imfdb.org

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)
-   Off Topic (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Interesting NY Times article on NYPD revolvers. (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=634)

Excalibur 11-13-2014 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 41395)
When I was in the Army we rarely went shooting. Couple times a year to qualify and once in a blue moon we would go to the range to do some live fire training. Now I wasn't in the infantry (and there was a difference), but many folks in the military don't shoot as much as you might think. I do a lot of dry firing practice myself and go to the range once or twice a month for live fire. I recommend it to my fellow officers, but I'm not sure how many actually do that.

Since I'm a fan of and have a few friends who are Marines, *insert cliche Marines are better than the Army joke*

Jcordell 11-13-2014 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 41397)
Since I'm a fan of and have a few friends who are Marines, *insert cliche Marines are better than the Army joke*

The Marines are good troops. Mostly core (combat) and the Navy takes care of most of the logistics and support for the Marines (yes there are Marines who are in support jobs, but not as many as the Army has). The Army has a core (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Combat Aviation, Special Forces), but also provides a huge part of it's support. I was one of the support troops (hey see how long even the toughest troops go on without beans and bullets, fuel, communictions, clothing, pay, medical, intelligence and so on). Support doesn't go to the range as much. Now here is where somebody who was in the Quartermaster Corp or Signal Corp chimes in that they went to the range twice a month when they were in. :p

funkychinaman 11-13-2014 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 41404)
The Marines are good troops. Mostly core (combat) and the Navy takes care of most of the logistics and support for the Marines (yes there are Marines who are in support jobs, but not as many as the Army has). The Army has a core (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Combat Aviation, Special Forces), but also provides a huge part of it's support. I was one of the support troops (hey see how long even the toughest troops go on without beans and bullets, fuel, communictions, clothing, pay, medical, intelligence and so on). Support doesn't go to the range as much. Now here is where somebody who was in the Quartermaster Corp or Signal Corp chimes in that they went to the range twice a month when they were in. :p

My buddy joined an Army Reserve band in 1996, and I think they only went to the range twice a year for qualifications. He did complain however, when their M16A2s were swapped out for M16A1s. He said he hated the fact that the A1s didn't have the adjustable rear sights.

Excalibur 11-14-2014 01:55 PM

I know a guy in the National Guards and he is telling me that his unit is just now getting M4s

Jcordell 11-14-2014 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 41407)
I know a guy in the National Guards and he is telling me that his unit is just now getting M4s

My last unit when I was in was the 10th Mountain Division. The 10th was part of the 18th Airborne Corp which was the Rapid Deployment force for the U.S. Army. So we got M4 carbines in 1998. I remember we were all very excited. We were all very impressed with the modular concept.

Excalibur 11-14-2014 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 41411)
My last unit when I was in was the 10th Mountain Division. The 10th was part of the 18th Airborne Corp which was the Rapid Deployment force for the U.S. Army. So we got M4 carbines in 1998. I remember we were all very excited. We were all very impressed with the modular concept.

We're they burst M4s or M4A1s? And what was available at the time for accessories back in 98?

Jcordell 11-15-2014 04:17 PM

We were told all about the optics and lasers and lights that were available, but we did not have any of those. It took the war to bring that stuff into the system for just the average troops. In 98 the high end units were getting all the extras. I was military intelligence. The infantry battalions were going to get the extras.

I don't remember if we were issued M4 or M4A1 carbines. I do remember that they were brand new. We got them still in the boxes and wrappers. Like I wrote earlier it was very exciting. The settings were safe, semi-auto and 3 round burst. The division's Long Range Surveillance Detachment (LRSD) was assigned to the Military Intelligence Battalion for administrative purposes. They were in our barracks and actually were very well behaved troops.

Those guys were authorized to wear the maroon beret since they were airborne qualified. They also got all the extras for their carbines. At the time we decided that the reason why a bunch of MI Pouges got new carbines (while all the other support units stayed with the M16A2) was because we had LRSD as part of our battalion. We figured it was an administrative decision. Just easier to issue carbine to the entire battalion instead of just one platoon sized element within the battalion.

Nyles 11-21-2014 01:42 PM

I'm actually a FIG as well, and a reservist at that, so I get to the range once a year. That said I was attached to 1 PPCLI for almost 2 years when I deployed, and they didn't seem to get to the range much more often, maybe twice in 9 months of work-up. The modern infanteer has a whole host of skills to learn (first aid, radio procedure, calling in fire, vehicle operation & maintenance), almost all of which are more complicated than firing a rifle.

