Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
Anyone know anything about Kahr handguns?
OT: Side Arm Purchase
- Thread starter Jacob Dryer
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
I find nothing humorous about hand guns. They are designed for one purpose -- to kill or maim other humans. Some use them for target sport shooting, but that is not why they were invented.
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
People are missing ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES here....
Kommiefornia has some really strict handgun laws. You need to make sure that whatever you get is CA OK (the test o get approved is absolutely rediculous!!! and no where near to any real-world scenario....).
That being said, I personally own a Hi-Point (.40S&W), but have also used a Glock (.40S&W and .45ACP) and a Llama (.45ACP).
I cannot say enough about the Llama. Grip safety, dovetail grip, reasonable to hold (I have BIG hands, my wife little.... I had no problem with the full size, she had a bit of an issue at first). You should be able to find a Llama at a reasonable price in either .45ACP or .40S&W.
AVOID 9mm unless you want to use that really expensive frangible ammo. Personally, .40S&W is the smallest I would go for carry. My wife wants a 9mm sub compact for her purse.... understandable. A 10mm or a .45 would be my choice.
I just happen to have my FFL Dealer's catalogs here:
- Glock 22 in .40S&W - with (2) 13 rd mags MSRP is $579, but you should not have any problem finding them in the $400 range
- Walther P5 in 9mm - (2) 8 round mags $500 would be a good price
- Sig P225 in 9mm - Used ~$400-450
- Smith and Wesson .40S&W Md 4046 - sub $400
- Beretta Md 96 .40S&W - $400-450
- Smith and Wesson Md 4586 .45ACP - $400-450
- Smith and Wesson Md 4006 .40S&W - $375
- CZ-82 in 9x18 Makarov - $300 (not for sale in Kommiefornia)
- Hi-Point .40S&W - $150-200 (not the best for CCW)
- Cobra Subcompact .45ACP - $325-350
- Cobra Subcompact 9mm - sub $300
- Bersa Thunder Ultra Compact .45ACP - $400
- Bersa Thunder Ultra Compact 9mm - $375
- Thompson 1927A1 Semi-Auto .45ACP - $950 (sorry... saw the add and.... well... you know)
You could and should be able to find these type of prices, perhaps cheaper.
I know that the XD40, Walther, and Sig lines are good bets as well.
Kommiefornia has some really strict handgun laws. You need to make sure that whatever you get is CA OK (the test o get approved is absolutely rediculous!!! and no where near to any real-world scenario....).
That being said, I personally own a Hi-Point (.40S&W), but have also used a Glock (.40S&W and .45ACP) and a Llama (.45ACP).
I cannot say enough about the Llama. Grip safety, dovetail grip, reasonable to hold (I have BIG hands, my wife little.... I had no problem with the full size, she had a bit of an issue at first). You should be able to find a Llama at a reasonable price in either .45ACP or .40S&W.
AVOID 9mm unless you want to use that really expensive frangible ammo. Personally, .40S&W is the smallest I would go for carry. My wife wants a 9mm sub compact for her purse.... understandable. A 10mm or a .45 would be my choice.
I just happen to have my FFL Dealer's catalogs here:
- Glock 22 in .40S&W - with (2) 13 rd mags MSRP is $579, but you should not have any problem finding them in the $400 range
- Walther P5 in 9mm - (2) 8 round mags $500 would be a good price
- Sig P225 in 9mm - Used ~$400-450
- Smith and Wesson .40S&W Md 4046 - sub $400
- Beretta Md 96 .40S&W - $400-450
- Smith and Wesson Md 4586 .45ACP - $400-450
- Smith and Wesson Md 4006 .40S&W - $375
- CZ-82 in 9x18 Makarov - $300 (not for sale in Kommiefornia)
- Hi-Point .40S&W - $150-200 (not the best for CCW)
- Cobra Subcompact .45ACP - $325-350
- Cobra Subcompact 9mm - sub $300
- Bersa Thunder Ultra Compact .45ACP - $400
- Bersa Thunder Ultra Compact 9mm - $375
- Thompson 1927A1 Semi-Auto .45ACP - $950 (sorry... saw the add and.... well... you know)
You could and should be able to find these type of prices, perhaps cheaper.
I know that the XD40, Walther, and Sig lines are good bets as well.
Jacob Dryer
Well-Known Member
The only cali restriction I found was the it can only have a 10 round mag. It's pretty unlikely that while in Cali either of us will be able to carry it consealed. However we can still have it in our home without anything special right?
Kevin Palmer
Well-Known Member
I think you have to have permit to own it, but that in itself is nothing special.
I really don't know that for sure, I had heard that from a friend of mine a ways back.
