meatgoat
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 0
I went with the 6" model as well
Gun collecting
- Thread starter Rafaela
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
I went with the 6" model as well
darkknight
Super Freak
Nice, the reason why I'm thinking of the S&W 686 is because of the military discount but don't like the internal locks on the new guns. But it looks like the Ruger is in the favor because of the price and no internal locks.
hairlesswookiee
PALPATINE CRUSADER!!!!
You won't regret it. With military rebate they can be had for under $400
hairlesswookiee
PALPATINE CRUSADER!!!!
I spotted Nick Fury in The Avengers rocking the M&P. He's a smart man.
Indeed he is. The M&Ps are slowly building up with the LEO world. My buddy down in central Florida is all excited because his department is switching over to the M&Ps, and I'm excited for when I can get the possibility of buying their used ones super cheap.
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
Our city police had a showdown between the Glocks and the M&Ps. Out of 158 officers they went with the M&P. Not sure what the final count was? Personally this weapon has made me forget about Glock. The trigger pull is far superior IMO.
StartOurwar
Freakzoid
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
Look up APEX Tactical. They manufacture after market sears and striker blocks for the M&P. I personally have the M&P .45 and always found the trigger was a tad bit to gritty for my like, plus the lack of a trigger reset really turned me off.
I installed the APEX Tactical Hard Sear and Ultimate Striker Block. All the grit was removed, the trigger breaks at a smooth 4.4 pounds. And now, the trigger resets with a nice kick to my finger.
With these new after market pieces, I think I finally found (For me that is) the perfect gun. The ergonomics fit my hand like a glove, the trigger feels perfect, and I pull of some really nice groups.
Highly recommend apex tactical.
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
hairlesswookiee
PALPATINE CRUSADER!!!!
And they're still not any better than an M&P with the Apex kit. Yes, I own both so I compared both at the range after I got my Apex kit installed.
Yeah I saw those. Thanks for the heads up though!
You won't regret it!!!
~~They're both stellar performing guns, but M&P really brought the fight to Glock. It's obvious when Glock came out with the interchangeable backstraps on the Gen 4. I wouldn't turn either one down if I had to pick one for self defense, but after being burned with the Gen 4 problems I'm never going back to Glock.
Centurion
Super Freak
Good to see a lot of love going around for the M&P.
Among the 4 guns I've got my eyes on right now, one of them is the M&P 45. I'm really liking the dark earth version:
Among the 4 guns I've got my eyes on right now, one of them is the M&P 45. I'm really liking the dark earth version:
Centurion
Super Freak
UNBELIEVABLE!!!
Watch at 3:20, as a police officer brings with him a live firearm into a classroom filled with kids for his lecture. He should have immediately cleared that weapon after removing it from the holster.
WTF was he thinking?!
Oh, and he definitely deserved what was coming.
SnakeDoctor
Super Freak
Eh. Looks like a rigged media stunt to me.
The armed student at in the lecture scene at the beginning was -- as part of the "lecture" he was supposedly attending -- put in a restrictive helmet, wearing padded gloves, and an extremely baggy t-shirt. Not ideal conditions for drawing a weapon under pressure. Not only that -- but the "attacker" came in, shot the instructor, and immediately shot the only armed guy (even though he hadn't drawn the weapon). He knew where the concealed weapon holder was sitting and took him out.
Seems like ABC rigged the test to make sure he failed.
Maybe we should ban helmets that restrict your vision, and baggy shirts that make it impossible to draw a weapon.
SnakeDoc
The armed student at in the lecture scene at the beginning was -- as part of the "lecture" he was supposedly attending -- put in a restrictive helmet, wearing padded gloves, and an extremely baggy t-shirt. Not ideal conditions for drawing a weapon under pressure. Not only that -- but the "attacker" came in, shot the instructor, and immediately shot the only armed guy (even though he hadn't drawn the weapon). He knew where the concealed weapon holder was sitting and took him out.
