Yet Mary is downright amazing with her little Sig P232 (18 oz) which
is quite similar to the Walther PPK in function and design concept but
has markedly better sights and ergonomics.

It's probably a perfect fit for her. But that is just the kind of .380 I
was talking about. They're light and blowback operated and the recoil
from them is pretty darn stout. I find they are much less comfortable to
shoot than many bigger calibers. I feel the same about the Makarov. They
are nice little guns but they kick pretty darn hard for such a small
caliber weapon. A Glock G19 shoots a more powerful cartridge and isn't
that much bigger and it's a lot more comfortable to shoot. But whatever
works for you is what you should stick with.


Small revolvers make a lot of sense to me but lots of
people don't want them these days. Old fashioned I guess. Funny, I like
them a lot. You can count on them.

I like 'em too. They do have failure modes, though. Get a round of
ammo of excessive length that jams the cylinder, if you don't have a
backup you're SOL. Very unlikely with good factory ammo. BUT: shoot
.38 spl in a .357 for practice, build up a carbon ring in the
cylinder, .357 ammo will then not go all they way into the cylinder
creating a jam situation. I'm not making this up; I had that happen
with a very nice Dan Wesson .357 revolver whose dickhead owner fired
.38 ammo in and never cleaned. It was the dirtiest weapon I'd ever
seen. I did not offer this guy further coaching.

Typical. Nobody who knows the first thing about guns would have a filthy
one for something like concealed carry. You can get a bullet to pull out
from a casing from recoil, or have the carbon ring keep a round from
fitting, or you can have a round not seat in the chamber and lock up the
gun. But in general a revolver is a simple device and if it's clean and
has good ammo they almost never fail to fire. Which I like.


Most semiauto malfunctions other than squibs can be cleared by racking
the slide, a hard slap with weak hand while holding on target with
strong hand. It should be part of one's regular practice routine if
one is inclined to worry about such things.

Oh, you mean know what you're doing if you carry a deadly weapon? What a
concept.

I don't know how to clear a malfunction on a Blackberry.

Why does anyone need one of those?

Data point: today I went to the range and decided to focus on
deliberate fire at 50 feet using two pistols: a Sig P226 9mmp and a
1911 in .45ACP.

My first 5 rounds with Siggy were a bit ragged, as is often the case
when I haven't shot for a while. But I settled raht down. After that
I shot 35 or 40 rounds, all hitting the max score region of the LTR II
standard silhouette used by some agencies and departments for range
qual at 21 feet.

Then I went to the 1911. I had one group of five shots with all holes
touching -- one big ragged hole. .45's make big holes! This at 50
feet, offhand (no rests), no laser. I suppose competitive young
(under 60) shooters do this routinely, but I was quite pleased with
that group. I drove home grinning. Lovely day, range to myself, fresh
air and gunsmoke, personal best, life is good!

All of my 1911 rounds went into the max score region, and they were
closer to center than those fired with the 9mm Sig.

The 1911 is a little heavier than the 9mm Sig, but only a little. I
don't notice recoil when I'm shooting unless it hurts, but there's no
doubt that .45ACP kicks significantly more than 9mmp. The biggest
difference here was probably that this particular 1911 has a much
lighter trigger than the Sig, comparable to a good revolver (S&W 686,
Ruger GP100) in single-action. The trigger is too light for tactical
use under stress, but it's great for target shooting! Sig's trigger is
heavier but short and crisp, right for eau chitte sits. I own it just
because I like it, I'll never carry it. I think it was a policeman's
daily carry until they switched to .40. It's ugly as a mud fence, but
fun to shoot. Sig makes nice guns.

I'm going to the gun club on Wed. night. I usually shoot a 1911 and a
G17. Big difference between them. The 1911 is much more accurate. But I
can't shoot it as fast as the Glock. It just takes more time to pull the
1911 back down to level after each shot than it does the 9mm. Those guns
are a real contrast. The Glock is super dependable, and holds a lot of
ammo but it's only so so in the accuracy dept. You can shoot it fast and
a lot of rounds but the trigger and accuracy are only fair. The 1911 is
heavy, very accurate, and has a great trigger. But it doesn't hold much
ammo and it can't be shot as quickly. So the choice is a bigger, more
powerful round in a heavy gun that is very accurate versus a smaller,
lighter, less powerful gun that holds a lot more rounds and shoots a lot
faster. I can't decide. I'll take one of each.

Hawke