Sixtytwo327

I have a G34 Gen 4 and have no regrets buying it. Since you want to shoot competition, I vote get the one built for competition (G34).

"The pistols will be manufactured at Colt’s plant in West Hartford, Conn." Ah, got it. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D), who both happen to be Connecticut's Senators, sit on many defense committees. From Sen. Lieberman's Website: "Senator Lieberman is Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is responsible for oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and assuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government. In addition, he is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Airland and sits on the Personnel and Seapower Subcommittees; and the Small Business Committee." You can also read about Sen. Lieberman's dedication to the defense industry his Website, here. Not that I'm complaining - I'd buy that 1911 as well. Sometimes it's just fun to invent conspiracies when you play "follow the money."

Welcome from Jersey City

Laughed at this, and watched some of his other vids. Gun culture can be stifling; nice to see someone unafraid to laugh at themselves and some of the shooting clichés and stereotypes that float around the Internet. (and I own a Glock)

I read the same thing, and I'm pretty sure mine falls into that category. Bought this one in 2009. I paid about $100 used. That said, the bow got some hard use. Overall, I'm happy with it.

Can't vouch for other brands, but I also have a PSE take-down. It's OK for casual target shooting, but a little while ago, a limb cracked (after many years of use) and because it's a proprietary design, I had to get a new one from PSE. If I had the money, I'd get an ILF riser. I like archery, but not enough to justify a fancy bow like that. My stuff is all second-hand that doesn't quite fit me but is still lots of fun. Good luck with it.

Watched this video out of curiosity, and thought the same thing... unless you are LEO/secret service/military/"extremely experienced," this video (to me, IMAO) seems like really, really, really bad advice. Loaded shotgun behind the sofa? Handgun in your coffee table? This reeks of Hollywood, and sounds like a house that has never seen kids. In a related note, I saw a John Woo flick starring Chow Yun-Fat where he was raiding this gang headquarters and did the same thing - dropping guns and guns and guns as he approached the restaurant where the mobsters were meeting, so as he was falling back, he kept picking up guns he had stashed on his approach. And come to think of it, Michael is also probably a big fan of staging guns behind water closets in Italian restaurants...

The exploding everything, along with the annoying " family cast members" made me quit after one episode. I don't have much hope for any new "gun-themed reality TV show," no matter who it might focus on.

I've been on the fence about picking up a "cheap spotting scope" but this thread just convinced me to save my money.

Apologies, it's behind the pay wall. Here is the article: U.N. Pursues a Global Weapons Treaty REUTERS July 2, 2012 Delegates from around the world gathered in New York on Monday for the start of monthlong U.N.-hosted negotiations to hammer out the first-ever binding treaty to regulate the global weapons market, valued at more than $60 billion a year. Arms-control campaigners say one person every minute dies as a result of armed violence around the world and that a convention is needed to prevent illicitly traded guns from pouring into conflict zones and fueling wars and atrocities. Most U.N. member states favor a strong treaty. If they get their way, all signatories would be charged with enforcing compliance to any treaty by companies that produce arms and with taking steps to prevent rogue dealers from operating within their borders. They say conflicts in Syria and elsewhere cast a shadow over the talks, reminding delegates of the urgency of the situation. "In Syria, Sudan and the Great Lakes of Africa, the world is now once again bearing witness to the horrific human cost of the reckless and overly secret arms trade,'' said Brian Wood, international arms control and human-rights manager at Amnesty International. "Why should millions more people be killed and lives devastated before leaders wake up and take decisive action to properly control international arms transfers?'' he said. There is no guarantee that the July 2-27 negotiations will produce a treaty, let alone a firm one. In February, preparatory talks on the ground rules for this month's talks nearly collapsed due to procedural wrangling and other disagreements. In the end, the U.S. and other countries succeeded in ensuring the treaty must be approved unanimously, so any one country can effectively veto a deal. But the treaty may not be doomed if that happens. Mr. Wood said nations that support a strong pact could bring a treaty to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopt it with a two-thirds majority vote if there is no consensus in July. There are deep divisions on key issues to be tackled in the treaty negotiations, such as whether human rights should be a mandatory criterion for determining whether governments should permit weapons exports to specific countries. Arms-control advocates say a strong treaty is long overdue. "It is an absurd and deadly reality that there are currently global rules governing the trade of fruit and dinosaur bones, but not ones for the trade of guns and tanks,'' said Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms. Mr. Abramson, Amnesty's Mr. Wood and Anna Macdonald of Oxfam spoke with reporters on Friday about the negotiations. Much of the discussion revolved around Russia's arms supplies to Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad's 16-month assault on an increasingly militarized opposition has killed over 10,000 people. Russia is Assad's top arms supplier. Wood said Russia is not the only culprit in Syria, one of many conflicts fed by unregulated arms deliveries. Western nations have also helped Assad. There are tanks on Syrian streets, Wood said, that come from Slovakia, upgraded by Italy. Oxfam's Macdonald said: ``From Congo to Libya, from Syria to Mali, all have suffered from the unregulated trade in weapons and ammunition allowing those conflicts to cause immeasurable suffering and go on far too long. In the next few weeks, diplomats will either change the world - or fail the world.'' One senior Western diplomat said the Syrian conflict has led to a ``polarization'' within the arms trade talks, with Russia becoming increasingly defensive about arms supplies to its ally Damascus that it says have nothing to do with the conflict. The campaigners outlined what they want to see in the treaty. Governments should be required to regulate the sale and transfer of all weapons, arms, munitions and equipment used in military and domestic security activities, ranging from armored vehicles, missiles and aircraft to small arms and ammunition. Governments should also be required to make risk assessments before authorizing arms sales, make public all authorizations and deliveries and track their use. Trading without permission or diverting arms should be made a crime, they said. One of the reasons this month's negotiations are taking place is that the U.S., the world's biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40% of global conventional arms transfers, reversed its policy on the issue after Barack Obama became president and decided in 2009 to support a treaty. But U.S. officials say Washington insisted in February on having the ability to "veto a weak treaty'' if necessary. It also seeks to protect U.S. domestic rights to bear arms, a sensitive issue in the U.S. The other five top arms suppliers are Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. Wood, Macdonald and Abramson said some of the top arms trading countries have been joining other nations in an attempt to weaken the treaty. They said the United States, China, Syria and Egypt were pushing to exclude ammunition. China, they added, wants to exempt small arms, while several Middle East states oppose making compliance with human rights norms a mandatory criterion for allowing arms deliveries.

