Sorry, for the changes. I am currently trying to find a new theme for the site. I like the old one, but it is so old that it was missing a lot of functionality and I had lost control of my sidebars completely. I could manually code it, but every update would wipe them out.
I kind of like this one, but it is far from perfect. However, the sidebars at least work. Let me know if you hate the theme.
My Dad recently confronted a burglar and wanted some very small and lightweight. He preferred a semi-auto, but it needed to be able to fit into a robe pocket. Since he is older I worried about his ability to be able to rack a semi-auto slide under stress or late at night. The first pistol I thought of was the Beretta 21a Bobcat because of the tilt barrel making loading/unloading simple. But, I couldn’t find one (he can’t have mine). He actually wanted a 25ACP. I personally prefer the 22LR but I thought the straight wall cartridge might feed better, especially if the pistol isn’t kept clean and well lubricated–something I find that the Bobcat requires. The Bobcat does not like to be run dry.
What I did find him is a Taurus PT-22 Poly. He is already a Taurus fan and a has a Taurus 85. Additionally he likes “features” like the internal lock and safety (on a DAO?) I have to remember it is not for me.
Here are some pics with my notes comparing it to my Bobcat.
- I was genuinely surprised at the PT-22 grip. It is much larger than the Bobcat. The magazine also has an extended base plate that is wide and long
- The PT-22 is a DAO pistol
- The PT-22 has a magazine disconnect safety that also locks the slide
- Both pistols have a locking safety. The Bobcat can be locked cocked and locked or with hammer-down DA
- Disassembly is the same but note that the magazine must be in the PT-22 to move the slide
- The PT-22 is supposed to be .8 ounces lighter than the Bobcat – they feel the same.
Click on pic to enlarge
Note the triggers are cut differently especially the bottom hook on the PT-22 (top). The material and thickness seem the same.
How do they compare? It is probably not fair since my Bobcat is 10-20 years old and very well broken in – it is smooth as butter in SA or DA.
The Taurus is of course safety heavy. It snaps clean though (remember to use an empty case or risk breaking the firing pin!)
I included this from the manual because they have some very strong feelings on +P and +P+ ammo.
To be fair the manual also does talk about using the safety if you “must” carry it loaded whereas a lot of other manufacturers just say not to.
Disclaimer: All trademarks are registered to their respective holders. I am not affiliated with any of these companies or products in any way. The pics are not stock photos and are my own – all items are privately owned.
I had the opportunity to hang out with a couple friends and the conversation came up of what we were all carrying. As it turned out we were all carrying some popular subcompact pistols: a S&W ™ M&P ™ 9c, a Springfield XDS, and an M&P Shield ™ – all in 9mm. Too bad I didn’t have my new Glock 43, but unfortunately I haven’t broke it in yet.
So, naturally, I took a few comparison pics for the curious (since we were).
A couple of notes first: the Shield ™ had the longest grip. The 9c ™ had the shortest, at least with extended mags. All of the pistols were almost identical in thickness – except of course for the 9c ™ obviously double stack grip. The XDS had the best feeling trigger IMO and was the most streamlined, probably able to fit in any of the other two’s holster. One person found the XDS’ grip texture be a bit too aggressive firing. I thought it was fine, and although the XDS appears to have the highest bore axis, shooting it didn’t reveal any noticeable difference.
Anyway, on to a few pics. Order is the same: 9c ™, XDS, Shield ™
Click on a pic to enlarge
LEGAL NOTICE: All trademarks are registered trademarks of the companies they are registered to, as are the companies. Any such references or trademarks are made only as a result of quoting the below referenced article. The references will be removed (again) at the formal request of the referenced company or trademark owner.
I (me or this blog) do not represent any of the companies, organizations or trademarks referenced by the quoted article. Nor am I affiliated in any way to anything. Please do not threaten to sue me again.
Quote begins below:
Gun discounts for LAPD unit may have violated ethics rules
By KATE MATHER
Los Angeles police officers in a unit that evaluated Smith & Wesson handguns for a new department contract used their relationship with the gun company to privately purchase discounted pistols for members of the unit, a possible violation of city ethics rules, according to a report made public Friday.
The officers bought about $27,000 worth of discounted guns and magazines last year shortly after Smith & Wesson pistols became the LAPD’s standard-issued duty weapon, according to the investigation by Inspector General Alex Bustamante.
