testtest

Whats the oldest (design) gun you would carry for protection?

P

PieterCoetzee

Professional
With all the plastic wonders, would you carry a revolver as a primary self defense gun? Is a SAA out of the question? Or maybe something like a Schofield or Webley?

How'bout a cap and ball? or maybe a C&B with a conversion cylinder?

Theres a shootable Howdah (not the Pedersoli 45/410) on my list. If I ever find one....maybe just for a day or two.

I bought a C96 Broomhandle from a member, when it gets here, I think Im gonna have to do the Young Winston thing
 
Last edited:
I was issued a WW1 dated 1911 when I was a MP in the early 80s; but even though the 1911 is a hundred year old design, it doesnt "feel" old to me.

Ive been rocking my Man from UNCLE P1 for the last couple weeks. Its a post war P1 but essentially a WW2 design.

When I carried SAAs I always carried at least two, to make up for only having 5 rounds on board. I always wondered if it would get that far?
 
1778111011699.png
 
I guess 1899 vintage, with a K frame.

I shoot SAs, but never felt comfortable with the idea of carry one as my primary or only gun with other choices. If I had to I would make it work, but I won’t if I don’t have to.
In particular, I don’t care for the thought of having to break my grip to cock it each time if caught in some close and rough work.

I consider something like that as a stunt, and that isn’t something I want in self protection.
 
BarryinIN said:
I guess 1899 vintage, with a K frame.

I shoot SAs, but never felt comfortable with the idea of carry one as my primary or only gun with other choices. If I had to I would make it work, but I won’t if I don’t have to.
In particular, I don’t care for the thought of having to break my grip to cock it each time if caught in some close and rough work.

I consider something like that as a stunt, and that isn’t something I want in self protection.
Click to expand...
One should be a student of weaponcraft... In the sense that one will never get to pick and choose the place nor time when attacked. And you will have to resist that evil with whatever you have at hand. It will never hurt to be familiar with the "manual of arms" for a variety of weapons, not just the one that one prefers to carry. And the middle of a fight for one's life is NOT the time to be learning new stuff...
 
Grayfox said:
The basic S&W revolver design hasn't changed much since 1899. Lots of folks carry them every day. ;)
Click to expand...
Now, that's not quite true... The J frame "innovated" by switching to the compression coil mainspring. 😁:p I'm not certain about its predecessor the I frame. All kidding aside, a compression coil spring, whenever it CAN be implemented in a design, is the "bees knees" when it comes to reliability, durability, and ruggedness. That said, the S&W leaf mainspring design is also pretty darn reliable and durable.

At the risk of getting tarred and feathered and toted out of town bound hand and foot to a pole, I'll assert that one of the most unsung innovations when Glock went from its previous generations to the Gen 5 lineup (and later models now), was to change the leaf spring supporting the slide lock to a compression coil spring, and the "stretchy" coil trigger return spring to a compression coil spring. Those two changes eliminated the final two most common breakages in high round count Glocks. But... Glock had already "experimented" with those two spring changes prior to the Gen 4 to Gen 5 transition in the form of the Glock 42 and the Glock 43, both of which featured the compression springs a number of years prior to the Gen 5 release. I don't know why this ingenious engineering advance is NEVER touted when someone does a "Gen 4" vs "Gen 5" comparison, but it is NEVER even mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Grayfox said:
That may be true of the J-frame. S&W has made many refinements in the design over the years. But the hammer, trigger, cylinder and timing mechanism is still pretty much as it was over 100 years ago.
Click to expand...
I'm mostly jus' yankin' your chain, while pointing out what some might consider a pedantic change, but is really a very intelligent modification. If one really wanted to get into the weeds about it, every time that S&W increments their "suffix" on a given model number indicates an engineering / design change. But, you are correct in that it has been a VERY stable basic design with regard to their internal lock work ever since the model released in 1899. Why change up a good thing for no reason at all?
 
Last edited:
RedGoat said:
Now, that's not quite true... The J frame "innovated" by switching to the compression coil mainspring. 😁:p I'm not certain about its predecessor the I frame. All kidding aside, a compression coil spring, whenever it CAN be implemented in a design, is the "bees knees" when it comes to reliability, durability, and ruggedness. That said, the S&W leaf mainspring design is also pretty darn reliable and durable.

At the risk of getting tarred and feathered and toted out of town bound hand and foot to a pole, I'll assert that one of the most unsung innovations when Glock went from its previous generations to the Gen 5 lineup (and later models now), was to change the leaf spring supporting the slide lock to a compression coil spring, and the "stretchy" coil trigger return spring to a compression coil spring. Those two changes eliminated the final two most common breakages in high round count Glocks. But... Glock had already "experimented" with those two spring changes prior to the Gen 4 to Gen 5 transition in the form of the Glock 42 and the Glock 43, both of which featured the compression springs a number of years prior to the Gen 5 release. I don't know why this ingenious engineering advance is NEVER touted when someone does a "Gen 4" vs "Gen 5" comparison, but it is NEVER even mentioned.
Click to expand...
Because so means it was not perfection to begin with 😉🤔
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Because so means it was not perfection to begin with 😉🤔
Click to expand...
There ya go raggin' on my pipe dream that ALL Glocks are "perfect". They DO have a very unfortunate choice of a marketing "tag line", don't they, with regard to ANY change they choose to make.

On a serious note, I admire great engineering anywhere I find it, and despite any negative "feelings" those polymer frames and stamped parts generate, Glock full size or compact handguns are among the VERY few auto pistols that I have absolutely NO qualms about taking directly out of their box, loading, and putting into a holster for EDC without even a test firing (although I'd get that done as soon as possible). Of the many I've owned, they've all been extremely reliable. Now, if I could just get Glock to sight 'em in so they don't shoot low left... 😁
 
Several years ago I had a Bond Snake Slayer IV in a holster attached to my seatbelt. The Missus cautioned me that maybe someone would see it when the car was parked and knock a window out to steal it so I put it away somewhere.
I still carry snubbies quite a bit.
 
ex13F said:
Several years ago I had a Bond Snake Slayer IV in a holster attached to my seatbelt. The Missus cautioned me that maybe someone would see it when the car was parked and knock a window out to steal it so I put it away somewhere.
I still carry snubbies quite a bit.
Click to expand...
That's still not a bad idea... Just have to be careful to remove it and lock it away when you're not behind the wheel... Sounds super-accessible while seated behind the wheel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top