Challenge to Four: S&W, Ruger, Glock, Remington

Dear S&W, Ruger, Glock and Remington…

I am hereby informing you, that whichever of you is the first company to refuse sales of prohibited firearmst to all of NY state, including law enforcement. That I will purchase on of your firearms and encourage others to do the same.

Please stand with us for freedom, liberty and the 2nd Amendment.

Published in: on March 4, 2013 at 12:44 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Schlock, Brock, and Glock ….a tale of hypocrisy

Head of Media Matters is protected by Glock. 

Why do we carry guns?  Because we can’t afford a small Glock carrying army to walk down the street with us.

“Media Matters reportedly took more than $400,000 from the Joyce Foundation specifically earmarked to promote a $600,000 initiative on “gun and public safety issues.” At the same time, Media Matters’ gun-guarded boss David Brock reportedly obsessed over his own security.”

You have to laugh when you read this quote from a Media Matters employe “He had more security than a Third World dictator,” – how interesting, as most Third world dictators are usually for gun control as well. Notice a trend here…???

Is the $1,000 Glock in the near future?

How about the Ruger SR-$900

There is an article on Yahoo regarding automobile prices. Essentially, it says “No, we’re not crazy. Automobiles prices are very high.”

In 2009 I lost my job, I had approx. 2 years left on a 5 year vehicle loan for my Dodge Durango. We sold it, it’s hard to pay for without a job.  In high site, I’d have done things differently. But hindsight is seldom available as foresight.

If you look in the graph of the article, you will see 2009 as a huge drop in vehicle price. Yup, that was when we had to sell.  2009 was a perfect storm for cheap cars: millions out of work selling their cars cheap, near bankrupt auto-makers, a glutt of cars from nearly all manufacturers, the Cash for Clunkers (also known as give money to the rich to buy cars and !@#$% over the poor by destroying the used car market).

Now we’re in a time of lower production, small inventory, and a used car market that is outrageously expensive.  This looks to be a very profitable window for automakers but a far more wallet busting one for the average Joe. Who’s buying power has dropped while expenditures have gone up in every way.

Frankly, I don’t expect it to change anytime soon. And us Americans probably need to face the music. Costs are going up. 

In the gun community, we often make references to the “tupperware” guns (Glock, XD, SR-9, numerous other mass produced polymer firearms) versus the more classical 1911 and other $1,000+ guns.

Interestingly, we’ve seen an decrease in price of those higher end guns recently as more larger manufacturers moved into production (S&W, Ruger, etc, all offering 1911 based models).  But that’s party economy of scale.  The “tupperware” guns have pretty much stayed around the $450-$550 price mark. I think over the next 5 years or so we are going to see that trend move up.
Just like ammo did a few years ago. The shortage ended, and prices fell slightly, but never back to the old levels.  A box that cost $20-$25 now costs $35.  A $10 brick of .22 is now $15. A $30 box of premium ammo is now $40-$50. The price of ammo will never return to the pre-jump prices.  The manufacturers learned what we were willing to pay. And they’re happy to have the extra profit margin.

How can we expect that not to happen with the average Joe firearms as well?

1. Costs are going up, even for manufacturers. Metals and non-plastic materials have increased in price.

2. There is a larger sales volume and lot more “new” gun owners who have no recollection of paying $300-$400 for a firearm. $600 seems reasonable, that’s what all the other models are priced at.

3. Newer designs often bring about a small premium.  Legislation for CA/MA models necessitates re-designs.  Increasing firearm costs.

And while inflation is always a continual cancer eating away at our buying power. I think the next 5 years is likely to see a shift up for the average Joe firearms. Ironically, I think the fancier ones might see reduced prices.  This is off course just speculation.  But I would be surprised to see a jump up to a $600 street price on “tupperware” guns.

The one good side, is we’re very unlikely to see a “cash $$$ for clunkers” program from the Federal government for firearms.  Don’t expect Uncle Sam to exclaim “Bring in your old broken firearm, your revolver with timing off, your misfiring rifle – and receive $100 off your purchase of a new firearm.”

So at least the firearm prices will be affected merely by market pressure, economy, and manufacturing costs.

However, if you’re (un)lucky enough to live near a big city like Philadelphia. You might be able to trade that broken pot metal gun in your drawer for a gift card to put toward a new quality firearm thanks to their gun buyback programs.