FYI, the article the OP linked to is an OP/ED published in FORBES in June 2011. See below for an article in the Wall Street Journal published July 2, 2012, about the current UN treaty being discussed.

Sold

For sale: one CZ-75 COMPACT magazine - 14 rounds 9mm mfg. by Mec-Gar As-new, unfired. Purchased by mistake. Figured another member might be able to use it. $20 PM with questions - thanks.

Grains, explained in video. 15 minutes, all your questions answered. Also, owned a Glock 34 gen 4 for months - zero issues. IMO, the Gen4 issues were Internet shooters who enjoy stirring controversy. Everything read on the Internet (including this post) should be taken with... a grain of salt.

Yeah, 3-9 is fine for casual target shooting. More important, just having a scope - seeing the difference (or lack of) at different magnifications, mounting, adjusting, etc. - will answer all your questions. Good luck with the purchase and your new Savage.

Nikon ProStaff 3-9x40 is a great scope. I have one on a Savage MKII BTV. The parallax is set at 50, but I can shoot accurately from 25 - 125 yards or so - not a problem. The PROSTAFF line has adjustable turrets under the caps, plus re-settable turrets (sight in your rifle and set the turrets to zero). All for about $150, which meets your budget. I also have a Nikon Buckmasters 6-18x40 that came off a flat-top varmint AR, This had an adjustable parallax (50-1000) but it was too much scope for a .22.

Sounds right - are some people there who work there who are really into AR and everything military, while others are strict traditionalists (wood hunting rifles / clay guns only). Great place though; I bought a few guns from them and I've always gotten good advice. Good luck with your choice.

Mini-14 is a fine first semi; though I can see why some people would favor/recommend an AR. Second everyone who said "get what you want." Did you go to Caso's?

So, in "prior owner" terms, that's about 7,250 rounds total. Give or take a few hundred rounds.

Roy Scheider shot the tank with a Garand... probably the best movie ever

Unless or until you're extremely familiar and/or experienced with both extremely different platforms and extremely different calibers, I recommend neither.

I have a Savage MKII BTVS (thumb-hole stock, varmint/heavy barrel). My opinion: fantastic rifle. Makes it worth spending money for quality ammo - it is capable of very, very tight groups. Trigger is adjustable (at least on my model). 10 Round magazines are $15 or so and available online. Stock has two sling mounts - one for a bi-pod and the second for a sling (nice feature). Not the cheapest .22 out there, but it has the “quality that will last forever” feel. For a grown-up .22 for plinking, that could also do serious precision/match shooting: yes, highly recommended.

Nope.

LOL a gun with no bullets is just a club. It's not going to help against face eaters hopped up on bath salts, or whatever the kids are into these days I vote "Shaun of the Dead" - cricket bat.

My $0.02, if significant other really wants to learn photography, don't buy a camera with any "beginner" modes, and load up on books from Joe McNally and David Hobby. If she just wants a camera to take good photos, buy anything Nikon or Cannon in your price range with scene modes. Also, photography makes shooting look cheap, but like shooting, it's a wonderful hobby. Enjoy.