Well then don't tell me what you've already mentioned, ya clown!I heard ya hippie!!
Well then don't tell me what you've already mentioned, ya clown!I heard ya hippie!!
FINE!Well then don't tell me what you've already mentioned, ya clown!
FINE!
Dafuq you talkin bout chump!?Laufen admits virtual defeat part 2. Today was a good day! I didn’t even have to use my AK.
Sent from my Obamaphone using Tapatalk
Dafuq you talkin bout chump!?
10:59amYou know what time it is.
Sent from my Obamaphone using Tapatalk
It depends on what you need the gun for too. For a dedicated competition gun, I think you would be better off with the MPX. But there are many reasons why I chose to buy a B&T over an MPX, and price had nothing to do with it.As mentioned before, B&T makes a superior gun mechanically and comes in at $400 less than the Sig.
I get it though, Sig drops a lot on R&D and that costs a lot of money.............but this looks like a Taurus or Mossberg.
That's kinda my point though. This gun is already so large why not go to 4 or 4.5 inch barrel. I realize those gains would be marginal, but they'd be there and it doesn't seem to me it would have any effect on the handling of the weapon Now, it it was threaded and the assumption was a suppressor would be adding length, I guess that would be different.Better question. Why a longer barrel?? 9mm performs best around 4". Why would you want to make it longer??
That's kinda my point though. This gun is already so large why not go to 4 or 4.5 inch barrel. I realize those gains would be marginal, but they'd be there and it doesn't seem to me it would have any effect on the handling of the weapon Now, it it was threaded and the assumption was a suppressor would be adding length, I guess that would be different.
I guess I just don't get it. If I'm going to give up being able to holster it, I don't see a little more barrel hurting anything. But hell, I can't afford one anyway so my opinion is pretty meaningless.But if the goal is minimal size and weight, which it is, why would you add more of each for “marginal gains” in ballistics?
Sent from my Obamaphone using Tapatalk
I think the point of it was to make it as absolutely small (short) as possible for some sort of a cqb entry type option. When it comes to that type of scenario, a few fps aren't that important. Compactness, and the ability to shoulder the firearm are the pluses.I guess I just don't get it. If I'm going to give up being able to holster it, I don't see a little more barrel hurting anything. But hell, I can't afford one anyway so my opinion is pretty meaningless.
Exactly! For the intended purpose, shorter is better.I think the point of it was to make it as absolutely small (short) as possible for some sort of a cqb entry type option. When it comes to that type of scenario, a few fps aren't that important. Compactness, and the ability to shoulder the firearm are the pluses.
That's whatExactly! For the intended purpose, shorter is better.
That's whatshe.............I said.
Exactly! For the intended purpose, shorter is better.
I think the point of it was to make it as absolutely small (short) as possible for some sort of a cqb entry type option. When it comes to that type of scenario, a few fps aren't that important. Compactness, and the ability to shoulder the firearm are the pluses.
Exactly! For the intended purpose, shorter is better.
Yup. I remember clearing areas where a 14” Benelli or 10” Colt SMG were too long, and having to switch to my secondary.