GRIZ

I see no magic in the SIG or H&K trigger, sights, or grip. I was required to have the NY 1 trigger when I was working. It's still there. A few pounds in a trigger doesn't make a difference except maybe in a game gun. Night sights are nice on any SD gun. They'll cost you more on any of the 3 being discussed. Grip is totally subjective and not an issue AFAIC. If grip was really such an issue guns like the 1911 and S&W J and K frames would have died long ago.

I like Glocks when they made their appearance. I didn't like the trigger but that's becauss I didn't know how to use it. ATF categorized it as DA as there were no striker fired guns of its type on the market. I soon learn to shoot it as a heavy SA. My issue with the 40 is it was more a marketing ploy by S&W than an advancement in technology. S&W took the ballistics of the downloaded FBI 10mm load and replicated it in a shorter case so they could make it in their 9mm frames and slides reducing production costs. Not that much better than a 9 and no better than a 45.

Ray, the OP asked for opinions. My opinion is based on my experience. I started shooting for social purposes about 50 years ago. Way before a lot of people on this forum were born. Just because I'm old doesn't mean all the stuff I learned is now useless. It doesn't mean that I don't try new guns. I've probably fired more different guns than most here. I have never considered "how a gun feels in your hand" as a decisive criteria in evaluating a gun. Yes, some guns "feel" better than others. But I've never picked a gun based on feel. My opinion on Glocks is based on my over 25 years experience with them. The last 10 years on the job my agency issued Glock 17s, 19s, and 26s. I was the chief instructor for my office. A couple of hundred Glocks firing a couple of million rounds in that time. I can count the number of malfunctions on my fingers in that time. 2 were because of improper cleaning and the rest were about evenly split between bad magazines or bad ammo. How many parts were replaced on Glocks in that time? Exactly...one. A recoil spring assembly on a 26. The guide rod broke because it was being assembled incorrectly. The last few years we merged with INS and they brought their H&Ks and Beretta with them. Good guns? Yes, but much more problematic than the Glocks. If I had the same experiences with another type of gun I would feel the same way I do about Glocks. I know what has worked for me. No I don't own only Glocks. I like Berettas, Rugers, S&W gen 1,2, and 3, Taurus, some Walthers, and others. I think the S&W BG 380 is the best little 380. I like Ford trucks, bourbon and Canadian whiskey. I think SIGs and H&Ks are overpriced IMO and don't like scotch. I've got no use for the 40 S&W, and 99% of the people who buy anything over a 357 in a revolver or 45 in a semiauto have no real "use" for it. I'm not immune to that. I do own a 44 magnum. I can give you reasons for all my likes and dislikes. The only one that counts here is my opinion of Glocks. Zeke, I never implied that new makes it bad. I'm not a Luddite. However the last few years are new. All those other years are old. Probability is they made more good things in all those old years than in the few new years. I worked for the government on all levels since I was 17. Well aware of how contracts work. The Carter Administration bailed out Chrysler. To ensure the Feds kept their money the military adopted the 880 series of trucks made by Chrysler. The Reagan Administration bought about half the cars for all Federal agencies from Chrysler. The K car became the standard motor pool car for the Feds. SIG won the handgun competition in the 80s but Beretta got the contract.

Ray, many of these guns haven't been around as long as Glock and none have the broad acceptance as Glock with LE and the military. S&W was dropped from consideration by the Army. SIG won the Army contract not because it was the only one to pass the testing. It won because it passed the testing and was the lowest bidder. There is still talk of Special Operations Command buying Glock 19s. Ergonomics is totally a subjective thing. Too much is put into "how a gun feels" IMO. The fact is if a gun has a grip like a 2x4 and you want to learn how to shoot it well, you will. Just because something is old doesn't remove it from being a good weapon. Glocks are youngsters compared to a S&W Model 10 or a 1911. I don't feel underarmed with either of those.

G19, best all around 9mm made IMO. That's based on 50 years of shooting, over 40 years of training shooters, 30 years of shooting Glocks and about 25 years of carrying them on a regular basis. If any other pistol had a reputation for reliability and durability like Glock you would have heard about it. Everyone should have a G19 IMO.