Seems like ABC rigged the test to make sure he failed.
Maybe we should ban helmets that restrict your vision, and baggy shirts that make it impossible to draw a weapon.
SnakeDoc
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
I have to disagree. There have been tons of studies on fire fights and how most happen within like 10 or 20 feet and people can't hit ____ because they are so jacked. The only flaw in this test is that the main terrorist if you will is a trained expert.
Having been trained in all sorts of firearms it really is a muscle memory thing. The only way to tell how you will perform is through training.
Take the assailant for example. Let's see a non trained person do that. Chances are even though they know what they are doing they are going to miss just like the person sitting at the desk.
Having been trained in all sorts of firearms it really is a muscle memory thing. The only way to tell how you will perform is through training.
Take the assailant for example. Let's see a non trained person do that. Chances are even though they know what they are doing they are going to miss just like the person sitting at the desk.
Darth Cruel
Super Freak
Snakedoc is absolutely correct. This demonstration was filled with cops and news crews that were all set up to make the CC fail. This test is not even a shadow of a real situation. The second shooter also knew where the CC was and the CC didn't even know there was going to be a second shooter. I could go on and on about the ridiculous set-up of this video. It carries very little real useable information. It does have a little...but very little.
And Badmoon's point about aiming is about it.
And Badmoon's point about aiming is about it.
Why do you guys think this video is some sort of conspiracy? i dont understand.
The point of the experiment was not to fail or succeed. it was to see how "normal" people with little to no firearms combat training would react in a situation that would rely on their ability to access and carry out the proper criteria for SAFE and EFFECTIVE firearms usage.
Those of you who are saying the video is rigged....well yeah it is rigged, it is an experiment where EVERYONE in the room knows what will happen except for one person. That is the ____ing point. The people they were testing all thought it would be a piece of cake to defend themselves if ____ hit the fan, and they ALL got a reality check.
Much like some of you in here who think just because you had prior military training or have a CCW license that you are above and beyond the people in the video. give me a break and get off your high horse. if ____ hit the fan in a public establishment and you had to use your weapon, i highly doubt you guys would perform even close to how YOU think you would.
SnakeDoctor
Super Freak
Why wouldn't we? Perhaps the point was not to see how "normal people" would react -- but to rig it so it would look like "normal people" were incapable of reacting, and shouldn't be permitted to carry a weapon. There's always an agenda.
I don't know how I would react in such a situation. But ... I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be slowed down by a helmet, mickey-mouse gloves, or a shirt that's three sizes too big.
Ironically, I saw this video on the same day a Congressman offered an amendment to a bill that would cut-off Federal funding to States with "stand-your-ground" self-defense laws (https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76045.html). They cited a statistical rise in self-defense shootings in such States as the main reason.
So ... which is it? Is the "normal person" incapable of defending himself in such a situation ... or are there all-of-a-sudden more dead criminals due to self-defense shootings? Can't have it both ways.
SnakeDoc
jutty
Super Freak
this is a shot in the dark,(excuse the pun),but does anyone know the stance of a US green card holder getting a handgun permit.
im married to a US citizen and we were "recommended" by the local police to have a firearm (more to the story but im not gonna bore you)
We live in SC,,
any and all help,recommendations etc would be greatly appreciated,
im married to a US citizen and we were "recommended" by the local police to have a firearm (more to the story but im not gonna bore you)
We live in SC,,
any and all help,recommendations etc would be greatly appreciated,
Last edited:
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
I haven't heard anyone in here talking like they are Chuck Norris or chest thumping.
I think valid points have been made above. If they want to do a test, do it from a fair scientific perspective. Not a weighted one sided one.
Hell why don't they take seal team 6 and throw them up against a local staff of McDonalds employees who were trained on BB guns for an hour? That would be fair too!
