the audience.

Not if you get the right equipment. Sights should be made out of steel and durable. Many handgun sights are bomb proof.

Mine are the factory sights.

Going back to my argument of getting training, understand how to use your equipment. I carry both, a weapon mounted light and a handheld flashlight. I don't use lasers at this point. The topic of lights and lasers is an entirely separate discussion, same goes for carry method.

I pretty much meant to say maybe on the laser sight. It'd be cool to have in my opinion but as well, stating familiar with just open sights is probably the best bet.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BluesStringer]

Since that was in a whole different thread about an entirely different discussion, I really shouldn't even respond.

But as it's already been explained in THAT thread, what's your point coming in this thread only to blather about something that doesn't even apply? You got it out for me or somethin' Blues? Just because we had a disagreement in another discussion?

No to both questions - I neither have it out for you, or somethin'.

And actually, I'm wondering if, in some weird way, you don't have it out for yourself.

Blues

 

[corneileous]

No to both questions - I neither have it out for you, or somethin'.

Sure seems that way to me. Bringing up things I said from a different discussion that don't even pertain to this one? Why else would someone wanna do that? I'm stumped.

And actually, I'm wondering if, in some weird way, you don't have it out for yourself.

Blues

Alrighty then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BluesStringer]

Sure seems that way to me. Bringing up things I said from a different discussion that don't even pertain to this one? Why else would someone wanna do that? I'm stumped.

That is beyond obvious, but nonetheless, I told you in this post exactly why I mentioned something from another thread. After acknowledging that you "dunno, maybe I'm wrong" you plowed straight ahead and advised someone to commit a felony, and a federal felony at that. Now you're suggesting through asking the question about people whose state governments keep their constitutional rights-taxing mandates to a minimum before a person can exercise the permitted privilege of carrying a weapon for self defense, if they..."Know the difference between what will keep you out of the pokey and what'll land you behind bars?" Once you've outed yourself as someone who wouldn't know how to keep themselves out of the "pokey," and advised another how to put themselves there to boot, I found it rather stunning that you would ask such a question with absolutely no knowledge of any factual data that might suggest people in more free states misuse or have more accidents with their weapons than people like you in less free states, so I said "Wow" thinking you might see the folly of speaking about stuff of which you know so little. Obviously I overestimated your visionary abilities, and wondered aloud if you didn't have it out for yourself by displaying your deficiencies in that regard so vividly.

Alrighty then.

Indeed.

Blues

 

[Darkstar888]

I highly recommend the Walther PPS M2. Excellent ergonomics, accuracy, trigger, and looks. Super slim. Beats out the Performance Center Shield in every comparison I've seen. 100% reliability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

That is beyond obvious, but nonetheless, I told you in this post exactly why I mentioned something from another thread. After acknowledging that you "dunno, maybe I'm wrong" you plowed straight ahead and advised someone to commit a felony, and a federal felony at that. Now you're suggesting through asking the question about people whose state governments keep their constitutional rights-taxing mandates to a minimum before a person can exercise the permitted privilege of carrying a weapon for self defense, if they..."Know the difference between what will keep you out of the pokey and what'll land you behind bars?" Once you've outed yourself as someone who wouldn't know how to keep themselves out of the "pokey," and advised another how to put themselves there to boot, I found it rather stunning that you would ask such a question with absolutely no knowledge of any factual data that might suggest people in more free states misuse or have more accidents with their weapons than people like you in less free states, so I said "Wow" thinking you might see the folly of speaking about stuff of which you know so little. Obviously I overestimated your visionary abilities, and wondered aloud if you didn't have it out for yourself by displaying your deficiencies in that regard so vividly.

Again, what is your point other than spouting useless diatribe about a different discussion??? How many freakin' times do I got to tell you that what I said in the other thread about mailing a gun back to yourself as opposed to flying with it was just an uninformed or uneducated guess? Why do you consistently and relentlessly keep accusing me of saying what I said as I knew it was fact? For the umpteenth time, I DIDNT!! Write it down this time for Petes sake.

