Russell Kerstetter wrote: > On 9/25/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Russell Kerstetter wrote: >> Extreme is when you start looking at rifle-cartridge pistols or things >> like the S&W .500 revolver. > > I do not mean to imply that .40 is extreme, but this is the same guy > that gets angry every time he sees a National Geographic because he is > under the impression that NGS gives lot 'o' money towards gun control. > I do not know if he is correct or not, but I do not care enough to > cancel my free subscription (it was a gift). > > A 1911 is a *very* nice gun. .45's have a bad rep for recoil, ect, > and I am not sure why. A couple guys at my work have 1911's that are > set up very nice, but don't ask me about the mods, because I do not > know :), I just thought it was a very pleasant gun to shoot. I don't > own one because they are expensive to buy, expensive to shoot, and I > don't compete and I don't feel I need to protect myself from the thugs > of suburban Denver. > > Oh, and I didn't like his .40 either. It's a Glock 27 or something > like that, and it felt like a cheap plastic toy, IMHO. > > Russell >
Some of the lightweight 45's are a stone cold bitch, the Warthog comes to mind (of course, even that's nicer than an S&W .40) and the 1911's a big hunk of metal. 9mm is much gentler, allowing much lighter pistols without the poor recoil handling you'd get with amore powerful cartridge. I don't like glock's, but they're certainly accurate. I've not done a serious amount of shooting, although I do enjoy the sport and when I get the chance I intend to acquire a couple of nice target rifles. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
