Well, now that I am back in the States, its time to re-establish my personal arsenal...or, not so much an arsenal but it is time to start teaching the kids who to safely and effectively handle firearms.

With that in mind, I am looking at a few new gun purchases. I have pretty much decided on a small frame .22 cal rifle. At the moment, I am torn between a Marlin and an Henry. The Henry is a lever action (odd choice in a .22 cal but...) and the Marlin is the more conventional semi-auto action. A .22 cal is a great choice for teaching basic rifle marksmanship to kids because it has rather low recoil, is not terribly loud, and is inexpensive to feed with the number of rounds necessary to develop true profeciency.

I am also looking at a pistol in order to teach some handgun skills. Obviously, I need something small enough for a kid's hands to control and something that is not as "vigorous" as say a .444 Casull. At the same time, I am planning to try and convince the wife to practice a bit as well. I am thinking something in 9mm or even .32 cal. Both calibres are relatively inexpensive to feed and quality weapons are available at reasonable cost. Any suggestions on a good handgun with which to teach kids and the wife?

The last (for now) weapon I am looking at is one for my own use as a carry weapon. I like the SIG series weapons but I am looking for something a little less expensive. The standard issue M9 (aka Beretta 92 series) is simply too large for a comfortable concealed carry.

How old are the kids?

The .22 is a great choice for the kids and you can't go wrong with the Marlins. I have a bolt action .22 with open sights and the thing is dead on accurate. It was a cheap rifle, under $80. Bulk ammo is dirt cheap and there is a very wide variety to choose from. If noise is a factor, you can even always go with CB sub-sonic rounds which are only slightly more noisy than a pellet gun.

My roommate also has a Marlin. His is a semi-auto model that he paid around $70 for. That thing is definitely fun to shoot but if you're firing sub-sonic rounds out of it there generally isn't enough pressure to blow the bolt back, so you constantly have to load rounds into the chamber.

If you're looking for a pistol for the kids, you could kill two birds with one stone by going with the Glock .40 caliber subcompact(think it's the Glock 27). Not only do you then you have your carry weapon but they also sell a .22 conversion kit for it. The conversion kit is a little pricey, though, as I think it sells for around $300. But you then essentially get two guns for one and the Glock is certainly a reliable, fun pistol.

The SIGS are definitely nice pistols. I've never heard a bad thing about them. My fantasy carry gun is an HK USP as they are the creme de la creme of pistols but at the moment they're a wee bit out of my price range.

Check out some of the new Ruger's. They're very inexpensive and a good quality, American built gun.

Unless you just insist on an automatic or repeater, you might look at Rossi's single shot 22's. They will come with another barrel you can change out and have any gauge shotgun or rifle caliber combination And they have youth models, which are very handy in and around the house. A 22 rifle and 410 shotgun combo are hard to beat.

Im not much of a pistol person but the best pistol I ever had was the Ruger 22 luger style. Very accurate, hardly ever jammed, and felt good in the hand.

I see Para is advertising a very small 9mm 9 round 1911 style pistol. But Im sure its expensive.

380 is a good family size I think. Revlovers appeal to me more than auto.

I think Thompson makes something like this. A buddy down in PA has a single shot Thompson breach loader which has damn near any barrel available for it. The thing has an external hammer also. It may be a Contender, but all the Contender's I see online look the big pistols. His has a synthetic stock and a short barrel. It fired a helluva round. I forget what it was but the bullet almost looked like a .45 round in a HUGE rifle casing, a good size bigger then the casing of a 7.62x39. I want to say it was a 45x70 round but I can't find them on the internet so I'm probably wrong with that guess. Definitely looked like something that would bring down a moose. It was a cool little rifle though.

Ah. It was a 45-70 round.

The .22 .410 combo is nice. The M6 Scout, .22 over .410, fits this bill nicely and it's possibly the most cost efficient way to get into the rifle shotgun combo. The .22 LR version can take shorts and sub-sonics. It can be had in .22 Hornet too.

The Marlin .22s are great and very affordable.

The Ruger 10/22 is a small build .22 with plenty of options for customizing.

That Henry US Survival is a well made gun. It feels light and chincey, but light is what it is. Granted, I wouldn't beat on the stock very much.

9mm is a good choice for a light recoil handgun. .357 is not really a beast either, if you wanted a revolver. They do come in semi-auto, too.

I can't give you any recommendations, Law, but my Dad did take us out to the Ft. Benning rifle range to learn how to fire a .22 fifle, adjust the sights, etc.