As for weapons, I had a C7A2 and a 9mm in theater. Most of the guys in the rifle companies wouldn't have had the pistol, didn't need them. C8s were pretty much reserved for LAV drivers, gunners, and commanders, recce platoon and M203 grenadiers. Even the commander had a rifle. In my home unit at the to time (2009) I had a C7A1, we've since upgraded. No pistols in the militia though.

Standard optic across the CAF is the Elcan, but some (maybe 50%) of the C8s in theater had EoTechs. Out recce guys ditched their EoTechs for Elcans since the insurgents kept shoot and scooting them from about 100M and the Elcan was more precise at that distance. BUIS are supposed to be issued with every rifle but they're uncommon in the regs and unheard of in the reserves. I don't know why, but I've also never seen an optic fail. In theater most of the guys in rifle companies (but not drivers) had lasers and lights on their rifles, guys in support trades or HQ coy didn't. Everyone got a vertical foregrip, I hated mine and took it off. I've never seen one in the reserves.

MoviePropMaster2008 11-24-2014 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyles (Post 41427)
I'm actually a FIG as well

What's a FIG? :confused: Not an acronym I am familiar with.

Nyles 11-25-2014 05:14 AM

Fu**ing Int Guy.

MoviePropMaster2008 11-26-2014 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyles (Post 41444)
Fu**ing Int Guy.

SIgh. Okay. You got me. What is INT? :confused:

commando552 11-26-2014 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 (Post 41450)
SIgh. Okay. You got me. What is INT? :confused:

Intelligence. I assume the whole military FIG thing is a bacronym from the Field Intelligence Groups that the FBI has. Recently I have seen some British police forces using the term FIG (as is Field Intelligence Group) for some undercover operations, I assume because they want to be cool like the FBI.

MoviePropMaster2008 11-26-2014 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando552 (Post 41451)
Intelligence. I assume the whole military FIG thing is a bacronym from the Field Intelligence Groups that the FBI has. Recently I have seen some British police forces using the term FIG (as is Field Intelligence Group) for some undercover operations, I assume because they want to be cool like the FBI.

Thanks commando552. I only ask because that's NOTHING like the acronyms we have in the U.S. Military and knowing he's a Canuck, led me to want to know MORE about his acronyms (which mean NOTHING to us). Since the discussion was about INFANTRY roles, I thought it was something like FNG, a generic term (like FOB). Thanks again. You know what they say about 'military intelligence' ;)

Nyles 11-26-2014 09:04 PM

I think you may be dramatically overestimating how much the Canadian military cares about the FBI. We've been FIGs since at least the 80s, long before the FBI had Field Intelligence Groups.

It's a fairly straightforward acronym - intelligence operator = Int Guy, throw in Fucking and you have FIG. Figs are fruit, infanteers tend to consider anyone not in the infantry to be lesser soldiers, it just makes sense.

I know we've been abbreviating intelligence as Int since at least the 40s (Canadian Intelligence Corps was abbreviated C Int C from 1942-1968, the modern Intelligence Branch has worn INT shoulder titles / rank slip ons since it was founded in 82.), I suspect even longer before there was a separate Intelligence trade

MoviePropMaster2008 11-28-2014 09:02 AM

Only straightforward to Canadians, I suppose ;) LOL If you ask an American what a FIG is, the first thing that pops into our minds is "Fighter Interceptor Group". I did a google search for military slang and it didn't turn up anything Intel related :D So of course, I had to ask. :rolleyes: Thanks for the definition.

SPEMack618 11-28-2014 05:23 PM

Our S-2 guys rarely went outside the wire. Our Bde S-2 was a girl, who while hyper-competent at her job, was always skiddish about going out of the FOB.

Rightfully so, in my opinion. If I were female and had to interact with guys who were sexsist, stuck in the past, liked to fight, and generally rough around the edges, I'd be uncomfortable too. Not to mention the Taliban. :D

For the record, I carried an M-4A1, an ACOG, and AN/PEQ-2.

About halfway through our deployment, we did some personnel shuffling, and in addition to a squad leader I became a Grenadier, so I swapped carbines, for one with a -203.