Why do you have a problem with what I said here? Do you not agree with my saying that knowing the laws was a bad thing??


But you know what, it doesn't matter. You wanna talk about that go talk about it over there.

You came over here just to spout of nonsense that no one gives a rats ass about.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BluesStringer]

Again, what is your point other than spouting useless diatribe about a different discussion??? How many freakin' times do I got to tell you that what I said in the other thread about mailing a gun back to yourself as opposed to flying with it was just an uninformed or uneducated guess? Why do you consistently and relentlessly keep accusing me of saying what I said as I knew it was fact? For the umpteenth time, I DIDNT!! Write it down this time for Petes sake.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, and apparently, again, neither do you. You didn't tell me anything in the other thread, as I didn't discuss your erroneous advice with you there at all. I did happen to see you arguing with bofh about it as though you said nothing wrong, even telling him to leave it alone that you gave someone asking a valid and important question advice that could've landed them in federal prison if they had followed it, but you and I had no exchanges in that thread.

Why do you have a problem with what I said here? Do you not agree with my saying that knowing the laws was a bad thing??

Again, I have no idea what you're asking here. It's either a typo or just another in an ever-growing line of faux pas's you have made since landing here. The answer to the question in bold that you ask is unequivocally YES - I do not agree with you saying that knowing the laws is a bad thing. Knowing the laws, especially before you start spewing advice about them, is a great thing! I wish you would start on getting to know the laws right this second, because it's obvious that you don't have the self control necessary to refrain from giving advice about them before you know what you're talking about.

Beyond that, the issue I have with what you said here is all the nonsense in this post that starts with you saying the... "good thing about requiring a carry permit is that it forces applicants to get some kind of training." I got news for you. You are not anywhere near trained on either gun-handling or the law just because OK ignores the "shall not be infringed" language of the Second Amendment or the Supreme Court ruling in Link Removed that states "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution" and goes ahead and imposes a charge (tax) anyway and assumes for itself the power to deny permission for people to enjoy their rights under the Constitution in direct contravention to both those so-called "supreme" laws.

I wonder if you've taken any of your own advice since first saying, "Think about all the people out there that live in states that don't require permits; have they even shot a gun before? Know the difference between what will keep you out of the pokey and what'll land you behind bars?"

Have you thought about whether or not "all the people" you posit are under-trained and uneducated on the laws in their states, actually provide any statistical increase in instances of bad shoots, negligent discharges, collateral damage, landing in jail after using their weapons than people in, oh, I don't know, states like Oklahoma where this shining example of both legal and gun-handling "training" is forced in a one-day, eight-hour course of "study" that includes both classroom and a range "practice session" that doesn't even give a requirement for the minimum number of rounds one must fire on the range before the instructor is authorized to sign off on the permit? My my, what special "students" must come out of those "training" sessions!

But you know what, it doesn't matter. You wanna talk about that go talk about it over there.

You spewed nonsense about law and/or so-called "training" in both threads. Your display of literally knowing nothing about air travel with guns, or about the illegalities of mailing guns, was a corollary to the nonsense in this thread about people in more free states supposedly not knowing how to stay out of jail because of a lack of training. I live where no training is required to get a permission slip, and no permission slip is required at all to open carry. I will guaran-damn-tee ya that I have more training than you who lives in a state where the opposite is true on both those points. I will also guaran-damn-tee ya that no statistics can be compiled that proves your government-mandated so-called training has resulted in lower crime rates in your neck of the woods than in mine, or no more negligent discharges happen, or no more "untrained" permission slip holders here end up going to "the pokey" because of not knowing the laws about use of force, than they do in Okla-freakin'-homa.

You came over here just to spout of nonsense that no one gives a rats ass about.

I gave a crap about you spreading misinformation, and that's enough for me to involve myself with. Deal with it.

