Show us your guns!

[Gunmaster45]

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

$350 for a Sniper model is pretty good, and though I, and no one else, wants a Glock 21, it's a lot more considerable at $300 depending upon condition.

Don't like Glocks, huh? I like them, they're cool, easy to dissassemble and resistant. .45 ACP is a very good bullet, and in a Glock, 13 rounds sounds good to me. Did you know a fully loaded Glock 17 weighs less than an empty 1911. I thought that's kind of cool.

I'm optimistic, if the gun works, I like it. I try it though. I don't trust what some guy on a website says. I don't say I like or dislike something unless I've tested it myself.

Like MadOgre and his opinion on M16s. I respectfully disagree with his hate for them. They are fine rifles.

[Yournamehere]

I have respect for the M16 series, though, any bad rep is hard to get rid of, credible or not. I have no problem with Glocks either, I love second gens, but the Glock 21 is too big a gun. If I want 13 rounds of .45 in a tupperware gun, I'll grab an XD. Now that is a good budget gun.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

Like MadOgre and his opinion on M16s. I respectfully disagree with his hate for them. They are fine rifles.

I don't have that much experience with them, but I think some of the flaws their detractors complain about are legitimate. Let's face it - direct gas impingement just sounds like a dumb idea to any layman from the get-go. Hopefully, piston ARs will start to replace the older direct gas impingement guns currently in use, which I think will increase the lifespan of the platform for ages (possibly even to 1911 immortality).

It does say something, though, that almost every SF which is allowed to choose their equipment seems to pick the M16 or M4 over whatever service rifle their country uses.

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

I love second gens, but the Glock 21 is too big a gun. If I want 13 rounds of .45 in a tupperware gun, I'll grab an XD. Now that is a good budget gun.

I held one of those recently at a gun show. Was it just me, or does that thing have just about the fattest grip of any .45 I've held?

[Yournamehere]

It's a fat bastard yeah, but hey, Glock can say they have seven calibers instead of six. Go figure.

Another reason I give Glock credit is they're one of the manufacturers that produce or had produced a 10mm handgun, a cartridge that would have likely phased out had they not done that. I'd still opt for a Delta Elite or a 1006 over a Glock 20, but the Glock 20 gave me the option, so thanks, Gaston.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

It's a fat bastard yeah, but hey, Glock can say they have seven calibers instead of six. Go figure.

Another reason I give Glock credit is they're one of the manufacturers that produce or had produced a 10mm handgun, a cartridge that would have likely phased out had they not done that. I'd still opt for a Delta Elite or a 1006 over a Glock 20, but the Glock 20 gave me the option, so thanks, Gaston.

Weirdly, I forgot that the G20 was even in production. I don't know anyone who shoots 10mm these days, so I imagine they can't make too many.

As far as the XD45 goes, a lot of people on the Firing Line seem pretty enamored with theirs, so I guess I gotta respect that. Still, not for me (since I don't have such big hands), plus I think they were probably trying a little too hard to outdo Glock. You can almost hear the R&D folks going, "They put 13 rounds in a standard-cap mag? Well, screw them...we're gonna cram ONE more round in and brag that we have the highest-capacity .45 polymer pistol on the market! Never mind if you need to be a gorilla to hold it!"

[Yournamehere]

Actually the XD mags hold 13, the "14 rounds of .45" includes the chamber. They're also not that hard to wield either, quite comfortable I thought. They are accurate too! For a 4 inch barreled gun, they shoot fantastic! Even back in my rookie days I was getting decent groups with the XD having little or no experience with an automatic. It's the smart man's Glock.

[Nyles]

[quote=MT2008;137]I don't have that much experience with them, but I think some of the flaws their detractors complain about are legitimate. Let's face it - direct gas impingement just sounds like a dumb idea to any layman from the get-go. Hopefully, piston ARs will start to replace the older direct gas impingement guns currently in use, which I think will increase the lifespan of the platform for ages (possibly even to 1911 immortality).

It does say something, though, that almost every SF which is allowed to choose their equipment seems to pick the M16 or M4 over whatever service rifle their country uses.[quote]

Well, it's important to consider that the AR is about the most user-friendly rifle on the market. I never really gave that much thought until I actually joined the military and realised that most troops AREN'T weapons experts. Particularly with an optically sighted version like our C7A1 / C7A2s, it is very easy to train an inexperienced marksman to a relatively high proficiency very quickly.

Even the AK, while extremely easy to use, due to it's lack of accuracy, shitty sights and heavier recoil, is alot harder to use to that same standard. In the hands of an untrained insurgent at 50 yards, it's fairly effective. In the hands of even a moderately well trained soldier at 100-200 yards, the C7 / M16 wins hands down.

Direct gas impingement definately has it's problems, but it also reduces parts and keeps the weight down. I did an exchange with the Brits where I spent two weeks shooting the SA80A2 very extensively - it's a smaller rifle of similar construction (and, in it's A2 form, pretty reliable), but it's also noticeably heavier. This is something to consider about SF - lighter and easier to carry, particularly when you're going to be operating on your own for long periods without resupply. Among other things, SF are raiders and spotters - the last thing they want to do is get into a firefight, because they're going to lose. They just don't carry the heavy weapons and ammo that line infantry does.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Nyles

Well, it's important to consider that the AR is about the most user-friendly rifle on the market.

And that's what it comes down to. I'll take AR ergonomics over that of just about any other design in existence (ESPECIALLY that of AKs, even though I'm an AK owner).

Originally Posted by Nyles

Direct gas impingement definately has it's problems, but it also reduces parts and keeps the weight down. I did an exchange with the Brits where I spent two weeks shooting the SA80A2 very extensively - it's a smaller rifle of similar construction (and, in it's A2 form, pretty reliable), but it's also noticeably heavier.

True, but that was a bigger issue back when most of the rifles were made primarily of metal and only the furniture was plastic. Now that a lot of manufacturers are using more polymer in the construction of the receiver, it's probably going to matter less.

[Gunmaster45]

Hey MT, I remember you said you're not a fan of .45s because they are too big. I compared a Beretta 92FS to a 1911. For a small handed shooter, a 1911fits better. Berettas have wider grips. I think Tauruses are thinner but still, wouldn't a 1911 fit your hands better? Although 1911s are a little harder to control, you get used to them eventually to the point that they feel like a 9mm. I'm not trying to sell it to you but I was just a little curious on the matter.

[Yournamehere]

In most cases, you can't beat the profile of a single stack .45.

Also, my soon to be Christmas present:



Granted I win the bid, it's mine.