Published in: on February 14, 2012 at 4:04 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

“Christianity and Self-Defense” Guns and Faith: A Two Part Series

The following post is inspired by a recent comment, which touched upon faith and guns. Always interesting how koincidence works, as Eric Shelton of the Handgun Podcast recently was discussing this issue as well.

In fact, a large portion of this post is derived from notes written back in 2008 for a podcast that never happened. Eric Shelton, Kenn Blanchard, Mick McCart & myself had bounced around the idea of doing a show that focused on “faith and guns”.

So how do firearms & self-defense fit in within the faith of Christianity?

QUESTION I: Doesn’t the 10 Commandments say “not to kill”

Many will point out the passage in Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.” Wouldn’t this alone preclude any role of firearms within the life of a Christian?

Of the nearly 50 uses of this word ratsach in the Bible, only five are translated “kill”, most are translated as slayer or murderer.

The word can be used for “kill”, but has a very strong connotation with “murder” and/or “manslaughter”. In the Book of Numbers, the passage describes the judgment and distinction between one who lies in wait to vs one who without deliberate malice or premeditation kills his fellow man.

For the latter, a provision is given, a city of refuge. A safe haven for which one guilty of manslaughter may remain and be safe from the “avenger of blood”. However, for one who murders, no such providence is given. It is interesting to note that there is in fact a role of the “avenger of blood”. A role which is incompatible with an interpretation of “though shalt not kill” in the broadest sense as opposed to thou shalt not murder. Furthermore, why would there be a provision of a city of refuge if any killing of a fellow man was wrong. That interpretation would condemn accidental manslaughter. If an individual dressed in black jumped in front of your car at night, you’d be condemned under such an interpretation. That is why most rabbinical scholars believe the law to be more aptly translated “thou shalt not murder”.

Furthermore, there are in fact instances in which God commanded the Israelites to kill. These included certain breaches of laws, and certain tribes. Some have struggled with understanding why God instructed the Israelites on rare occasion to wipe out their enemies, every man, woman, child, and beast. It’s a hard pill to swallow along with a belief in a loving Creator God. The understanding that I have, is that in those rare instances, it was because that particular tribe was infected with disease. And it was to ensure that the disease did not spread. Similar to having to put down a pet because of rabies or feline leukemia – it doesn’t mean you don’t love the pet. But you know they’re going to die anyways, and letting them live may harm others.

So what do we come away from this understanding?


Murder being an unjustified killing, by one lying in wait, with deliberation. Society was instructed to put these sort of people to death. Our society at present suffers, because we have to great a tolerance for such individuals. Even if you oppose the death penalty, all should agree that such individuals should never be released back into society to repeat their crimes.

QUESTION II: What does Scripture say about self-defense?

Exodus 22:2 “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.”

This would appear to be very straightforward. Call it God’s recognition of Castle Doctrine; now if only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would recognize such a fundamental truth. Defending your home is not viewed as a guilt upon the defender.

There are some other aspects to this rule depending on whether it’s day or night. Essentially, at night one could deem any such theft a threat. Where as during the day, there was some obligation as to whether the individual was indeed a threat before one could be justified in killing them.

Genesis 4:23-24 reads “Then Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech! For I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.” (NKJV)

Lamech was clearly not at his abode. He was out and about when he encountered a young man who wounded him. Lamech defended himself, which lead to the other man’s death. Scripture seems to make it clear that defending ones self, both in and out of the home, is not viewed as a condemnable event.

Nehemiah 4:17-18 “Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens, loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built.”

QUESTION III: Can I use force to protect others?

Genesis 14:13 “And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them…”

Abraham, the gang buster. Okay, so don’t try this unless you happen to have a small private army. Abraham utilized force in order to retrieve his nephew.

1Samuel 17 “And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock….he LORD that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. “

Why is this interesting?

Because in the Psalms David praises God for giving him the skills to do so. Psalm 144:1 reads “A Psalm of David. Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:”

In fact, the Bible even teaches about “reloads” in 1 Samuel 17:40 “[David] chose five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd’s bag”. He knew Goliath had four other brothers. He carried reloads.

QUESTION IV: But I’m a Christian. That’s all Old Testament…don’t we worship the God of the New Testament?