I am waived from those issue due to the nature of my job. So I will not be the one to give you accurate info on that question...
Someone will chine in for sure though...
I really don't know that for sure, I had heard that from a friend of mine a ways back.
I am waived from those issue due to the nature of my job. So I will not be the one to give you accurate info on that question...
Someone will chine in for sure though...
Josh Langel
Well-Known Member
Nelson:
Sorry, bud... but what's worse: The fact that people were killed by a handgun or using that situation and turning it into a joke? By the way it reads... you either do not like guns; therefore, you tried to make a political statement by posting a picture with a subtitled geared for humor OR you don't like the fact someone would want to carry an evil gun; therefore, you tried to parallel the topic with a current tragic event and make light of the situation by turning it into a joke...
So which was it?
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
You're right... revolvers were originally designed for war, but were quickly adapted to hunting (who needs a .500 Desert Eagle for "personal defence"?).
I'm guessing you're not a big fan of EBR's either (that's Evil Black Rifles, such as AK47's, AR15,'s, FAL's, G3's, CETME's, etc).
It's all a part of the 2nd amendment. Do we need semi-auto's to hunt with? No. But then again you don't need a ferrari or porsche to get a loaf of bread at the store either.
It's about freedoms. I just choose to exercise all of Bill of Rights....
Keith Lewis
Active Member
Hey guys, don't turn this into a gun control debate. If you can't offer anything helpful to the original poster, don't whore up his thread...
If your loved one was killed by someone with a knife, would it be better than using a handgun?
Anything can be used wrong. A knife can kill a man. A stick can kill a man. A rock, a bucket of water, and even someones fist can kill a man.
With that being said, I do not feel anyone should own an assult rifle. Nobody needs one...BUT I do not feel a law abiding citizen should be denied his/her right to own one.
A gun is a gun. They all do the same thing. We have the right to own one if we choose so.
Nobody should be allowed to stand in my way, provided I earned that right to own one.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen, given what Nelson said in your quote, why would you respond as you did?
He didn't in any way say that guns are bad, or that gun ownership should be limited; yet your reply seems to defend both a guns usefulness as a weapon of protection and your right to own one.
TJR
He didn't in any way say that guns are bad, or that gun ownership should be limited; yet your reply seems to defend both a guns usefulness as a weapon of protection and your right to own one.
TJR
TJR,
Why are you asking me that?
Are you just trying to single me out?
Tom
Why are you asking me that?
Are you just trying to single me out?
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I don't know what you mean by "single me out". I am talking ONLY to you because I am asking about something YOU said.
I was wondering what you read into Nelson's statement. He gave a factual statement, that guns were invented for killing (he said humans, but clearly for humans and animals).
I just couldn't understand why you responded the way you did to a factual, unbiased statement.
TJR
I don't know what you mean by "single me out". I am talking ONLY to you because I am asking about something YOU said.
I was wondering what you read into Nelson's statement. He gave a factual statement, that guns were invented for killing (he said humans, but clearly for humans and animals).
I just couldn't understand why you responded the way you did to a factual, unbiased statement.
TJR
R Shek did essentially the same thing, yet you say nothing about what he said.
Anything can be used to kill another human. Even your fist can kill a human.
That doesn't mean that a death by fist hurts less than a handgun does.
Just because you buy a handgun does not mean you have to use it to kill people.
Tom
Anything can be used to kill another human. Even your fist can kill a human.
That doesn't mean that a death by fist hurts less than a handgun does.
Just because you buy a handgun does not mean you have to use it to kill people.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
That's all true, Caymen. I just didn't see where Nelson said anything about limiting gun ownership, yet you jumped all over him. I didn't say anything to R Shek because I saw your post first (reading from bottom of the page up for new posts). But I tend to have the same thoughts. Again, I don't see Nelson's comments as anti-gun or anti-gun ownership...just factual.
TJR
TJR
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
Tom (Caymen),
Tom (TJR) is correct. I find nothing wrong with gun ownership. I don't own any guns, but I did go squirrel and rabbit hunting as a teenager in Kentucky. My father took me target shooting when I was a boy too with the .22 rifle my grandfather gave him on his 16th birthday, and that was fun. In the military I have been trained to use an M-16, and if necessary I would use it in service of my country.
However, when the thread started going towards handguns, concealed weapons permits, etc. etc., I decided to point out the fact that handguns are designed for use against humans. Sure, you could hunt rabbits if you were really skilled, but a handgun normally isn't used to hunt a deer.