Blues

 

[corneileous]

I have no idea what you're talking about here, and apparently, again, neither do you. You didn't tell me anything in the other thread, as I didn't discuss your erroneous advice with you there at all. I did happen to see you arguing with bofh about it as though you said nothing wrong, even telling him to leave it alone that you gave someone asking a valid and important question advice that could've landed them in federal prison if they had followed it, but you and I had no exchanges in that thread.



Again, I have no idea what you're asking here. It's either a typo or just another in an ever-growing line of faux pas's you have made since landing here. The answer to the question in bold that you ask is unequivocally YES - I do not agree with you saying that knowing the laws is a bad thing. Knowing the laws, especially before you start spewing advice about them, is a great thing! I wish you would start on getting to know the laws right this second, because it's obvious that you don't have the self control necessary to refrain from giving advice about them before you know what you're talking about.

Beyond that, the issue I have with what you said here is all the nonsense in this post that starts with you saying the... "good thing about requiring a carry permit is that it forces applicants to get some kind of training." I got news for you. You are not anywhere near trained on either gun-handling or the law just because OK ignores the "shall not be infringed" language of the Second Amendment or the Supreme Court ruling in Link Removed that states "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution" and goes ahead and imposes a charge (tax) anyway and assumes for itself the power to deny permission for people to enjoy their rights under the Constitution in direct contravention to both those so-called "supreme" laws.

I wonder if you've taken any of your own advice since first saying, "Think about all the people out there that live in states that don't require permits; have they even shot a gun before? Know the difference between what will keep you out of the pokey and what'll land you behind bars?"

Have you thought about whether or not "all the people" you posit are under-trained and uneducated on the laws in their states, actually provide any statistical increase in instances of bad shoots, negligent discharges, collateral damage, landing in jail after using their weapons than people in, oh, I don't know, states like Oklahoma where this shining example of both legal and gun-handling "training" is forced in a one-day, eight-hour course of "study" that includes both classroom and a range "practice session" that doesn't even give a requirement for the minimum number of rounds one must fire on the range before the instructor is authorized to sign off on the permit? My my, what special "students" must come out of those "training" sessions!



You spewed nonsense about law and/or so-called "training" in both threads. Your display of literally knowing nothing about air travel with guns, or about the illegalities of mailing guns, was a corollary to the nonsense in this thread about people in more free states supposedly not knowing how to stay out of jail because of a lack of training. I live where no training is required to get a permission slip, and no permission slip is required at all to open carry. I will guaran-damn-tee ya that I have more training than you who lives in a state where the opposite is true on both those points. I will also guaran-damn-tee ya that no statistics can be compiled that proves your government-mandated so-called training has resulted in lower crime rates in your neck of the woods than in mine, or no more negligent discharges happen, or no more "untrained" permission slip holders here end up going to "the pokey" because of not knowing the laws about use of force, than they do in Okla-freakin'-homa.



I gave a crap about you spreading misinformation, and that's enough for me to involve myself with. Deal with it.

Blues

Man, whatever. I'm not wasting anymore time uselessly arguing with you since it's apparent you get off on sounding like a damn know-it-all. Thanks for turning this thread into an argument that is all over a topic in from another forum.

Remember, you came here FIRST and spouted your BS reply. I left that OTHER thread behind along time ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Are there anymore recommendations for a single stack 40?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darkstar888]

Still vote for the Walther PPS M2 40cal. You won't be sorry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Still vote for the Walther PPS M2 40cal. You won't be sorry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not a bad lookin' pistol that looks like its reasonably priced but, I'd rather stick with one with an external saftey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

My bad, just realized I didn't specify in my opening post that I'm looking for options with an external saftey if there are any.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darkstar888]

