I'm glad that 2 out of the 3 expressed an interest in learning about guns. I honestly believe that knowledge and practice with a weapon can be beneficial--if it teaches a child not to use a gun as the first resort.

As for 'the' wife--don't you mean your wife--yes! With three kids as her responsibility and with guns in the house, she should know good precautionary habits and basic skills.

A gun is a weapon. Used wisely, it's a defensive weapon. It can also be used as an aggressive weapon; but, nonetheless, it's as much of a weapon as is a car--or a chair (when thrown toward someone,) or a wrench, a fireplace tool, a sharp knife etc. There should be no mystique surrounding weapons.

My youngest sister was too young to join us at the firing range. She's asked her son, a qualified Army sharpshooter, to teach her how to use a weapon.

I should probably go back and re-learn, myself.

I loved to join "the" husband at the range, when we lived it Nevada. My favorite was the AK 47, which he bought for me, for him.. Anyway, it was a blast to shoot...but now that we live in Cali and have to abide by those "iberal" laws...

Why is barbless hook catch and release fishing less moral than catching and eating? It gives the fisherman sport and the fish life. I enjoy fishing for all of the amenities given a fisherman--the beauty of the stream, the quiet of the surroundings, the early morning/evening air. Do I need that trout--fiahery hatched and seeded--to survive? No.

So why do I like to fish? Because it's fun, and we people need fun--but not as the expense of other animals.

And who knows? Maybe the fish is thinking--if they can--Hey, it's fun to out-smart the fisherman!

I would say it's less moral to fish for sport than for food because simply for fun is no real reason to terrorize a fish. They may not feel the enjoyment in being 'hooked' or appreciate the kindness of a stranger who traps them only to let them go.

Simply, letting them go presumably alive and well doesn't mean they are. Is playing with life more moral than eating it?

My parents own a decent swath of land down in PA and a Marine buddy of mine brought over his collection the one day so we could shoot. The collection consisted of an all wood Ak-47, an absolutely beautiful AR-15 with a Colt receiver, 16 inch barrel, and collapsible stock(essentially the civilian model of the M4 the military currently uses) and an older M1 Garant, which is what most of our soldiers used in WWII and fires a .30 caliber round.

Out of the three, the funnest was the AK-47, which fires the 7.62x39 round, something similar to a 30-30 hunting round. The AR, while exceptionally fun in its own right, had a bit more recoil due to the shorter barrel and collapsible stock. By collapsible, it means you can hit a button on the stock and it will telescope into itself to make the rifle all that much shorter. Makes sense for a close combat situation, I would assume, like when your, say, going through a house. The AK, with it's thirty round magazine was an absolute blast. Very little recoil and dead on accurate at about 75 yards. I loved it. The M1 was also fun to fire but it was a bit heavy and unwieldy and only held an 8 round clip which had to be fed into the rifle from the top down. It's rather archaic in this day in age when most weapons of the sort are now magazine fed.

And no, a magazine is not a clip, nor is a clip considered a magazine.

Lawmage, you finally picked up your Sig.

Not a bad pistol but it's received mixed reviews from what I've read. Have you had it out to the range yet?

You should post up some pics. What was the final price and what all did you get with it? Any extra mags?

Doing my research there's plenty of places that will refinish it quite nicely. I also read up on some trigger work you may want done as I hear the trigger pull on those pistols is a bit long.

All in all it seems like a nice pistol though I noticed it lacks any type of accessory rail, which for a higher end pistol you would think it would have.

Now, is there a difference between the Sigarms pistols and Sig Sauers? From my understanding, Sigarms is based in the US(NH actually :)) and now actually manufactures their weapons here. Sig Sauer is the German portion of that company. Would it make sense that the only pistols that carry the Sig Sauer name are one's manufactured in Germany?

Correction, Swiss, not German.

My "new" Sig is a German import rather than a Sigarms manufactured version. I paid 300 for it, three magazines, a case, a shoulder holster and rig, the cleaning kit, and a box of ammo. All in all, I was pleased. I have not taken it out to the range but the shop I bought it at has a range out back and they actually REQUIRE you to take any used weapon and fire it on that range before leaving the store with it. Its part of their policy about no refunds...they want to be sure both you and they know the weapon fires reliably. They provide the ammo for this and so again, I have no complaints.

As for the trigger pull...it is a little long and just the littlest bit heavy. On the other hand, I do not see that as a bad thing...I plan to carry the thing on a regualr basis and I personally think a longe slightly heavy pull is to be desired in a carr gun. Under the stress of any situation where you are actually using the thing for its intended purpose there is a tendency to clench up and a feather weight short stroke trigger is a plea for an accidental and premature discharge. My opinion of course...

Don't get wrapped up in the Swiss or German or US thing anyway, Stone. Its a darn multinational company with weapons that bear the same name made in multiple countries. Mine is labelled germany so I guess its "officially" a German product but...it really does not matter.

Just to whet you appetite...I am looking at several H&K USPs the shop is trying to unload. Both are in 40 cal. They are used but in very good condition...pruchased by Soldiers who had a change of heart and sold them back to the shop. Both are listed at $699. What do you think? The H&K USP forums are saying about 600 for a used USP...

I'd say buy em both as they're the creme de le crem of handguns, in my opinion, and I've never fired one and only held one once. They're works of art. Ideal gun porn, if you will.

Buy em both, throw a few hundred rounds down range with one, and I'll take that off your hands for $500.

Are they the compact?

MMMmmmmmmm....

Although, on second thought...

While pistols are fun and all that and serve a very practical purpose, truth is, you now have the Sig.

You may be better off investing in a nice rifle. As nice as the HK's are, if you ever ended up in a shtf situation(which you very well might, being that you're in LA and all), you may want to invest that money that you'd spend on a high end pistol into a rifle. That AR that my buddy had, he built that for $600. Not sure if the Colt part was the upper or lower receiver, but he picked up the parts here and there for a rather good price. To have what is essentially a brand new Colt AR for $600 is a great deal as a brand new Colt AR will run you close to $1200. That said, the HK would be a nice toy, but will serve no practical means if you're trying to be realistic about the future. As you well know, a side arm is pretty much the last thing you go to in a combat situation.

I'm convinced you should spend that money on a rifle.

Hell, for $399 you can have a brand new Vector Ak-47. That's the lower end of AK's available, but it's still something that would server you far better in a nasty situation.

Just a thought.