First off, there is a poor mis-conception in Christianity that God is somehow different. Hate to break it to you, but He is one and the same God. While certain passages may be difficult to comprehend. Realize that the Old Testament repeatedly documents mercy, forgiveness, kindness and love. Just read the Book of Jonah. In which a prophet who despises a mean neighboring nation is informed by God that he loves and cares for them. And wants to have mercy on them. And just read some of judgments in the New Testament be it from Revelation or the deaths of Anais and Saphira. God never got out of the judment business. Rather, he offered everyone a pardon if they chose to take it.

But let’s look at some of the passages in the New Testament…

The most challenging of the passages is found in Matthew chapter 5.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy’. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”

This is the same chapter that says “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Let’s address that first, because that is a far easier passage to deal with. First off, the offense here is not one of mortal danger. Rather, it is one of insult. Akin to the Renaissance period where one might remove their glove and slap another man across the face.

“evil” [pone-ros] – annoyances, of a bad nature, bad in an ethical sense, evil wicked

We are instructed to offer the other cheek. And frankly, anyone who carries concealed needs to take this passage to heart. Many a man has found himself in a brawl because he chose to protect his pride and ego. Men have both died and killed for personal insult. If you choose to carry a firearm, you need to set the ego aside.

Regarding pride and insult. To be slapped across the face is not a matter of self-defense; rather it is a matter of insult. And it is wrong to kill a man for merely insulting you.

QUESTION V: Aren’t Christians opposed to the use of force?

Luke 22:36 reads “Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one”

Or to modernize that passage…

“But now, he who has a wallet, let him take it, and likewise a backpack; and he who has no gun, let him sell his garment and buy a Glock.”

This was an admonition directly from the mouth of Jesus, to his disciples, to take a sword. The disciples responded:

Luke 22:38 “So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” Why would he have instructed the disciples to bear swords. If he did not understand the need for self-defense.

To answer the question of What Would Jesus Do? Was Christ totally opposed to the use of force?  Would Jesus have advocated the use of force against criminals and predators?  I’ll let you decide…

John 2:14-15 “And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.”

At a minimum, this is pretty de facto evidence for the use of non-lethal force.


“don’t instigate”

Matthew 26:52 “But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? But if I did, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that describe what must happen now?”

First off, in this very passage, we receive the answer for their putting down of swords. This event was pre-destined to occur. It had to happen that way.

The second aspect “of perishing by the sword” may actually refer to that given moment being a warning to both sides not to take up arms or it would result in their deaths. Let us take a broader scope of the words as a statement that “violence begets violence”. One must take not that the situation at hand was one of Peter instigating violence. Peter initiated an attack, when his life had not been threatened. This is a very important insight. One should not go looking for trouble nor instigate violence, such will get you killed.

If you decide to walk into a gang ridden neighborhood and starting shoot drug dealers, you’re probably going to get yourself killed.

“don’t be rash, be merciful and understanding”

Proverbs 6:30 says “Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry”, while it goes on to say that such a man is obligated to restore 7 fold. There are different types of crimes. There are those in which a man is merely a predator preying upon the weak and unsuspecting. Pure unadulterated evil. And there are those of desperation. Stealing of food to feed one’s starving family.

They are not the same soul. When I was young, some one broke into our basement and robbed us. It occurred a few weeks before Christmas. They stole nearly $200 in meat and food from our freezer. But they left my bicycle and numerous other items untouched.

Were I to catch such a criminal, I would not shoot them. I’d probably tell them to come back tomorrow, I have some work for them to do. If they come, I’ll give them some more food, and they can work off what they stole so that their conscience can be clean.

“an unarmed nation”

Judges 5:8 “They chose new gods; Then there was war in the gates; Not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel.”

Interesting that one of the criticisms that God levied against Israel in the above passage was a failure of the people to be armed and ready to defend themselves.

America must be careful that we do not find ourselves in a situation where a firearm cannot be found amongst 40,000 people.

Final thoughts from a personal perspective. I’ve always been pro-gun, but for the longest time I did not own a firearm. I am pretty affirmed in my faith, and I saw little reason to trade my life for anothers. Especially one who I believe might really need some salvation (ie: murderer). But when I became a husband and a father the perspective changed. Now it was not just my life, but the life of my loved ones that I had need to protect. It was time for me to own a gun.