I've never fired a weapon since, but I have to say I enjoyed the experience and I did learn. I enjoyed the experience because it was a shared thing with my Father.

Every child is different. Please don't buy guns for them until you learn whether or not they want to please you or themselves.

You've been away from your children for a while. They didn't stop their development during that time.

Sometimes a parent asks a child to affirm the parent's existence by following what the parent has done when, in fact, the child must be himself.

Your kids are what--4-5 years older than they were when you posted their pictures here?

BINGO! That right there speaks volumes on the virtue of gun ownership.

Yes, it does, Aint. And those are cherished memories.

I'm not against gun ownership; but I was surprised when, after putting our kids on the bus for the first dsy of kindergarten, a neighbor picked me up for a coffee party with other kindergarten mothers and showed me the pistol she had on her belt.

And I'm not really against hunting--I've just had some early, to me, traumatic experiences with hunting. I do enjoy fishing, although I like barbless hooks and turning the fish back once they're caught.

I guess what I'm really uncomfortable with is the death of a creature for the sport of another creature.

thanks for the comments people. I think I will hold off ont he Thompsons...they are a bit much gun for the kids right now due to size and the wife due to training. The Contender line is sweet for pure sport shooting though...And, Liz, that does not mean shooting animals for sport. I think you are confusing those few people who trophy hunt with the vast majority of gun owners. I sometimes hunt and when I do what gets killed gets eaten. Similarly, I fish and what I catch gets eaten. I would go so far as to suggest the barbless hook catch and release is "less" moral than the catch and eat practice.

I have pretty much decided on a small frame .22 cal rifle for the basic marksmanship training. I am looking at a few pistols...eat your heart out Stone...found a Sig P226 for $400. Its used but in damn near pristine conditon. Found a Kimber 45 carry version for $1100 but the wife would likely kill me with it if I bought it. Besides, it is a little big for the kids to practice with. I may go ahead and get the Sig. Hell, I can carry that and still afford to by a smaller .32 cal or .380 for the kids to practice with.

Oh, and Liz, its not so much me forcing the kids as it is they have expressed an interest in learning...Remember, I have three...two are interested and one is not. I do plan to make the uninterested one learn basic handling and safety but not to practice past that point. The wife...I plan to push her pretty good. She does need to develop not only good habits but some basic proficiency. I am likely to be gone from the home with some regularity and this is not the best of all possible areas.

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.

I am giving serious thought to buying a couple SKS rifles just for the sake of having them around. You used to be able to pick them up pretty cheap...haven't looked recently though. I suppose it might be time to shoo the moths out of my wallet and go hit a gun show or six.

I was going to buy a rifle at the same time I bought the pistol but the kids were not really interested in learning to use one...they waffle on that issue. My daughter wanted one of the crossbows. I may get the USP anyway...the SIG serves several purposes. Its a compact which means I can carry it in this crap weather down here without suffering heatstroke. Its chambered in 9mm which means I wont go broke shooting it. Its mild enough that I can get the wife, now that she is willing, trained to an adequate level of proficiency and comfort to move on to a more serious handgun. Its also of a size for teaching my kids some handgun skills.

When I have accomplished those things, I can move on to another weapon. They have some very nice Kimber 45s...enough to piss the wife off.

I'll never understand people who buy guns simply for the joy of collecting them. Guns are designed to kill, not to blow holes in a paper target on a gun range.

I mentioned the pleasure it gave me to join my Father and my siblings on the rifle range at Ft. Benning and this is true. But I don't think my Father really enjoyed guns. If he did, it was because they were mechanisms. He didn't enjoy hunting and never hunted after he was required to do so.

You often come across, Law, as Rambo--armed to the teeth with carry weapons and more. You say you want to arm your family--why?

The .22 rifles we learned with came from the range. Is this no longer true? Do you have to teach your family how to use a firearm with weapons you've bought for them?

The whole thing smacks of ulterior motives to me. If you want to buy guns for yourself, say so. If you enjoy the feel, balance, and accuracy of a weapon, continue to say so. Just don't give us crap about your family's desires when you've already said

or


Most recently, you've said,


What all this says to me, Law, is that you'll continue to do as you please and all of the crap about your family is nothing more than justifying your desires to do as you please.

You must be extremely difficult to live with.