Nyles 11-29-2014 02:37 AM

You know, I've noticed that's really more of a problem with your military than ours (the female thing, not the WOG thing - I was pretty much chained to my desk for 9 months since no one else could do my work while I was gone / if I got killed). We're a lot more gender integrated than you are (women in the infantry for 25 years now) and it's just not an issue. Our medics are probably 50% female, my trade about 30%, and the infantry is about 5% - there's not that many women who can physically hack the infantry, but the ones that do are damned good soldiers. I've never met a woman in SOF, but had a good friend who worked in CSOR's S2 section and she did the same PT as the door kickers.

We do the same job, train to the same standards, share tents and ablutions and sh***ers in the field, and we don't have any of the weird stuff where women have to be escorted back to their quarters after 10 (yes, that's something I've experienced more than once working with the Americans), and I've never even heard of a female soldier being sent home from a deployment due to pregnancy. We had our issues with sexual assaults and harassment back in the 90s, but I think if you treat women like any other soldier sooner or later people will start to see them as one.

SPEMack618 11-30-2014 05:39 PM

I'm not qualified to speak towards gender integration.

I was a Cav Scout and am currently an Infantry officer. Totally male career fields. And I have problems conceptualizing how a woman could integrate into said units. Especially if we out at a COP for a month straight.

I will share one story that sort of explains my view, and which my sister says is a sign a rampant sexism in America.

Being a Cavalry Squadron, we had organic aviation assets. A Troop of a Apache gunships and a Troop of Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters.

One of the Kiowas was flown by a warrant officer, who was a sorority girl in the real world. And she was also very friendly around us, not to the point of flirtatiousness or anything, but she wanted to know the guys she was flying support for. We cared for her immensely.

And one day, she got shot down in the middle of a firefight. And we went ballistic. Everybody and his battle buddy was wanting to ditch their sector, their overwatch position, whatever and go tear assing across an open field, liberally crossed with heavy Dishka fire, and pull her out of her Kiowa.

No way in hell we'd have behaved that way had it been a dude chopper jock.

MoviePropMaster2008 11-30-2014 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyles (Post 41461)
We had our issues with sexual assaults and harassment back in the 90s, but I think if you treat women like any other soldier sooner or later people will start to see them as one.

There have been some dark and disturbing reports from the sandbox in the last ten years... :( You just gotta be willing to look at them. Those incidents, though technically rare, make me sick. And Rape by fellow soldiers in the field (again rare) is still an abomination in my eyes, but those incidents are still happening. :(

MT2008 11-30-2014 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008 (Post 41466)
There have been some dark and disturbing reports from the sandbox in the last ten years... :( You just gotta be willing to look at them. Those incidents, though technically rare, make me sick. And Rape by fellow soldiers in the field (again rare) is still an abomination in my eyes, but those incidents are still happening. :(

I have a female friend who used to work with me and then later went to work at the Pentagon. While she was there, she became interested in joining the Army as an officer. She went as far as putting together her entire OCS application package (which took the better part of six months) and getting ready to go before the board. And then her office got a new analyst who was former AF. That girl told my friend countless stories about getting marriage proposals from enlisted guys while she was deployed, and other female friends who had to fight off sexual advances. Needless to say, my friend lost her enthusiasm about joining the Army pretty quickly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 41464)
And one day, she got shot down in the middle of a firefight. And we went ballistic. Everybody and his battle buddy was wanting to ditch their sector, their overwatch position, whatever and go tear assing across an open field, liberally crossed with heavy Dishka fire, and pull her out of her Kiowa.

No way in hell we'd have behaved that way had it been a dude chopper jock.

Interesting story. I recall hearing similar anecdotes while the pundits were debating Panetta's repeal of the ban on women serving in combat roles. I also remember k9870 mentioning this in another IMFDB forum topic. My reaction: Even if we buy that men have a natural instinct to defend women (plausible), can they be trained to suppress it? Being in the military requires people to suppress many natural instincts (namely, self-preservation) - why not this one?

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of women serving in combat roles, so long as DoD recognizes the inherent challenges involved and implements training to mitigate them.

SPEMack618 12-01-2014 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MT2008 (Post 41467)
Even if we buy that men have a natural instinct to defend women (plausible), can they be trained to suppress it? Being in the military requires people to suppress many natural instincts (namely, self-preservation) - why not this one?

See, here is where I disagree.

I'm of the mindset of Colonel Cooper, that man, instinctively, likes to fight. He wants to prove that he is superior. He wants to dominate. He wants to come out on top. He wants to beat other men who are well armed, well led, and well motivated. That's his natural instinct. The Army merely digs it out from the politically correct brainwashing he underwent through years of public schooling.