Read more about that here


An Interesting Aside…two of my favorite quotes come from Ghandi. One is about christianity and the other about guns:

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mahatma Ghandi

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” – Mahatma Ghandi

Lastly, there is a passage in Scripture that talks about seeing wrong doing, and doing nothing about it being wrong. I can’t remember the verse reference. If anyone recalls it, please email to me. Thank you.

Here is an additional perspective on the matter. I discovered it after writing my post. But I believe the author came to similar conclusions as to myself.

Published in: on February 16, 2011 at 11:21 pm  Comments (6)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

External Safety? Yes or NO? And why?

Recently I found myself in a debate over a particular feature common to many firearms. The “manual safety”.

It seems that there is much debate about the advantage and disadvantage of said devices and strong opinions. I personally am of the opinion of “different strokes, for different folks”. That for some, a manual safety is an added benefit or even a necessity. And for others it is a needless obstruction. I believe that it is very individualistic.

For me, I prefer having a manual safety. That is in part because I have small children. I also believe a manual safety is beneficial for those who carry off their person.

The downside of a manual safety is two-fold:

  1. It is an added complication, and as such, always increases the risk of failure. However, I believe this risk can be minimized by good production and design. (S&W recently had some recalls involving firearms that discharged when the safety was engaged. An issue I consider far far more serious than the mere drop-safety issue of Ruger’s SR9.)
  2. It is an added complication in operation, requiring an additional task before you can be ready to shoot. Furthermore, additional training is needed. Rather then drawing and simply shooting.You must draw, deactivate the safety, then fire.In otherwords, a firearm with a manual safety will set you slightly behind the curve of a firearm without. Good training can help reduce this effect, but never fully eliminate it.

The above two items are good arguments against having a manual safety. So does that mean you should not consider a firearm with a manual safety?

Not necessarily…there can be reasons for choosing a firearm with a manual safety. Though they may be hotly debated.

A safety provides an additional level of difficulty in operation. This can be beneficial in reducing the likelihood of the firearm discharging when not in the proper hands. Two instances that come to mind, is when you have been disarmed by a criminal element. They won’t know your firearm, and will have to locate and deactivate the safety. This could be the time necessary for you to enact a secondary strategy of defense; such as the drawing of a back-up gun (often referred to as a BUG).

The second situation I believe a manual safety to be a positive asset to a firearm is when it comes to children. Now this statement is sure to cause controversy. I’ve heard it said, “if you’re relying on a manual safety to keep a firearm safe in the hands of a child – than you’re doing it wrong”. Such quips are common. To a degree, it is correct. A manual safety in NO way provides any security that a child will not discharge a firearm. However, I do believe that a manual safety does provide an additional barrier to such a tragic event’s occurrence. It is in no way a guarantee. The best guarantee is to keep a firearm out of the hands of anyone not trained to properly use it. But is that possible?

The best strategy regarding automobiles is NOT to get into a collision. I am sure most people consider themselves to properly use an automobile (although I am sure many people around them would disagree). There is a reason we call them “accidents”. I am sure if you polled any one 5 minutes before an accident, they would not expect it…

No one should put their trust in a safety, especially not in the hands of a child. But I will share my personal views as to why I consider it advantageous in such a situation.

There is a law of complexity, simply put, the more complexity in a system (be it mechanical or workflow), the more likely said system will fail to be processed. Add more items to a firearm (safety, magazine disconnect, etc, etc) and the more likely one of them will fail and inhibit operation of the firearm.

And this is where a safety can be advantageous in preventing accidental discharges. A firearm is by design, ergonomic. The entire firearm is designed to fit inside the hand comfortably. An individual who has never seen a firearm in their life, when asked to pick it up, will probably pick it up by the handle and insert their finger in the trigger guard. The design encourages such a position. This means a child who picks up a firearm with no experience, is like to find their hands on the grip and their finger on the trigger. Without a safety, the only thing preventing a discharge is the mere pulling back of the trigger in curiousity by the child. *shudders* That thought sends ripples down the spine of every father.

A manual safety provides a second step, therefore exponentially increasing the complexity. Furthermore, the manual safety is not ergonomically design. It is not intuitively design. And it is commonly next to other levers and systems (ie: slide lock, disassembly locks, etc).