I really don't think you can go wrong with an SKS. While the price has recently gone up on them, you should be able to find them within the $200 - $300 range. What's interesting about them, is they're not "assault rifles". Not by the traditional sense anyway. The good thing about them is that you can easily swap them out of the wood stocks into something a little more assault weapon like, parts are cheap and plentiful, and field stripping them is a breeze. Check out Tapco's site for what you can pick up... you can refurbish an SKS with a complete composite stock for something like $80.

Regardless, it's still not an AK. Many SKS users bitch and moan about people turning the SKS into something its not. That being an assault rifle. Whatever though, I took the fixed 10 round magazine out of mine, sanded down the mag well a bit, and I was able to easily fit the Tapco 20 round mags in it. Tapco really is the company to go to when accessorizing the SKS. You won't read one bad thing about them. The SKS is a great rifle though, versatile and exceptionally reliable, fires a cheap round, and is good out to nearly 700 yards.

The thought of stocking up on SKS's isn't a bad idea, though.

On a side note, I read an interesting bit about why the 7.62 round is going up in price. Supposedly, it's due to the government buying up massive quantities of the round to supply the Afghan army with it. Not sure how true it is, but it drew my attention none the less.

Guns are designed to kill. They're also designed to defend and provide sustenance. As they evolved in both of those rolls, they also turned into a hobby. Liz, have you ever seen people with six shooters blasting holes in quarters as the coin flies through the air? Or what about skeet shooting challenges.

No, guns aren't there just to kill, no more than planes are just there to drop bombs.

Get over it.

Liz, this isn't really as much as to make a case for Lawmage as it is to give you some insight on something you're obviously all that not too familiar with.

My appreciation of firearms is a relatively new thing. I picked up my first gun about eight years ago. It was a pistol. I never grew up with them as my father wasn't never really a hunter, and he was never into firearms all that much. He'd trap muskrats and what not back in the day for the pelts but that was about it. But growing up in PA, nearly all of my friends were raised in hunting families. My grandfather hunted and taught all my uncles, along with my dad on how to properly handle guns.

As far as most my friends go, growing up, they learned how to handle firearms at a very early age, whether they liked it or not. Was this detrimental to their upbringing? Absolutely not. In fact, if it wasn't for the influence of my close friends, I'd have not the slightest clue on how to safely handle a weapon, clean it, or properly maintain it. Again, these guys were raised at seven, eight, and nine years old learning how to hunt and fire weapons.

You're coming off in an exceptionally pretentious manner in your criticism of Lawmage. If and when I have a family, I'll also be adamant in that they know how to safely handle a firearm for it may very well come in handy some day. If after I teach my children how to handle such weapons, they don't want to have anything to do with them, so be it. At least I'll know I don't have to worry about them going over to a friends house and accidentally killing someone, plus I'll also be comforted in the fact that if the need arises, they'll be somewhat familiar in handling said firearms in a manner that will allow them to defend themselves, along with their loved ones, in a safe and efficient manner.

So hop down off that high horse of yours and try to understanding that learning the fundamentals of firearms is hardly damaging to ones children.

Stone, I was going to apologize to Law--well not really apologize, but try to explain what I said in my last post.

While I didn't really mean to say that Law uses his family as reasons for his collecting guns, I did mean to say that Law uses his family as his reasons for collecting guns. Everything Law says about guns reinforces my perception that he thinks of guns as weapons of defense rather than as a hobby, or as the means to practice a hobby.

As Law has so often said, he deplores dishonesty. If Law loves the feel, the heft,the balance of a well-manufactured weapon, he should say so. If he wants to collect guns because he loves how they make him feel, because they're finely constructed weapons, that's fine.

But a gun is a weapon, pure and simple. It can be used for other things, sure--but it's basically a weapon.

A car is a means of transport, That's its basic function. It's used for sport, all sorts of ways of entertainment (see the various ways it's used in racing,} as a status symbol and so on. It can also be used as a weapon. But that isn't its basic function.

A lot of people collect cars because they think of them as art, or as the epitome of functional design. So what? If they're honest about the reasons they have for collecting cars, that's fine.

I've never been against individual gun ownership. I am against the use of the 2nd amendment as a reason to justify individual gun ownership--simply because I feel the 2nd amendment really has nothing to do with it and because I feel it should be a matter of state's rights.

You and Law have a personal thread going on here that discusses the various merits of various weapons--for whatever use you decide for them. I intruded on that thread for an entirely different reason. I apologize.

In the meantime, get off my back!