Mr.Stu

Here is the answer to your quest. https://shopusa.matadorarms.com/The-Stinger_p_50.html It is a brake with a detachable shell that will direct the muzzle blast forward when you are at an indoor range. Yes, there is a threaded part to attach the shell. However, threads generally are not illegal. Only a "threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor" is illegal.

If you ever found yourself to in a deadly force encounter using FMJ, SP or JHP is pretty much irrelevant. They are all potentially deadly and they are all potentially going to pass through your intended target and hit something beyond. That is something for you to be aware of and mitigate when you fire the shot (or not). Even the best JHP is designed to penetrate to at least 12 inches. There are very few people in the world that have an arm 12 inches thick so if you just winged them, the bullet is going to continue on to something else. If your legal defense strategy is that you didn't mean to use deadly force, you shouldn't have been using any of the above at all. Remember, using deadly force does not automatically mean you were trying to kill the bad guy. It means you were willing and justified in taking the risk that he'd die due to necessity to stop the serious threat immediately.

He's fine - just indisposed for a few days.

"I wish I had brought fewer rounds" said no survivor of a gun fight, ever.

@GRIZI never said that you said anything about super abilities. I said that. I quoted you because my opinion differs from yours in that I do not agree with all the points the Chief made. but for what he said to be true, it seems that he must believe in those super abilities. He said, "Particularly, we don’t want people to fire weapons into our community. When weapons are fired in our community, there could be unintended victims; people who are hit by gunfire. And we want to avoid that as much as we can.” He may be suggesting that when his officers eventually show up and fire their weapons there are only intended victims - hence super ability compared to regular people. Now I've thought about it some more, perhaps he doesn't mean that. He also said, "Our message really is that we don’t want to see our business owners or others begin to arm themselves. We would really prefer them to be good witnesses and give us the observations that they have; share that information, call law enforcement immediately and let OPD respond and follow up. What we really don’t want to do is bring any additional issues that threaten safety into the equation.” As most people acknowledge, bad guys generally abandon their intent to commit crime if they see a cop nearby so there is most often a delay between the offense beginning and a cop showing up which gives the offender a chance to complete their criminal act. This appears to be what the Chief wants - for the criminal to be able to carry on unchallenged. For some reason he thinks it is important that it will be safer for the criminal. It is certainly not safer for the victims. Fighting back does carry risks, but that should be determined by the people there at the time. Not fighting back, not even having the tools to make that an option makes it a certainty that harm will be done to the victim, not just a risk. The level of harm and the appropriate resistance is what we have self defense laws for, but to remove the option of self defense for any situation should not be something anybody advocates for. I shoot in competition regularly, I know several police officers, (local, county and federal) and have shot with even more. I respect and I am grateful to nearly all of them (every walk of life has its a-holes) and some I regard as good friends. I have also done sims training with 40+ serving officers as their volunteer bullet sponge. I have seen cops who are great with their guns and I have seen officers who really shouldn't be allowed to carry one around all day due to horrific safe handling. The vast majority are somewhere in between. I have also done sims training with competitive shooters and when the stress level went up with the possibility of being shot at, some of their normally impeccable safe handling went down the chute. I also know and have tried to help several officers who dread the quals every 6 months because they struggle to meet the standard on the low stress flat range. BTW that standard even allows for up to 20% misses depending on the department. That 20% go somewhere - maybe "into the community". My point is that any regular person should be able to have the tools to defend themselves, not just the police who are usually not there the moment a criminal decides to act. The victim is always there. There is no affordable way to pre-determine who will perform the best under the stress of a violent attack so it is unreasonable to decide ahead of the event that the police are the only ones that should be able to bring force to bear. The Chief explicitly says he does not agree and he prefers the victims to be disarmed. The article also says, "Armstrong also pointed out the problem authorities may face when they cannot determine who the assailant is when armed citizens intervene." This is fearmongering to try to support his point. There are millions of people who carry every day across the US and a significant number of them have had to deploy their sidearm in defense of themselves or others. It is incredibly rare for the police to show up while the shooting is still ongoing and even more rare for them to engage and shoot the good guy by mistake. Sorry for going AVG on this one. I feel very strongly about it and my disagreement is with the Chief, not you Griz. I am usually right with you on what you post.

Only if you subscribe to the notion that police officers have some kind of special shooting power and never miss. NYC went on record with something like 18% hits in on duty shooting events. Where did the other 82% of the shots go? Maybe it was "into the community" (a stupid phrase to use here IMO) Perhaps he's one of the "disarm police" advocates.

SP will expand better than FMJ, but not as well as JHP typically. What void needs filling? JHP is legal to possess in your home and is the best choice for pistol rounds. Unless you have a unicorn you can't carry a pistol away from home so the point is moot.