Now do not think that a child can not nor will not discover the means of disengaging the safety and pulling trigger. One can almost guarantee that a child, given enough time, will do so. That task will be reduced by both the age of the child, and the child’s intelligence – until both reach a level of being able to fully understand the functionality and dangers of a firearm.

But in the hands of a toddler – that transitional state between an non-walking infant and a cognizent trained child, a manual safety might be the difference between embarrasment and tragedy. It can provide just enough additional complexity to prevent an immediate tragedy, or perhaps to allow the passing of curiousity. Once again, I want to re-iterate that we DO NOT trust or rely upon safeties to accomplish – we are merely grateful that they may.

I am sure some readers will say “If your firearm is in the hands of a child – you’re doing it WRONG!”. I’d agree…but I also point to our humanity. Humans have been doing it wrong for thousands of years.

To be so affirmed in the sense of our abilities to dismiss risk is dangerous. There are equipment failures, there are accidents, there are situations where you might think “you’re doing it right”.

One might for example think that their equipment is adequate. You might have even bought the seemingly best equipment money can buy after having read all the stellar reviews. That doesn’t mean your equipment cannot fail.

Perhaps your holster broke, unbeknownst to you. You’ve kept walking while you’re firearm remains 200 paces behind you. Sure, we can say how one should have noticed, felt the difference, whatever. Maybe you were rolling around outside with you children, unaware that you’re firearm fell out of the holster and lays on the grass. Until you 6 yr old hands you your Glock. Maybe your equipment was perfect. But while you were walking down the sidewalk a car goes over the curb and hits you and sends you flying. You’re knocked unconscious. The paramedics load you into the ambulance. They have no clue what the plastic buckle on your belt is. They do not know you were carrying a firearm, which now lies on the side of the road. Accessible to any children who happen to pass by.

Some of those examples are more probably than others. I give them to demonstrate that one can never know all the events that will occur. Equipment failure is a fact of life. One that is usually only discovered during the event. To take the position that simply “doing it right” fails to take reality into account.

So am I saying “Everyone should have a manual safety?” No not at all. Never! Never!

What I am saying is that you need to do a threat analysis. You need to conduct a risk assessment. If you are not around young children. The odds odds are that such an equipment failure (or even a mental failure) are less likely to result a potential situation. If you live alone. Then a dropped firearm will remain just where it is. No reasonable risk exists. But if you live or work around young children. You have an added risk factor to consider, and you must weigh the benefits of each against each other. Which pretty much boil down to this:

Greater reliability and a quicker draw against an assailant.


Reduced likelihood of discharge when in the wrong hands.

A thought that I considered during this decision was the odds of probability. How often have I encountered violent criminals necessitating my use of self-defense? how often have I encountered children accessing that which they should not even when I thought it totally inaccessible? which has the actual greater likelihood of occuring in my life?

Eric Shelton and others have pointed to the fact that more gun owners die of heart attacks than shoot outs. That’s not to say we shouldn’t carry firearms for defense. But that if we’re really interested in preserving out life, perhaps we should be more fit and lay off the Big Macs. I have to agree, I am more likely to die of health illness than crime. (BTW, being in shape increases one’s odds of survival in a shoot out as well.)

For a father with small children, I prefer my firearms to have manual safeties. That’s because I fear that at some point I might “do it wrong”. Be it buying the wrong equipment or some bizarre occurrence outside of my control. The reduced risk of negligent discharge, however slight it might be, is beneficial in my assessment.

While I am sure there will be many who will disagree, and others who will agree. I reiterate that the decision regarding this need should be made with great consideration based upon an individual’s circumstances. I do not believe there is one universally right answer. I believe a decision is right for the individual.

If someone says “You don’t need a safety!”, you need to personally evaluate whether that is true for you. It might be true. No one else can understand your personal equation. The mistake is not in buying a firearm with or without a manual safety. The mistake is buying one without considering your personal life sphere.

Lastly, if you’re buying a firearm as a gift for a new shooter. Realize that many new shooters may take comfort in the firearm having a manual safety. Many of us shooters forget the fear, trepidation, awe and wonder we had first interacting with firearms. It’s a respect that many of us lose over time. It’s why many negligent discharges occur with seasoned firearm owners who have simply become to comfortable with their firearms. Those new shooters often enjoy the comfort of that additional safety, because they know that “they don’t know it all, and they’re not sure if they’re doing it wrong”. A good 22 caliber pistol with a manual safety makes a GREAT first gun. After a new shooter is comfortable with firearms, is a better time to encourage their move to a safetyless carry gun like a Glock.