To reinforce what HE said, gunfighting is about 5% shooting skill and hardware and 95% mental awareness and preparedness. Hope I got that right. It's Jeff Cooper on Mental Conditioning for Combat on You Tube. 28 minutes but well worth the watch. I have some experiences to share for those advocating birds hot for SD. Attempted suicide with a 12 ga. The guy's hand slipped and instead of shooting himself in the chest he hit his shoulder with a load of #4 birds hot (IIRC). Contact shot. Very few pellets made it to his shoulder blade and those that did stopped there. He almost did himself in as he took out about an inch of his brachial artery but he didn't die. Morale of the story. Birdshot has shallow penetration. You might stop the guy but more likely just make him bleed a lot. BG will still have time to hurt you. LE executing warrant on a drug lab in a warehouse. BG "guard" inside the metal door armed with a sawed off double barrel loaded with birdshot. Cops are having a hard time knocking down the door. BG decides he's going to shoot cops through door. Bang! Shot hits door, chips the paint, and enough shot richoceted to mess up the shooters face making him drop the gun. He got 30 years on a plea deal. Think of not only metal but glass, plastic, and other surfaces birdshot can ricochet off in your house. Buckshot can ricochet too but will expend a lot of its energy trying to penetrate what it hits.

Smoking 50 is correct. Call him see what he has to say. PM'd you my phone number. We can discuss my credentials and your situation.

No one ever was arrested because because they stopped to get something to eat, use the bathroom, or get gas coming home from a range in NJ. If you insist I'm wrong please find me a case of that happening. Google "NJ AG guidelines on "reasonable deviation" issued in April 2016. I guess you missed it. It considers all those things I mentioned and more as reasonable deviation. Stopping at Burger King on the way home from the range will not get you 5 years. It's covered in those guidelines. I'm not defending NJ gun laws. They need to be trashed and rewritten. They do little, if anything, to deal with violent crime. There are pretrial intervention programs and other ways to deal with someone who made a "mistake". Mandatory minimums do serve a useful function. They can be used as a bargaining tool to get bad guys to plea or flip on other criminals. Lesniak is no friend of gun owners. A few years ago there were people on this forum who praised Sweeney as a progun guy.

Mandatory minimums prevent a defendant from using influence in sentencing. It prevents things like rich kid from suburbia dealing drugs gets probation. Poor kid from the ghetto gets 10 years for the same thing. Mandatory minimums have no effect on how a judge rules on evidence.

Not only guns but anything else they're selling.

Sometimes you can get good deals at any show when you're there the last day. As one seller told me once "make me am offer, it's easier to sell it than to pack it up".

We don't know it's compliant. We do know he was charged with poss of AW, magazines over 15 rds, and poss of hollowpoints in addition to the assault charges. We can guess all we want but there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to support our guesses. I can't understand why people think the police would charge him with AW violations if it wasn't one. Police and prosecutors don't build their careers by charging someone with a crime when there is no probable cause for that crime. Judges don't like having defendants brought before them on bogus charges. If the weapon was used in the assault it doesn't make a difference it the gun was a pistol or carbine, compliant or non-compliant, a battle rifle or a black powder derringer. Do the police make mistakes? Sure everyone does. In this case if they made a mistake about the AW and the magazines it doesn't make a difference as to what this guy did. He allegedly assaulted people with a firearm. Maybe we should be talking about the fact the police got everyone out of the house safely and apprehended the guy with no one getting hurt.

I don't know of any state as restrictive as NJ when it comes to hollowpoints.

I can't agree with you on this. Sounds like he got into an argument and fight with a gun around. He must have said something at some time about having hollowpoints and the gun. Why have a gun you can't take anywhere because it's illegal in the state?Even if you used it to legally defend yourself you're screwed. Not defending the "Assault Weapon" laws but it seems he set himself up to be screwed. If he were so innocent, why the standoff with police? I don't see how the victims "ruined his life". I think he did that himself. PK90 is correct. Possession of Hollowpoints is not an add on charge. You can be charged for that single 22 hollowpoint rolling around in your trunk. However that doesn't usually happen.

You're welcome Ray. Moderate use in your Model 10 or K38 won't hurt them. I understand your concern thougg. I carried these in magnum rated guns. Suggest you try 6 of these in your 686 then try six magnums. Shoot fast as you would in a SD situation. The +p+ will most likely be a much tighter group.