Last edited:
Darth Cruel
Super Freak
Not trying to bash you, Nash. But a lot of things about this video just scream "political ploy to defame concealed carriers" to me. And it starts with the fact that it is a gun-unfriendlyl news agency running the test and it continues with the name of the videos "PROOF the CCPHs live in a dream world". It is not proof because it is all contrived to ensure that the CCPH fails. In a real situation with a real CC, they would not have acted anywhere near as poorly as those in the video and the assailant(s) would not have been so well rehearsed. Almost all of the aspects of the scenario were built to ensure the failure of the CC. And lets not forget that CC training specifically goes in to detail about how a CC should never assume anything in a critical situation...so a good one will, by his training, never believe he is the savior of the moment.
A few points on the subject:
1) The main subject in these scenarios was not even a real CC...he was a gamer given 5 minutes of training. To even suggest that a true, experienced CC would believe that a video game would give them any tools to work with to be a CC is almost insulting.
2) The main shooter knew who was CC and where they were...in real world...that is not likely with an experienced CC. They know to shut their mouths about carrying so they would not be playing with their weapon under their shirt and trying to impress the girl next to them by telling her they are carrying.
3) In the possibility of multiple assailants, the second one is also not likely to know who and where the CC is. So this means that the CC is not likely to be the second target of the first assailant and the first target of the second one.
4) In the real world, people are not going to run toward the assailant, so it is not as likely that someone will run in front of the CC when he is this close to the front of the room.
5) An experienced CC would know to sit in the back of the room if that is at all possible (thereby making the possibility of an innocent getting in front of him more likely, but that is not what this video shows), and not to jump up and Rambo the assailant. He knows that the first priority is getting cover (preferably), but at least concealment. He would have dropped behind the desks first and then quickly drawn his weapon while he started using what he saw and hears to evaluate his next move. And he likely would then wait to hear the assailant changing magazines before he popped up to fire because he knows that to try to gain fire superiority over someone who has the initiative and is facing you is an act of desparation and only has a real-world use when a soldier is already stuck in an ambush.
6) Adjustments have to be made on the spur of the moment to account for multiple assailants.
7) And experienced CCs also understand that in most states...even if you are a CC...you are required to first attempt to retreat. So getting cover/concealment right away also covers you for that requirement and you can argue that your evaluation of the situation found no other way out than to shoot.
8) And then there is the whole ability-to-put-a round-in-the-assailant thing. Wow! There are some poor shots in that video. An experienced CC is a great deal less likely to suffer that problem. I know damned well that I can put a round in that man's head at that distance with a snub-nosed pistol, so the two .45 rounds in his chest that would be more practical in this case would be a cinch. It then becomes about being level-headed in a given situation, and knowing you can make the shot helps that a lot. Then you just have to get over knowing that they are shooting back but that is aleviated with maintaining cover/concealment until they are changing mags.
9) Oh...and lets not gloss over the fact that it is very unlikely that there will be a CC in a college classroom because most colleges have guns banned...even if you are CC permitted.
Inexperienced CCs and non-CCs don't realize a very important point...concealed carry is primarily for self defense and not for being a superhero to save lives. There are those who get permitted because their responsibility is protection of others...but not the normal, private CC. So playing Rambo to kill the assailant will normall just get a CC added to list of dead people. In a room of 30 people...if the CC saves 10 and himself...that is ten more people than the permit is intended for.
This is a pretty hastily composed respnse so it may be a little sloppy, but I think it at least gets a few of my thoughts across. As I have been saying, there is good information to take from these videos...it would be a good exercise to make the CC trainee to see how to maintain clarity of thought in a chaotic situation, but it does not accuratelt re-create any real-world scenario. But training is not the intent of these videos. This is an attempt by people who are afraid to let people carry concealed to "prove" that nobody should.
I believe there are situations where non-U.S. citizens can have a gun. But those rules will differ from state to state so it is best to just go to verify it with local experts.
Last edited:
Similar threads