The Firearms and Tactics Section officers cut the deal with the gun company at a Las Vegas gun show even though Smith & Wesson had previously refused another request on behalf of the department for a similar discount for all LAPD officers who might want to privately purchase pistols, the report said.
The deal allowed the unit’s officers to make a “one-time, bulk purchase” of guns and magazines at a discounted price. Forty-two officers ended up buying 67 guns, Bustamante found, pooling their money into a single cashier’s check sent to Smith & Wesson.
Although the unit’s officers were allowed to purchase various pistol models and calibers, the report found that the average discount for Smith & Wesson M&P 9-millimeter handguns was about $125 to $130 off the already reduced price of $455 usually offered to law enforcement officers.
City ethics rules prohibit city employees from trying “to create or attempt to create a private advantage or disadvantage, financial or otherwise, for any person,” Bustamante’s report said.
In addition, employees who are required to file statements of economic interest are not allowed to solicit gifts or accept gifts of more than $100 from a “restricted source” —someone who has sought or signed a contract with the city employee’s agency. City ethics rules also prohibit “restricted sources” from offering or giving those employees gifts of more than $100.
Bustamante’s report said eight of the officers who privately purchased the weapons using the discount were required to file statements of economic interest. The report did not name any of the officers.
The Police Commission, the civilian board that oversees the LAPD, is scheduled to discuss the report at its meeting Tuesday and determine whether further action should be taken.
The Firearms and Tactics Section tested and evaluated different pistols for the LAPD before the Smith & Wesson M&P was approved as the department’s standard-issue duty weapon, replacing pistols manufactured by Glock.
LAPD officials told the inspector general that the private purchase orders were necessary for the section’s officers because the department’s new Smith & Wesson pistols were issued to recruits but not firearms instructors, the report said. Among the section’s responsibilities is providing firearms training to officers.
But Bustamante said recruits were issued only M&P 9-millimeter handguns, while the Firearms and Tactics Section officers were also allowed to purchase other pistol models and calibers using the discount.
Cmdr. Andrew Smith, an LAPD spokesman, declined to comment on the report.
“The department only recently received a copy of the report and we are in the process of reviewing it,” he said. “We will discuss it with the Police Commission.”
The commission’s vice president, Steve Soboroff, said he wanted to know why the officers requested and obtained the discounted guns and whether ethical and department rules were broken. He said it is possible that the officers did not know what the rules were.
Soboroff said he hoped any problems could be “solved in a positive manner.”
A spokeswoman for Smith & Wesson could not be reached for comment.
The inspector general’s findings were part of an investigation into the way the new pistols were tested and evaluated. Bustamante’s report said the LAPD’s Policy and Procedures Division should have coordinated and supervised the evaluation of the weapons the department could have chosen but was instead left out of the process.
Instead, the Firearms and Tactics Section officers tested three types of pistols in 2011: the Glock Gen 4, the Springfield Armory XD-M and the Smith & Wesson. The department initially recommended the Smith & Wesson, saying it “outperformed the competition in almost every single category,” according to Bustamante’s report.
Officials told L.A.’s General Services Department — which makes purchases on behalf of city agencies — there was no need for a competitive bidding process because the Smith & Wesson pistol was a “sole source” exception, meaning it was the only product that met the LAPD’s specifications.
Smith & Wesson signed a contract with the city, Bustamante wrote, but it was never executed. The General Services Department determined the Smith & Wesson pistol did not qualify as a “sole source” option because Glock was another viable choice.
In 2012, officers with the Firearms and Tactics Section met with Glock representatives, Bustamante found. Glock offered the LAPD some perks should the department continue its contract, including an enhanced maintenance package and warranty.
Officers then recommended that the Glock gun be used by the LAPD, according to the report. The LAPD told the General Services Department that it now considered Glock pistols the best option and again pitched the guns as a “sole source” option.
The city again rejected the idea of a “sole source” contract. The General Services Department ultimately decided the Glock warranty didn’t meet the department’s needs. The contract went to a Smith & Wesson dealer in October 2013.
Three months later, the Firearms and Tactics Section officers negotiated their discount deal with Smith & Wesson at the Las Vegas gun show.
The inspector general’s report said the “deviations” that occurred during the process — in which department personnel did not follow appropriate channels for evaluating and selecting the guns — “were not unique to the procurement of the Smith & Wesson pistol and had similarly occurred with several other equipment items.”
Bustamante outlined a series of recommendations, including making sure employees who evaluate products for the LAPD understand the city’s ethics rules and implementing better oversight of how equipment is evaluated before it is purchased.
Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Recently there was an insane editorial on the 2nd Amendment posted in the LA Times:
At least they call it an opinion piece. Here is the quote that is the most insane:
This page believes the Supreme Court erred in the initial Heller decision by upending an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that had been embraced for half a century — that the amendment’s reference to a “well-regulated militia” limits the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units, such as the National Guard.
I wrote this response:
Say this out loud and you can (hopefully) see how ridiculous it is:
The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution protects “the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units, such as the National Guard.” Yes, because that needed to protected.
1. National Guard came into existence in 1933.
2. The 50 years of history alluded to mysteriously is a huge misrepresentation of U.S. vs Miller (SCOTUS)
3. Since when does the Bill of Rights protect the rights of the Standing Army? That’s a bizarre twist. Consider the fact that after the Revolutionary War the Standing Army was DISBANDED!
I am posting this today because others have noticed the editorial and responded also. We should not such a ridiculous claim to stand on its own:
We need to educate people! The irony is that this author is accusing of rewriting history, when that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do! And what is worse is that the 50 years of “history” they are referring to is incorrectly interpreted.
I am sure that we all have encountered that place where we cannot legally bring a firearm. I am sometimes forced to leave it in my vehicle or hotel room, etc. As a result I have been using a Gun Vault NV300 for about a year primarily leaving it in my vehicle, sometimes dragging it into a hotel room or even at home (when leaving a loaded firearm on the night stand may not be a good idea).
I have been happy with it, but decided to purchase a second lock box for the home so I can leave it there to use whenever I need it. I also had the idea that a 3-digit combination in the car was not a good idea since I can be gone from the car for hours – If you have the time, there are only 1000 possible combinations to go through. The box itself is also very small and light, so I thought maybe a bigger/heavier one might be better and hoped for a beefier lock mechanism.
I purchased the Hornady TripPoint for these reasons. They were both in the $30 range and use a similar setup: locking box padded with foam and both have a cable lock attachment (a hole drilled through the side) that you can loop it onto something stable to keep it secure. Basically it works like a bicycle cable lock.
The TriPoint is definitely larger and heavier. This actually was a detriment in my case. It was noticeably harder to hide as the NV300 was able to slip under my front seat and be easily covered with the floor mat. The TriPoint was very noticeable. I am going to try getting an additional floor mat and make it look like a part of the car (just another unexplainable hump?). The big advantage to the TriPoint for me are the three locking points vs the single latch of the NV300 (see pics below). Another plus to me is that it uses a barrel lock key. I think the pics will explain better than I can write.
Click on any pic for fullsize
Here you can see the physical size difference and 3-digit combo vs barrel lock:
Here they are both opened up:
Another pic for size comparison:
Here is the 3-point latch system (aka TriPoint of the Hornady):
Single latch of the Gun Vault NV300:
Hornady’s 3-points locking points in the frame:
Closeup of one of the Hornady’s locking points:
Here is a closeup of the Gun Vaults locking point. Not sure why there are 2 notches since it only has a single latch:
Here are both the units open. Notice that they hinge open on opposite sides (NV300 top, TriPoint bottom):
Closeup of the TriPoint cable. Notice that the side that actually goes in the lock box has a spacer:
Close up of the NV300. The diameter of the 2 cables is about the same although the NV300 might be a little thicker. Notice that the loop-through loop is noticeably has a larger opening. This makes it much easier to attach it to things:
For fun here is a pic of the underside of my Jeep Grand Cherokee (WK) seat where I looped the cable through a bar:
Here is an alternate Jeep Grand Cherokee (WK) mounting point. Underneath the passenger seat. I then stretched the cable forward and placed the box under the driver’s seat. Makes it easy to access from the rear passenger seat.
At home or hotels I attach it to anything that I can. I usually attach it to the bed frame. They can take the box but they will have to take the bed frame with them. I am going to see if I can hide the TriPoint, I feel safer with it since it (appears) to be more pry resistant. If I can’t however, I will just switch it out for the NV and keep the TriPoint at home.
However, either of these boxes is a worthy investment at about $30. As always, safety first!
This is straight from the NRA Instructors’ Site, but it is worth duplicating here. For those that may have looked previously and only seen the Nano and Pico, they have added several variations of the 92FS and PX4 as well. Also added are ARX100 and A400 Xcel.
I have been on the edge of getting a 92FS myself, so this is a nice addition to their program.