Published in: on January 9, 2011 at 12:09 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , ,

In the news…

Rights to transport firearms on Amtrak trains restored (sort of).  Originally the law was going to mandate that in order for firearms to be transported they must be stowed away in locked metal containers. In a similar fashion as occurs while flying on commercial airliners.

This is not a new right. Though some, like the Brady Campaign, will have you believe. Rather, it’s a restoration of what was acceptable before September 11th, 2001.

Apparently due to some sort of transcription error. The requirement that President Obama signed mandates that the carrier must be stowed in a secure container.  Frankly, I’m not sure I’d put it past someone in this administration doing it deliberately. But in all likelihood it was probably just a typo.

So there you have it. You can now transport your sidearm on AMTRAK. You just have to be locked in a box to do so.

More info


Also in the news. A measure was passed (courtesy of Murtha) to protect M-1 carbines, M-1 Garands, M-14s, .22 caliber rifles, and others from being destroyed.

This language also includes a prohibition on the destruction of small arms ammunition and components, and a response to the short-lived concern over destruction of spent brass casings earlier this year.

Now I want to point something out. I dislike Murtha and his frivolous spending and his private airport. However, the NRA is not concerned about such matters – there are plenty of other organizations like “Downsize DC” that worry about such matters. The NRA is focused on the right to keep and bear arms.

If U.S. Representative John Murtha supports it, than the NRA will support him.  Folks, we have to stop demonizing the NRA for supporting people who we dislike for other issues.  Don’t expect the NRA to put pressure on elected officials for pork barrel spending.  Address those issues through OTHER advocacy groups.


Glock 4th generation sighted.

Potential Dealer Pricing ???

Published in: on December 21, 2009 at 4:06 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,

How (NOT) to remove the sight from your Glock

Last spring Eric Shelton of the Handgun Podcast decided to torture test his Glock by towing it behind his pick-up truck through the Arizona desert.

I’ve been listening to the Handgun Podcast for about a year now. It’s one of my favorite podcasts. And it just dawned on me that I never shared this fascinating video with my readers.

Published in: on December 5, 2009 at 3:40 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,

More info (prophecies) on 4th Gen Glock

Guns Holsters and Gear has more on the 4th Generation Glock

  • Interchangeable Backstraps
  • Frame redesign and improvements (with particular attention to 40mm)
  • Ambidextrous slide release
  • Reversible Mag release

And more…

Published in: on October 30, 2009 at 3:32 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,

Glock (im)perfection!

Glock – say anything against them and you’ve got instant debate “just add internet water”.

The truth is that Glocks are excellent firearms with an excellent reputation for reliability, accuracy, and maintenance.  But the reality is that they are not perfect for everyone. I personally find many of the larger Glocks to be uncomfortable. The G17 is decently comfortable for me but many of the rest are not. I have short stubby fingers.  I’ve also known people who get nipped by the slide on Glocks because of the short dove tail.

Many have commented that Glock has been falling behind the times compared to the feature sets of other firearms. The solid reliability of the Glock design has kept it a strong seller. But there has been a noticeable trend of many police departments migrating to S&W M&P’s.  Glock’s traditional bread and butter.

There has been much hypothesizing that Glock would eventually have to improve their “perfection”.  It appears that 2010 will be when we see such (im)perfections. This does create some confusion as Glock released an update earlier this year. So was that generation 3.5?


H/T to Blue Sheepdog

Published in: on October 22, 2009 at 3:47 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,

Are the never days of the gun industry ending?

If you asked most people 5 yrs ago, would Ruger ever offer an AR. They’d probably have said it was very unlikely.

Many have criticized Glock for standing fast and unchanging.  The Glock has been criticized as becoming dated. While it’s a good gun that works for most people. It doesn’t fit everyone comfortably. Many have wanted Glock to step up to the plate with thinner grips, adjustable backstraps, etc.

Rumors are circulating that such may be just a shot show away…

Published in: on June 12, 2009 at 4:25 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,