To each there own. For me I see no practical need for one unless it's a single action 1911. 99% of the time it should be holstered which covers the trigger guard making it unable to fire. When in the hand the digger would be outside the trigger guard until you decided to fire. There are plenty of internal safeties to make it drop safe including the trigger safer dingus. It also has a pre set striker with a trigger pull just over 6lbs I believe which is enough force that a purposeful action is needed to pull it. It also has a cocking indicator at the rear of the slide that allows you to place your thumb over it as you holster the gun so you would immediately feel it protrude if something got caught in the trigger guard and applying pressure to the trigger. In my opinion the safety just leaves one more thing to forget to disengage or engage. Limiting your choices to only guns with a manual safety greatly limits your choices and knocks most of the best options off the table. But as I said. To each his own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Oh I know, there's a lot of great guns out there that just rely on a trigger safety but like you said, to each their own. I'm not saying I couldn't train myself to feeing safe with something like a Glock, I just would rather carry one with a saftey. And you're right, having a saftey to disengage is another step after unholstering your gun in a situation but just as developing muscle memory on a gun without a saftey, the same goes for one with a saftey. Every gun I've ever shot has had a saftey.

I just don't wanna take that chance with a negligent discharge if anything ever got caught in the way of the trigger while holstering or by accidentally pulling the trigger when taking it out in a scuffle. It may never happen with me but then again it could. Glock leg is a real thing that does exist.

With that all being said, I really liked the saftey on an LC9S and a Smith and Wesson I tried a while back. I liked how they were situated a lot better than my Beretta. Flicking the saftey off on those other two seemed more like second nature than mine.

In may just end up goin with the Ruger despite it being a 9. That kind of pistol is what I'm looking for but in a 40. I know they make the SC40 but so far I've only seen it in a double stack. Double stack would be fine but I'm exploring single stacks for better comfort because they're narrower. If Ruger would make a LC40s, I'd probly be all over it like a rat on a cheeto..lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darkstar888]

If you want a single stack with a safety and will consider a 9mm you might want to check out the Walther CCP. it's a gas delayed blowback design so really easy in recoil and to rack the slide. Great ergonomics. Pretty sexy too. Link Removed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

That is a good looking gun. I wonder if that gas delayed blowback makes it really dependent on bullet weight.

That was just strictly outta curiosity on lighter grain bullets but in a 9 I wouldn't have a problem carrying whatever grain ammo that's the most used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darkstar888]

Haven't seen any bullet weight issues on the CCP forum. I wouldn't go with less than 124g but that's just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Haven't seen any bullet weight issues on the CCP forum. I wouldn't go with less than 124g but that's just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was just sayin since some pistols like to jam up if too light of a bullet is used.

But that's probably what I would do especially in a single stack 9. Runnin' the max weight in bullets wouldn't make it any lighter in my opinion over lighter grain bullets.

Without re-searching Google, what all does that Walther come with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darkstar888]

Comes in a foam hard case with the gun, 2 7rd mags (7+1 capacity), a red gun cable lock and a cleaning brush. Also an owners manual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Darkstar888]

FYI.

With an overall length of just 6.41 inches, the Walther CCP is a sleek solution to concealed carry protection. The new model’s barrel length is 3.54 inches and its width is only 1.18 inches making it easily carried in a purse or inside-the-pant holster.

The CCP comes in stylish stainless or Cerakote[emoji768] black and provides all the features that have become a signature of Walther’s line of pistols. It has a smooth 5.5 pound trigger pull, interchangeable front sight with white dot, adjustable rear sight, and reversible magazine release for left- or right-handed operation.

This new single-stack semi-automatic has a magazine capacity of 8 rounds. For maximum safety, the CCP comes equipped with a slim manual thumb safety and one internal safety that acts as a firing pin block. As with all Walther firearms, the CCP has an ergonomic grip with a unique non-slip surface.

Other key attributes of the firearm include an easy access slide stop, loaded chamber indicator for added safety, and serrations (front, rear and trigger guard) for additional safety and control of its easily manipulated slide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk