Underdog

Check out this link: http://mrcompletely.blogspot.com/2006/03/taurus-model-66-revolver.html

Are FFLs customarily not willing to accept direct shipment from a private individual?

If you purchase a handgun from a private individual in a neighboring state, can that individual personally bring it to an NJ FFL for you to pickup, or does the transaction have to go through the neighboring state's FFL as well? The reason I would want to do this is to cutout the additional middle man, the out-of-state FFL. and the shipping cost. I would assume that if it could be done, then all you would have to pay is the NJs FFL fee and the tax on that and use up a pistol permit. Is there a reason why a local FFL would not accept it from an out-of-state buyer? Would that buyer be taking a risk transporting it to an NJ FFL?

Make sure that you are cleared of ownership of the other returned gun. That is just as important! As a side note, if you want to put one of your handguns on consignment at a local gunshop, you would need a permit to pick it back up from the shop if they don't sell and one gun a month, etc. applies. Essentially, you are transferring ownership to the shop when it is put on the books. You would need to pay NICS as well for each one on each 30-day seperate pickup.

I have an older 6-shot Taurus 66 that was made in the early 90s, and which I believe was a police service pistol. There is slight evidence that it was holstered for a time. I was able to easily key in the serial number at the Taurus sight and get the age. It is a very solid revolver similar to a Ruger GP100, and although a little rougher in some respects than a S&W 686, I believe it to be more along the lines of the Ruger in durability. It has a hefty weight to it that helps with the .357 recoil, as well. The sights are adequate and there is a reddish-orange swab of paint on the front site which helps with visibility, but unlike a GP100, the sight is not replaceable. I am not sure about the newer ones, but I don't think the front sight is removable on them, either. Mine has been fired a lot and is broken in and has a relatively smooth action and trigger pull. It is not as good as a friend's broken-in Ruger, and certainly not as good as a S&W (but, I could have two of these for the price of the S&W). The action is nice and the single action trigger on mine is probably about 4-5 pounds with maybe a 10 or 11 pound double action trigger. What can I say, it works nice, and I think the timing is right on. I believe that the one I have is safe to carry with the hammer down on my model 66 and it doesn't have that key lock that is present on the newer 7-shot ones to make it inoperable. <BR><BR>Personally, I don't think you can find a better quality double action revolver for around $350 unless you can find a bargain GP100 or older Ruger Speed/Security Six, and you might be able to get an older one like mine at an even better price. <BR><BR>The only thing I would really like to change on the one I have is to replace the quality wooden grip with some rubber Hogue ones to aid in holding on to it, especially with when the .357 round is fired. And, I do feel a slight pinch between the trigger guard and the front strap on the grip where it comes together on my trigger finger, although I think the newer rubber grip that is shaped slightly differently would correct this, and judging by the image on the one in the link you provided, I don't see it as a problem.<BR><BR>Would I like a smoother trigger and maybe a trigger job? Yes! But it certainly isn't a problem with this little stainless workhorse. I enjoy shooting it, and I believe mine is extremely dependable, and I have used it for my bedside gun. Would I like to change the sights out and install a front fiber optic/tritium sight if I could. Yes, that would be nice for my aging eyes. But I can't. <BR><BR>I certainly recommend it as a budget .357. Would I spend another $100 and possibly get a 4" Ruger GP100, used? Sure! But if a used Taurus 66 could be had for under $300, it would certainly be a good value. And, it does have a lifetime warranty which is a nice feature.<BR><BR>The newer model that you have linked to, above, seems to address all of my concerns with my gun, except it doesn't appear that you can change out the front sight. If you handle it and the trigger feels OK to you, I would certainly consider it.

Is that an M&P in the photo? Wait, no, I think it is a Glock!

As a side note, avoid the new leadless ammo, as it does not have near the shelf life of older Ammo if properly stored. If you have that, keep the other stuff and shoot that up. Unless you are in your 70s and have no children.

I might have to pickup a CZ 452, too, or a Savage Bolt.

Where did he put it when he emptied it?

I have the larger bag in green and I really like it a lot. Very pleased with the bag at that price. Shipping was about $15.00, though, and you cannot use the Midway discount codes on it.

Thanks, I think I will just stick w/ the standard magazines. Saiga .223 would probably be much more popular if Saiga made them to accept AR mags. Although, it still does a number on ammo cases ejected. The Ruger Gunsite Scout would be much nicer if it took M1A magazines instead of proprietary. I might have bought one whether its practical or not, just for the novelty and good looks of the rifle.

Does anybody have experience with getting an adapter that will allow the use of AR Magazines?

My father has a stainless, 10/22 w/ synthetic stock and weaver mount and 1-inch rings. I want to get him a nice scope for it for under $100. Does anybody have any recommendations?

I second checking out the EEA SAR K2. Or, visit the Para-Ordance site and check it out. Lastly, I would look into Lastly, consider a Colt Double Eagle or an STI Spartan.

Wow! I would like to get a brushed stainless one and set it up like that.

If you get one before me, I want to hear about it... accuracy, trigger, fiber optic sight, etc.

Agreed, mostly with what you have said, except for the trigger. Glocks were not designed to be competition guns, though. What CZs are being used? 75Bs, customs?

