TexasCHLforum.com

Get your CHL.

Get a gun that is poweful enough to do the job but small to carry easily and not tempting to leave home. For me, the S&W 442 fits the bill.

Once in vehicle with perps, you are at a big disadvantage. Make your stand or escape then and there, even if unarmed.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Man-a ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Many prefer the Ruger LCP and other .25/.32/.380 small semis, but I believe the .38 Special snub revolver is superior due to having a more poweful round, being mechanically simpler, and having no slide to bind in tight quarters or injure the shooter.

Not exactly sure where a McDonalds at Pruitt and 1-45 might be, but the only one along I-45 in South Montgomery County (south of 242) that I know of is just north of Rayford Rd. only a couple of miles from the house. Lots of questionable apartments in the immediate vicinity, and lots of activity at the Red Box movie vending machine outside. Always a good idea to keep good situational awareness.

rp_photo wrote:Many prefer the Ruger LCP and other .25/.32/.380 small semis, but I believe the .38 Special snub revolver is superior due to having a more poweful round, being mechanically simpler, and having no slide to bind in tight quarters or injure the shooter.

I don't have a problem with a good wheelgun. But I'll stick with my 1911. There is just something satisfying about .45 caliber bullets holes to get the point across . . .

Jumping Frog wrote:I don't have a problem with a good wheelgun. But I'll stick with my 1911. There is just something satisfying about .45 caliber bullets holes to get the point across . . .

We'll talk as soon as a 1911 that weighs under a pound and fits in a pocket holster is released.

rp_photo wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:I don't have a problem with a good wheelgun. But I'll stick with my 1911. There is just something satisfying about .45 caliber bullets holes to get the point across . . .

We'll talk as soon as a 1911 that weighs under a pound and fits in a pocket holster is released.

How is this niche not filled yet? Who wants to make one of these? I'll take 10!

nakedbike wrote:How is this niche not filled yet? Who wants to make one of these? I'll take 10!

If you are talking about .45 ACP, that would be against the law (of Physics).

A .32 or .380 1911 might be possible, but I read somewhere that the platform doesn't scale down that well.

rp_photo wrote:

nakedbike wrote:How is this niche not filled yet? Who wants to make one of these? I'll take 10!

If you are talking about .45 ACP, that would be against the law (of Physics).

A .32 or .380 1911 might be possible, but I read somewhere that the platform doesn't scale down that well.

Yeah, I've heard that the subcompact 1911s can be really picky about ammo.

However, I do not know if the platform's saftey or reliability would be affected by making the gun out of super-lightweight materials.

Dave2 wrote:

rp_photo wrote:

nakedbike wrote:How is this niche not filled yet? Who wants to make one of these? I'll take 10!

If you are talking about .45 ACP, that would be against the law (of Physics).

A .32 or .380 1911 might be possible, but I read somewhere that the platform doesn't scale down that well.

Yeah, I've heard that the subcompact 1911s can be really picky about ammo.

However, I do not know if the platform's saftey or reliability would be affected by making the gun out of super-lightweight materials.

We have the materials to make it light and strong, wont be steel, aluminum or cheep. I think .40 S&W or 9mm would be doable with some research. Who has some money to fund some research?

nakedbike wrote:We have the materials to make it light and strong, wont be steel, aluminum or cheep. I think .40 S&W or 9mm would be doable with some research. Who has some money to fund some research?

Still, the mass would not be there to absorb recoil, allow for follow-up shots, and make practice tolerable.

There are 15 oz. 2" 357 Magnum Revolvers available, but they are no fun to shoot.

To overcome this, exotic technology such as thrust-propelled rounds would be required.

rp_photo wrote:

nakedbike wrote:We have the materials to make it light and strong, wont be steel, aluminum or cheep. I think .40 S&W or 9mm would be doable with some research. Who has some money to fund some research?

Still, the mass would not be there to absorb recoil, allow for follow-up shots, and make practice tolerable.

There are 15 oz. 2" 357 Magnum Revolvers available, but they are no fun to shoot.

To overcome this, exotic technology such as thrust-propelled rounds would be required.

What about a compensated barrel? A gun the size of the LCP or similar to me is more of an arms length firearm, when the threat is just an arms length away, it doesn't take much to be able to hit and stop the aggressor. You'll have a wide angle of which you can fire and hit your target. I do not understand why some complain about a defensive pistol not being fun to shoot. Practice marksmanship with a compact or full frame pistol, practice with the carry gun to know it cycles the ammo and you know how to operate it blindly, use light loads for practicing target acquisition with the small arm.

Now what were we talking about? Oh yea, McDonalds is not my favorite place to rent movies to begin with. Situational awareness is key.

I either missed it at first or the article was updated, but it appears that the victim did indeed run for it rather than entering the vehicle.

The wording of the article is sloppy. It should be reported as "attempted abduction".

"The victim said the thief forced him to drive to a secluded area, then demanded money and stabbed him." should read "The victim said the thief demanded him to drive to a secluded area, then demanded money and stabbed him."

rp_photo wrote:To overcome this, exotic technology such as thrust-propelled rounds would be required.

We tried that already...

Dave2 wrote:

rp_photo wrote:To overcome this, exotic technology such as thrust-propelled rounds would be required.

We tried that already...

We did a lot of things in the 60's that could be done better today... Maybe we should have another crack at it.

Dave2 wrote:We tried that already...

And it would bad at close range given the need to build up speed over distance. It might have some incendiary effect, however.

nakedbike wrote: We did a lot of things in the 60's that could be done better today... Maybe we should have another crack at it.

Getting the per-round cost down would be first priority.