And I may be way, way off base. I'm simply speaking for myself and my squad of Georgia Army National Guardsman. Hell, we might have liked to fight because we were too dumb to know better.

And I feel that the natural instinct to protect women is as deeply ingrained as the instinct to fight.

I'm not anti-women in the military, I'm anti-women in combat MOSs.

Nyles 12-01-2014 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 41464)
I'm not qualified to speak towards gender integration.

I was a Cav Scout and am currently an Infantry officer. Totally male career fields. And I have problems conceptualizing how a woman could integrate into said units. Especially if we out at a COP for a month straight.

I will share one story that sort of explains my view, and which my sister says is a sign a rampant sexism in America.

Being a Cavalry Squadron, we had organic aviation assets. A Troop of a Apache gunships and a Troop of Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters.

One of the Kiowas was flown by a warrant officer, who was a sorority girl in the real world. And she was also very friendly around us, not to the point of flirtatiousness or anything, but she wanted to know the guys she was flying support for. We cared for her immensely.

And one day, she got shot down in the middle of a firefight. And we went ballistic. Everybody and his battle buddy was wanting to ditch their sector, their overwatch position, whatever and go tear assing across an open field, liberally crossed with heavy Dishka fire, and pull her out of her Kiowa.

No way in hell we'd have behaved that way had it been a dude chopper jock.

I certainly understand that, but I think that, like MT2008 says, that can be overcome, but the only way is for men to get used to serving with women to the point where they understand they're soldiers like any other. My rotation had a young, very attractive, female reserve augmentee from the LSSR serving in one of the PPCLI rifle companies - she probably got hit on a lot at first, but after a few months of going to the strip club with the guys, spitting chew into a pop bottle in the back of the LAV and going weeks without showering, she was just another one of the guys. When you don't segregate, people have a chance to get to know them as fellow soldiers instead of just women, and it changes.

Another similar example is a friend of mine, also from my rotation, who on his first tour when he was still an infanteer, came out of the closet for the first time in the back of a LAV under mortar fire - "F**k it, I don't want to die living a lie. Sgt, I'm gay." He took some shit for about a week, and then the rest of his platoon were standing up for him when the rest of the battalion found out. Point being I think people in general will be pretty open minded if you give them a chance to be.

Don't take this as an argument for political correctness - the army is the army and if you can't do the job then you shouldn't be in it, but there's plenty of straight men out there who can't handle it either. I'm definitely NOT saying the standards should ever be lowered, I just think that women should get the same chance to prove themselves that men do.

No argument on the soldier on soldier rape - anyone in the states hear of Russell Williams, the former commander of CFB Trenton who's currently serving a life sentence for several rapes and two murders. I was in Afghanistan when he was arrested, and we were ordered that he was always to be referred to as Mr. Williams. When he got his dishonorable discharge, they burned his uniforms, shredded his commissioning scroll, and broke his medals, and our only objection is that he's in civilian and not much harder military prison.

Totally unrelated, but were the Kiowa pilots also complete insane on your tour? Seems like every week we had a new C/S Shamus story. Were you with 1-17 Cav? They actually took over Dand district from us at the beginning of 2010.

SPEMack618 12-01-2014 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyles
Totally unrelated, but were the Kiowa pilots also complete insane on your tour? Seems like every week we had a new C/S Shamus story. Were you with 1-17 Cav? They actually took over Dand district from us at the beginning of 2010.

Dude, our Kiowa guys (and girls) we're nuts. In fact, that's how said warrant got shot down, she was down super low putting fire on to bad guys with the pylon mounted .50 gun pod.

No, I was 1-108. But a couple of guys from OSUT wound up in the 1-17.

Nyles 12-03-2014 04:16 AM

Yeah, I refused to believe the story about the Shamus pilot expending all of his ordnance and landing so he could shoot the guy with his pistol - until I saw the AAR.

S&Wshooter 12-03-2014 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyles (Post 41476)
Yeah, I refused to believe the story about the Shamus pilot expending all of his ordnance and landing so he could shoot the guy with his pistol - until I saw the AAR.

How to become a Kiowa pilot:

1. Be batshit crazy

2. Demonstrate this

3. Wait until they just give you a Kiowa (you will know how to operate it instinctively)

4. Throw beer bottles and shit at hadjis for fun from your Kiowa until you leave the military

SPEMack618 12-03-2014 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyles (Post 41476)
Yeah, I refused to believe the story about the Shamus pilot expending all of his ordnance and landing so he could shoot the guy with his pistol - until I saw the AAR.