Since these purchases are being made by civilians primarily, you have to wonder why. Do they live in a really bad neighborhood, have someone stalking them, etc.? Some people like Cho may buy them for the purpose they were designed. I think he may have also wanted to feel more like a man, since I saw an interview last night on TV where he spent some time with an "escort" a few days before he killed all those people. Guns didn't make him a man. They just showed the World what a cowardly little punk he was.
I'm sure that everyone here is not like Cho, and that they just have a interest in sport shooting or collecting. I just didn't think that glamorizing handguns so soon after this mass murder took place was such a cool idea. I didn't mean to hijack an informative thread, but did want to point out that handguns kill a lot of people in the US. Hunting rifles also kill, but not as many and those are mostly accidental. That is why almost no European countries allow civilians to own handguns.
I stated in another thread a couple of weeks ago that I had been pulled over four times in less than a week here in Poland -- with no tickets. The guys in the office were very surprised, but then commented it was probably because I was an American and everyone knows that Americans are "packing" a weapon. I saw some humor in that until last week -- not anymore.
Tom (TJR) is correct. I find nothing wrong with gun ownership. I don't own any guns, but I did go squirrel and rabbit hunting as a teenager in Kentucky. My father took me target shooting when I was a boy too with the .22 rifle my grandfather gave him on his 16th birthday, and that was fun. In the military I have been trained to use an M-16, and if necessary I would use it in service of my country.
However, when the thread started going towards handguns, concealed weapons permits, etc. etc., I decided to point out the fact that handguns are designed for use against humans. Sure, you could hunt rabbits if you were really skilled, but a handgun normally isn't used to hunt a deer.
Since these purchases are being made by civilians primarily, you have to wonder why. Do they live in a really bad neighborhood, have someone stalking them, etc.? Some people like Cho may buy them for the purpose they were designed. I think he may have also wanted to feel more like a man, since I saw an interview last night on TV where he spent some time with an "escort" a few days before he killed all those people. Guns didn't make him a man. They just showed the World what a cowardly little punk he was.
I'm sure that everyone here is not like Cho, and that they just have a interest in sport shooting or collecting. I just didn't think that glamorizing handguns so soon after this mass murder took place was such a cool idea. I didn't mean to hijack an informative thread, but did want to point out that handguns kill a lot of people in the US. Hunting rifles also kill, but not as many and those are mostly accidental. That is why almost no European countries allow civilians to own handguns.
I stated in another thread a couple of weeks ago that I had been pulled over four times in less than a week here in Poland -- with no tickets. The guys in the office were very surprised, but then commented it was probably because I was an American and everyone knows that Americans are "packing" a weapon. I saw some humor in that until last week -- not anymore.
Josh Langel
Well-Known Member
Caymen said:
Why should owning a gun be limited to only "need?" For most, gun ownership is also a hobby... owning exotic guns, old guns, guns that one day could potentially banned... it's all a hobby too... I wouldn't want to tell a car enthusiast they cannot own a 500HP car because all they need is a 145HP econo banger for travel....
Why should owning a gun be limited to only "need?" For most, gun ownership is also a hobby... owning exotic guns, old guns, guns that one day could potentially banned... it's all a hobby too... I wouldn't want to tell a car enthusiast they cannot own a 500HP car because all they need is a 145HP econo banger for travel....
Mud,
You need to read farther, my friend. You missed the real point of my statement...
There are many things we don't need, but if the law says we can own them and I choose to do so, what is wrong with that?
Tom
You need to read farther, my friend. You missed the real point of my statement...
There are many things we don't need, but if the law says we can own them and I choose to do so, what is wrong with that?
Tom
WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs
Well-Known Member
My reason for owning and have a CW Permit...
My shop is in a rural area and many times I work late and I'm the only person in the complex. I don't need someone jumping me or anything like that when I'm carrying a bunch of items to my truck inclucing the day's bank deposit.
Maybe that is a bad reason?:huh:
My shop is in a rural area and many times I work late and I'm the only person in the complex. I don't need someone jumping me or anything like that when I'm carrying a bunch of items to my truck inclucing the day's bank deposit.
Maybe that is a bad reason?:huh:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
SST, better to have and not need then to need and not have.
Shelby Crane
Active Member
There are many reason to own a firearm: Hunting, Sport Shooting, Home/Business/Family/Personal Protection, Hobby, and even Investment.
But one of the most important reasons is to combat a possible tyrant government as the Bill of Rights states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As far as the assault rifle goes: What makes it any different then any other weapon? Most "assault" rifles are purchased with 5 round clips. (i.e. Ruger Mini 14) So it is not the capacity. They fire the same speed as other repeating weapons. So it is not the rate of fire.
Not to pick on you Caymen, but why do you feel people should not own assault rifles?
