I went to pick up a 1911 a while ago and came home with a DWX. No regrets at all. Kind of the best of both a 1911 and a Shadow melded together. Two pistols that I really like.
I went to pick up a 1911 a while ago and came home with a DWX. No regrets at all. Kind of the best of both a 1911 and a Shadow melded together. Two pistols that I really like.
brandonsmash said:In reply to Antihero :
I'm a huge fan of .22 TCM! It's an angry little round that goes like stink with very little recoil. Right now I have a couple 1911s chambered in .22 TCM (a double-stack and single-stack); in the next couple weeks I'm hoping work is finished on 2 AR-platform firearms I commissioned chambered in the same round. One is an 8.5" barrel and the other is 16" built around New Frontier lowers and Glock magazines.
Very cool, I'll have to pick one up one day.
I always say I'm gonna get a nice 1911 but never do. Kinda want to do something a bit different, so 22tcm or 10mm appeals to me too. Got my dad a GI spec 1911 for Father's Day awhile back and while cool, I want a bit more optioned 1911 too
WOW Really Paul? said:bobzilla said:In reply to Rodan :
1911's are the shiz.
I have something that might corrupt you on this....
Never. I mean I might appreciate something else but 1911 is it for me.
In reply to bobzilla :
I already have an early (reliable) Hudson H9, will be getting the Daniel revision to it here in the next few months. Glock 19 sized, pretty thin, 1911 grip angle and straight back trigger, but they are striker guns that don't really snap up at all.
The Hudson is easily one of the nicest pistols I've ever fired.
In reply to WOW Really Paul? :
The Hudson was an interesting design... I remember looking at them online and wanting to shoot one when they first came out (2017?). Then, they had issues and disappeared. I'm glad to see DD is bringing the design back. Hopefully it will have more success this time. I'd like to get the chance to shoot one.
Pic, just because...
In reply to Rodan :
The original was too heavy to really be a carry gun, but that's what their size is aimed for. It seems DD has kept the feeling of the original, which is great. They shoot very nice, and aim naturally.
Honestly the closest thing I have to it is the 'Other Austrian' Steyr M9. More traditional than the Hudson design but it does aim and shoot similarly, even with its triangle sights.
In reply to barefootcyborg5000 :
Not really the place and I doubt the powers that be will be okay with outside sales links so might want to edit that out.
When it comes to the AR world, I'll have a piston driven 6.8spc with a Wilson Combat lower for around the $1k mark, so that's amusingly optimistic on a price TBH. The entire AR world breaks my brain when it comes to people who have built stuff on a shoestring budget then asking the moon for what they have 'built'
Disclaimer, I historically have avoided AR & AK's in favor of proper battle rifles or obscure NATO stuff. Both communities in general are completely toxic IMHO.
In reply to WOW Really Paul? :
To be fair, it's a lot less than I have in it, but you may be right. I've had the ad up for a month +/- and have had exactly one contact.
The AR market is completely saturated at this point.
In reply to Rodan :
No doubt. I don't know really why I even built the thing. Seemed like it would be more fun, but I'm still too cheap to want to plink 45c rounds.
In other news, I borrowed Grandpa's Winchester so I could work up a load for it. We talked about a transaction, and he suggested I simply forget it's in my safe if anyone asks. I don't think that was a final conversation, but I really want the thing. I'll keep trying to pay him for it. At 89 he can't shoot it anymore, but I don't want to take advantage.
Reminds me, I need to buy more reloading supplies. Currently out of projectiles.
Reminds me of the AR my brother was offered in trade for his truck listed for 5k. "$1500 plus this AR" You could clearly see the PSA logo on lower.
(no hate on PSA, but it's going to take a ton of bling to add up to $3500)
AR's are like the German new car market. As soon as you build/purchase one it loses 40 percent of its value.
The other thing is the difference is quality and how they shoot is not that different. AR's are a case of huge diminishing returns in terms of costs versus quality. I have both ends of the spectrum and the expensive one is a waste of money. I realized this after I built the cheap one from all the cheap parts that I had replaced on the expensive one. I actually kind of like the spare parts rifle better in some ways.
WOW Really Paul? said:When it comes to the AR world, I'll have a piston driven 6.8spc with a Wilson Combat lower for around the $1k mark,
Interesting. I have a 6.8 SPC, and the only time I'm likely to touch it is if I'm hunting. I'm more likely to grab a shotgun with a slug barrel over the AR these days, too.