NYPD started to allow semiautos for all the troops during the Dinkins Administration in the early 90s (90-91). However, initially they were restricted to fmj and 10 rd magazines. NYPD used 158 std velocity swcs in 38s. About the same time they went to Federal +p 158 Nyclad swcs. About 92 or so they went to hollowpoints. They used the same Federal round in 38 but in hollowpoint as late as 2005 to my knowledge. They switched to a jhp after that. The policy was when you switched to a semiauto you couldn't go back to a revolver. Many kept their revolvers. There's maybe still 50 or so NYPD officers still carrying a revolver as their duty weapon. About a year ago, I saw a NYPD patrol officer with a S&W M10 in her holster. That would mean she's been on over 25 years.

Ray ray, it's 147 gr as it says on the box. You are correct about the +p+ designation being the result of politics, "We dont use magnums we use 38 spl". The original 110 gr +p+ "Treasury Load" came out in the 70s. It was a 110 jhp that went close to a 1000 fps in a 2" and 1100-1150 fps in a 4". That load gave devastating effects on soft targets but seriuosly lacked penetration. I remember the 147 gr load in the 90s (it may have come out earlier). I carried it as a choice in a 2 1/2 M19 and a 2" M640. Regular use of magnums are not healthy for those guns and are difficult to control. The +p+ is an excellent compromise in those guns. Actual chronograph results in those guns are: 2" M640.......900 fps 2 1/2" M19....848 fps 2 3/4" Ruger..950 fps 4" Taurus.....1100 fps 6 1/2" Ruger..1150 fps 16" Rossi.....1200 fps Basically its a light magnum load. I am personally aware it has good effect on the target. I've heard stories (unconfirmed) that this ammo was really +p but Federal called it +p+ to keep it out of civilian hands. No laws broken having this ammo. I would shoot these in a 357 rated gun with no worries. I'd use them in a K frame 38 on a limited basis. Never in a J frame. My opinion is based on shooting literally 1000s of these rounds both 110 and 147 +p+. I wouldn't worry about them being 15 years old as long as they were kept under reasonable conditions. I would carry them in a defensive gun. Hope this helped. Anything I didn't mention, ask.

They do.

If he had it legally it wouldn't matter. He assaulted people with it.

When you have the assault charge it kind of makes a at home hollowpoint exemption go away. Don't use a firearm loaded with hollowpoints to assault someone amd you have nothing to worry about.

You are correct. I oversimplified it. Judges obviously consider the case individually before they discuss and vote on it. If 4 justices don't think its a Constitutional issue it doesn't get heard.

Many are uninformed on what criteria the SCOTUS uses to decide which cases they hear. They don't hear "good" cases. They hear cases where a Constitutional issue is in question. The next criteria is does or affect enough people to be important. I'm sure when they meet to decide which cases they will hear they wind up with 3 piles yes, no, and maybe. If they think they have more time they do through the maybe pile again.

Not really. Garland was a spoiler thrown in by Obamanocchio. SCOTUS nominees during a POTUS last year in office are rarely appointed no matter who is in office and the makeup of the Senate. Garland's nomination died when the the new Congress was sworn in this month. There have been 112 SCOTUS Justices. If you throw Garland's consideration into the stats it adds about 2.5 days into the total. Using the 90 day average, it adds about 3 days. Trump has asked for the nuclear option if conformation is held up. McConnell has refuses to comment on that but has said he thinks that whoever Trump nominates will be fully qualified. Trump is announcing his nominee today. My money is on Trump's SCOTUS nominee will be confirmed NLT May 1. We'll see.

Not so. The longest it has taken for the Senate to vote on a SCOTUS appointee is 125 days. That was a Woodrow Wilson pick and he was appointed. The average time between a nominee being selected and appointment, rejection, or withdrawal is 25 days. Looking at a list of times in recent years the median appears to be in the range of 60-90 days (I didn't do all the math). There have been nominees confirmed within a few days. There has even been nominees confirmed the same day they were nominated. I realize the Democrats are dragging out confirmation hearings for Trump appointees. This will get old quick. They will need a favor from the POTUS and the Republicans. At 60 to 90 days from nomination to approval a Trump appointee can wind up being involved in this case.

51 years old is a plus. He can be a SC justice for some time.