There were times when the Scout Troop, which were how our Kiowas were flagged, would be giving us gun support, that I thought I could reach up and touch a skid.

It was nothing to find .50 brass in your gear if they were around.

MT2008 12-04-2014 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 41468)
See, here is where I disagree.

I'm of the mindset of Colonel Cooper, that man, instinctively, likes to fight. He wants to prove that he is superior. He wants to dominate. He wants to come out on top. He wants to beat other men who are well armed, well led, and well motivated. That's his natural instinct. The Army merely digs it out from the politically correct brainwashing he underwent through years of public schooling.

And I may be way, way off base. I'm simply speaking for myself and my squad of Georgia Army National Guardsman. Hell, we might have liked to fight because we were too dumb to know better.

And I feel that the natural instinct to protect women is as deeply ingrained as the instinct to fight.

I'm not anti-women in the military, I'm anti-women in combat MOSs.

First, to make sure we are clear on where I am coming from, you have the right to express your opinion without being accused of bigotry. Your views are based upon legitimate concerns.

I haven't served, so I admit that I don't have any anecdotes like yours. But I did spend enough years rowing when I was in college to know that there are plenty of women who have the instinct to dominate and come out on top. The kinds of women who I saw on the team are, I would think, exactly the kinds of women who would be fine in combat arms jobs (perhaps they wouldn't excel, but they could at least hold their own). If they can carry a Vespoli shell, they can ruck.

I wish k9870 were still here - he was at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, right? I always found it weird that k9870 was opposed to women in combat, given what I know about his school's oarswomen. When I was in college, I remember CGA had women's varsity crews which were about as fast as my school's men's varsity crews. (Also, during my sophomore year, their freshmen men's boat beat our second varsity boat - which was my boat.) If I were a combat arms officer, I would have taken a platoon of those ladies over the guys from my own boat.

In the end, though, I believe that women in combat should only get the green light provided that there is good, hard data to suggest that this is a good idea (as opposed to progress for the sake of progress). I would never get behind a social engineering program that is not supported by empirical evidence. And I am concerned that Panetta jumped the gun on removing the barriers to women in combat, before sufficient evidence was presented.

But...I suspect that this is still a (rare) case where the forces of liberalism and political correctness are actually right, even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Jcordell 11-12-2015 02:10 PM

UPDATE ELEVEN YEARS LATER: New York Post dated Sept 8, 2015, stated that there are only 214 six-shot .38 revolver carrying officers left on a force of about 35,000.

funkychinaman 11-12-2015 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 42223)
UPDATE ELEVEN YEARS LATER: New York Post dated Sept 8, 2015, stated that there are only 214 six-shot .38 revolver carrying officers left on a force of about 35,000.

I don't remember if I was around when you first posted the article, but this jumped out at me:

""It's put me through 20 years, and I'm still alive," said Officer Gregg Melita, 41, who not only carries a Ruger Police Service revolver, but the old "dump pouches," two leather carriers that hold loose cartridges. "This is when guns were guns, and cops were cops," he said. "The new guys don't even know what dump pouches are. They go, 'Hey, what's that hold?' " He chuckled. "'Bullets, kid.'""

I get the appeal of revolvers, I like them myself, but come on, at least use a damn speedloader.

And a DS on an ankle holster? That seems a bit on the heavy side.

Jcordell 11-12-2015 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 42224)
I don't remember if I was around when you first posted the article, but this jumped out at me:

""It's put me through 20 years, and I'm still alive," said Officer Gregg Melita, 41, who not only carries a Ruger Police Service revolver, but the old "dump pouches," two leather carriers that hold loose cartridges. "This is when guns were guns, and cops were cops," he said. "The new guys don't even know what dump pouches are. They go, 'Hey, what's that hold?' " He chuckled. "'Bullets, kid.'""

I get the appeal of revolvers, I like them myself, but come on, at least use a damn speedloader.

And a DS on an ankle holster? That seems a bit on the heavy side.