It's East German so not limey at all. It is the car that most resembles your HiPoint.

I guess you also run your Trabant on hi-test avgas.

Your memory is better than mine. It was double the capacity of the gun every 120 days. https://wnynewsnow.com/2019/05/31/state-bill-would-limit-ammunition-purchases-for-certain-firearms/

There was a law proposed, I think in NY, where they wanted to limit ammo purchases to 3 times the capacity of your gun in any 3 month period. Dumb as hell, but proposed nonetheless.

That provides some explanation for why the price is going up. I don't understand how it is described as low inflation when the price is reaching record levels. The price being similar to what it was before would be low inflation. This is the opposite.

The financial industry confuses the the heck out of me. The DOW is an index of a set of stocks, right? This is a representation of the worth of a set of publicly traded companies. The idea that these are worth a record number of dollars without being significantly changed is a sign of low inflation how? More dollars to buy the same thing is exactly what inflation is. What am I missing?

What type of bullet was it? Lead, FMJ, plated, coated? It makes a difference.

This is an important teaching moment. I am guessing from your statement that "It hasn’t happened again" you continued to fire more rounds from that batch. This was a mistake. One overcharged (or even suspected overcharged) round marks the entire batch as suspect. You got lucky with that one and you were not hurt. Tempting fate by continuing to use suspect ammo is a really bad idea. You should have pulled the rest of the rounds from that batch and measured them for OAL variations, inspected the crimp and pulled the bullets one by one and weighed the charge to try to identify what went wrong.

It has no rifle stock so is not a rifle - you cannot fire it from the shoulder. It has a barrel that looks like it is longer than 16" so not it is not a short barreled anything. There is no length limit on a handgun, either minimum or maximum. It is a single action revolver albeit with a very long barrel, bipod, bayonet and red dot. It is weird, but just a revolver - a handgun.

I have an FN FNAR that I could part with. It doesn't take Pmags, but 3 mags will come with it. https://fnamerica.com/products/discontinued-products/fnar-heavy/

That is nonsense. If you consider yourself dangerous just because you possess an inanimate object you are just plain dangerous. Your mindset is what makes you dangerous or not. The proximity of a firearm does not change that. It is thinking like that which brings the ridiculous laws that we have already in NJ. Are you sure you don't agree with red flag laws? You seem to advocate for them making other people's problems into my problems.

Sorry - I should have said "they" You said "being a danger isn't illegal". Make up your mind. Threatening to harm or kill is actually "being a danger". Someone's fear when a person hasn't done any of that is just an emotional response to something that didn't happen. Have you heard the jokes about a guy being blamed by his wife for what he did in her dream? I mentioned owning a firearm not being illegal in contrast to your mistaken statement that "being a danger isn't illegal" If someone is afraid of me for no reason it is their problem to deal with. I am not responsible for managing other people's irrational emotions. Again, sorry I should have said they. I read your tone as being supportive of the need for some kind of in between solution. The thing is we don't need a solution which takes action against a 3rd party for irrational emotions. For someone that hasn't done anything, there should be no action taken at all. If someone HAS done something threatening then a psych eval is potentially a very good idea, no? I think we have different ideas of what being a danger really means. You seem to believe that it includes claiming there is a danger when there is nothing at all to support the idea. If you had been the victim of a malicious complaint, had the police knocking on your door at 1:30AM to serve a search warrant to confiscate your lawfully owned property based on one sided allegations which you have had no chance hear, let alone to refute, when you have done nothing wrong, you might think a little different.

Owning a firearm isn't illegal. Threatening to harm or kill someone is illegal. What's the use of removing firearms from someone who is a danger when you leave so many other options available? Is it somehow better to be beaten to death with a bat than shot? What about stabbed? Run over with a car? The object is not the cause of the problem, it is always and only the person. If you want an "In between" solution we already have 3 day involuntary confinements for psych evaluation. My key point is that we need to deal with the problem, not just one of the symptoms.

This is NJ. You know there is nothing about the statutes that requires logic or consistency. As the victim of a malicious and fictitious domestic violence complaint which was dismissed in less than a week and was subsequently described by the judge as nothing of concern in my carry permit application before he denied me for lack of justifiable need and only lack of justifiable need, I cannot condone this proposal in any way. Red flag laws are BS anyway. If someone is a danger, arrest them. Taking away one means of causing harm does not remove the threat. Carol Bowne was stabbed, not shot!

Yes that is legal. I have one.

You can do that and you don't need to be going to the range if you have your FPIC. You are breaking no firearms law. Just stay away from prohibited places such as schools and post offices. You might, Rabbit. You might. I'm saying your FPIC doesn't help you with your non-NFA other firearm because it is not a rifle or a shotgun. Similarly, your FPIC doesn't help you with a handgun for the same reason.