In reply to dean1484 :
Agree 100%, up to a point. My $500 PSA 5.56 shoots as good as anything I've shot that cost up to ~$2500. Once you get into the high end stuff, I have seen an increase in accuracy, especially with .308 ARs. Doesn't mean a 'cheap' one won't shoot as good, just a generalization for factory guns. Builds are always wildcards.
You should see what they're doing these days, in terms of cost efficiency, with 3D printed AR lowers.
dean1484 said:AR's are like the German new car market. As soon as you build/purchase one it loses 40 percent of its value.
The other thing is the difference is quality and how they shoot is not that different. AR's are a case of huge diminishing returns in terms of costs versus quality. I have both ends of the spectrum and the expensive one is a waste of money. I realized this after I built the cheap one from all the cheap parts that I had replaced on the expensive one. I actually kind of like the spare parts rifle better in some ways.
Mine was more like the Korean car market. I bought it used, during a lull in the panic buys back around 2014 or so. $500 for a factory Bushmaster with the HB. I could easily sell it for what I paid for it. I think they were called patrolmans carbines or some wierd crap. Whatever, it shoots great.
In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :
I'm building it for yote extermination, suppressed at night.
In reply to WOW Really Paul? :
It'll get the job done, for sure.
WOW Really Paul? said:In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :
I'm building it for yote dissintigration, suppressed at night.
FTFY
Just a quick post to report in that the sig 556 NATO is an amazing rifle. Almost zero recoil and absolutely no muzzle rize at all. I am completely sold on this. Also it is very accurate. I was shooting irons standing so I don't have a true moa but I know it is really good. I would take this over a AR15 ever day of the week.
I also shot two rounds of trap with the M2. It is so much better than the M4. Softer recoil and it is much lighter and much faster. Highly recommend this shotgun.
Photos to follow. When I get around to it.
Ok photos of the 556 NATO
and somewhere someone was telling me it was not a 556 NATO. Here it is stamped on the rifle. But it has me wondering if there are variants out there that are just marked SIG 556 maybe the Jen 3 variant? This is a Jen 2. Jen 1s have become prohibitively expensive.
Like that Sig! 
Spent some time at the range this morning... Mostly load development for my lever .357mag. Working up a 180gr subsonic load for shooting with the suppressor. Definitely still loving the Garmin chronograph.
Also chrono'd some .45acp loads with some 200gr SWC bullets I hadn't used before, and some of my regular .357s through my snubby 686-1.
Just picked up the 686 snubby. I had one back in the late 80's and always regretted selling it. Target is 10yd rapid fire double action.
In reply to Rodan :
That is some good shooting. I for what ever reason have never been able to shoot revolvers well. They just don't seem to fit my hands and the more vertical grips on most of the seem to not let me control recoil and muzzle flip well.
dean1484 said:In reply to Rodan :
That is some good shooting. I for what ever reason have never been able to shoot revolvers well. They just don't seem to fit my hands and the more vertical grips on most of the seem to not let me control recoil and muzzle flip well.
You need to grip as high as possible. To the point the hammer is just touching the web skin between thumb and fore finger. You need to be able to pull the trigger with just the tip of your trigger finger, don't 'Hollywood" it and pull with the first joint. Lastly, and very important. If you can't point the revolver at something with your eyes closed, and open your eyes to see the sights perfectly aligned, you will never be accurate. If you are not aligned you need to use the non grip hand to gently shift the grip until they are aligned. Do the closed eye thing a few more times with that grip. Once you know what the proper grip feels like you need to learn it like you know your name. If you want to become really good buy a book called "Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting" by Ed McGivern (if you can find a copy) This is the book that inspired Jerry Miculek to become the fastest revolver shooter in the world.
jharry3 said:You need to be able to pull the trigger with just the tip of your trigger finger, don't 'Hollywood" it and pull with the first joint.
While I agree that a high grip is necessary (for any handgun), I would disagree on this. While it worked for McGivern and works for Miculek, most of us mere mortals will shoot double action better using the first joint of the trigger finger. It will give a lot more leverage over the trigger and more control for the long travel of a D/A revolver, and it requires a lot less hand strength than the finger tip method for the same amount of control.
McGivern and Miculek also preferred a serrated trigger, which is a near requirement for that style. Many D/A revolvers have smooth triggers, which make the fingertip technique even more difficult.
As an instructor, I've found most shooters get far better results using the first joint for D/A revolvers and the pad for semis and single action shooting.
You'll need to log in to post.