Back in my detective days (2003-2006) I carried my DS in an ankle holster. Mainly because I wanted to try it. I lasted a month at the longest. Even though the DS cylinder is just .1 inch larger (2015 Gun Digest, page 202) than the five shot cylinder of my Model 49 bodyguard that little bit made for a cylinder that really pressed against my ankle (I used a Galco ankle band) after a few hours and the extra three ounces really made a difference after five or six hours. I was surprised. I returned to my Model 49 after that month. I still own both revolvers, but the Bodyguard gets carried. the DS is a safe queen.

I'm with you. I like revolvers and now own fourteen. No fifteen revolvers. Love the old handguns, but use a speed loader if you're carrying a revolver in the real world.

My herd as of 08/23/15. Sorry for the picture quality.

going to a gun auction tomorrow. Hope to get either a S&W Model 65 3", Colt Model 1917 (45acp) or a S&W Model 520. Smith made 3,000 of the 520 for the New York State Police in 1980 only to have the NYSP cancel at the last minute. It's just the Model 28 Highway Patrolman only with fixed sights instead of adjustable, but it's rare and would make a great addition to my collection. If I get any of those three you know I'll be posting. Wish me luck.

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/...pspep7ipcx.jpg
http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/...psywvy2fwk.jpg
http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/...psg6wrloqo.jpg
http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/...psssqoswdq.jpg

funkychinaman 11-12-2015 06:31 PM

Oh come on, you don't carry the Pocket Hammerless? Now THAT'S old school.

Nyles 11-12-2015 07:24 PM

Hell of a nice herd!

Jcordell 11-13-2015 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 42226)
Oh come on, you don't carry the Pocket Hammerless? Now THAT'S old school.

That was a gift from my wife. She got it at an auction. Surprised me with it. it's a model 1908 in 380 ACP. Serial number is 338. One of the first ones to roll of the line at Colt in 1908. Little things like that is why we're celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary next summer. It still functions like a champ by the way. I've actually put a couple boxes of new 380 through it and there wasn't one fail to feed or eject. Pretty impressive for a 107 year old pistol.

funkychinaman 11-13-2015 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 42229)
That was a gift from my wife. She got it at an auction. Surprised me with it. it's a model 1908 in 380 ACP. Serial number is 338. One of the first ones to roll of the line at Colt in 1908. Little things like that is why we're celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary next summer. It still functions like a champ by the way. I've actually put a couple boxes of new 380 through it and there wasn't one fail to feed or eject. Pretty impressive for a 107 year old pistol.

It's a good, classic, Browning design, carried by generals and gangsters, and yet no one makes a reproduction these days. I know Colt is making a limited run, but those are going to cost an arm and a leg. Companies are actually producing .380 M1911-style pistols rather than this gun. Why can't RIA start producing affordable copies?

StanTheMan 11-20-2015 05:23 AM

Nice to see your haul, JCordell! All great stuff. Might inquire about a couple of those later but for now that is quite a few good pieces of metal there. Good win on the 1917 Colt, well met!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jcordell (Post 42225)
Smith made 3,000 of the 520 for the New York State Police in 1980 only to have the NYSP cancel at the last minute. It's just the Model 28 Highway Patrolman only with fixed sights instead of adjustable, but it's rare and would make a great addition to my collection.

I thought I had heard of a S&W Model 520 prior to recently - A few years back Smith brought out very briefly a 'new' M520 that was a blue-steel plus (7-shooter) L-frame with the traditional half-lug shroud - Basically a blued version of the Model 620 which we have on the site (which they also don't make now I think). Glad to know I'm not trippin'. Shame you couldn't grab ahold of that one but again, not like you had a total loss. ;)

Totally agree with FCM about the 1908 as well.

SPEMack618 11-23-2015 07:30 PM

I'd want a Pocket Hammerless just to put it in a General's Officer's pistol belt and walk around the house while Jackie is at work calling myself General and running a CPX in my mind.

funkychinaman 11-23-2015 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 42253)
I'd want a Pocket Hammerless just to put it in a General's Officer's pistol belt and walk around the house while Jackie is at work calling myself General and running a CPX in my mind.

With or without the riding crop and breeches?

SPEMack618 11-24-2015 03:09 AM

Breeches for sure. A crop would be a bit too pretentious

Jcordell 06-07-2018 05:56 PM

Now in 2018 only fifty officers are still carrying revolvers. They have been ordered to switch over to semi-auto pistols. The deadline is August of this year. The revolver is now just a chapter in the history of American law enforcement.

funkychinaman 06-08-2018 04:06 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3667548

With a twelve pound trigger pull, I think you'll need all sixteen rounds to put lead on the target.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.