Ruger GP100 or Ruger SP101 22LR. The GSG 1911-22 is real nice. But, it is a little ammo sensitive. I think just about ALL 22LR semi-automatics are. But, once you find the ammo it likes, stock on that and you will be just fine. If Budget is not that much of a concern, checkout a CZ Kadet. I still say you should checkout a 22LR double action revolver. Be somewhat patient and get the S&W 617 or a new Ruger SP101. In my humble opinion, this should be a staple in everyone's collection. You won't look back. And, it is easier to load at the range than ANY semi-automatic and will shoot just about anything. Versatile/Survival minded/steel. If you are on a budget, look at a Charter Arms Pathfinder or Taurus 990/992 (add. magnum cylinder), but avoid the Taurus 94. And, if you can find a nice deal on a Ruger Single Six, that might be fun, too, but get it with the combo magnum cylinder. Try a single action, though, before you buy one. I say Ruger SP101 for now, and GP100 on the horizon. 22 revolver is a staple, and the GP100 or S&W 686 are staples.

If you need a defensive gun for home safety, get the PX4. The ammo will be cheaper that .357/.38 and you will have more rounds. If you want a fun range gun, get the 1911-22. Once that gun is broken in, you will be pleased with it! Personally, I would pickup a GP100 after getting a 9mm. And, it would give you some time to find a used one. See if you can go to the range with others and test them, first. You can try the 1911-22 at a range, but I don't have a membership, yet.

Glocks may not be the most accurate gun, but they were not really designed to be range guns. They are still quite accurate and certainly suitable for combat accuracy. They have looser tolerances on purpose, which aids in their AK-like dependability. And, besides the 1911, stock (I did say stock), they probably have the fastest reset on their triggers, even though they feel like the stapler that I hang my targets with. And they seem to be tops in durability as well. I would love my other guns to have their tennifer finish. And, unlike other pistols, the frame also flexes quite a little when shooting, which adds to its durability by not stressing it. Are some other guns well made? Sure! Are others close to the Glock in its capacities? Sure! Are some other guns more fun to shoot? Maybe. I think so... the 1911 and CZ75B come to mind. But in pure stark functionality, Glocks are still on top as a combat pistol. Even the "uncomfortable" grip was designed for a purpose to reduce barrel flip with the low axis gripping. I don't drink the Glock Koolaid. They are just a gun. I for one think they should have safeties. After all, 1911s, the quintessential defensive handgun, they have them. Yeah, I know, Browning didn't originally intend for that. For a stock polymer pistol, I actually love the way the American made Ruger SR9, handles. But, it is a pain to break down and I don't think it is as "perfect" as the Glock to which it and the M&P are copies. And, it doesn't have the excess magazines, other parts, sights, etc., that the Glock does. An updated, and ergonomic Glock (not the GEN 4), but an updated modernized one, if Glock ever gets around to it, would kick some M&P tail. If you like pure functionality and minimalism, a Glock is an absolute engineering masterpiece! I wouldn't trade for a Beretta or an M&P, or even a SIG, but they are nice. Diamond is right. He isn't drinking the koolaid. He is expressing facts about the Glock. You guys are right in that the Glock isn't always the most comfortable thing to shoot, or the best thing for the job (unless it is combat and combat accuracy and reliability). Guys, give the Glock a rest. Jealousy isn't a good thing! Getting back to the post. I say get the thumb safety, if you are even considering it. And, since you started this thread, you must be. If you came out gung ho for not getting it, then I would suggest not to. But, since you are uncertain, I would go ahead and get it.

That's why we hav an NGF family and a TP. Look what happened to the man in NJ who's sentence was commuted. Pass that Snapple over hear!

It is not about that, because you have to consiously know if you put the safety on or not. You are still using your head. It isn't about whether or not you put your finger on the trigger. You should train not to do that, anyway. The thing is that if something unusual happens and something catches that trigger, not your finger which should not be there, that would be a bad thing to occur. With a thumb safety, you still have to have the primary safety installed, your head. And, many of us are not able to train as much as we want, and even though we practice the rules of owning a handgun, that safety would be better than not having it. If you don't feel you need one, that is fine with me. But let me have the option.

Get a Glock, instead, and have a cominolli safety installed and call it a day. Heck, get the Siderlock and a NY Trigger installed, too. If I wanted an M&P and the safety was available, I would get it. especially if it is easy to remove/disable. Does anybody know what this requires? Seriously, I like thumb safeties. And, with the proper training you can handle the safety, just as you can get away without it with the proper training. It shouldn't make a hill of beans with todays modern firearms in terms of reliability. I would check out the ergonomics with it, though. Can you manipulate it easily? If you don't want the firearm to fire, there should be a setting on it to do this that would allow you to reholster with some relief, etc. I will say that I don't like grip safeties, though. I love the 1911, but would probably not choose it as my first choice to carry it for that reason. Additionally, I really like the Glock, but I will always feel it is lacking in perfection because it doesn't have the OPTION of a factory safety. If I could checkout a thumb safety installed on the Glock and it felt right and it worked for my hand and looked OK, I would get one installed tomorrow. If I could carry it, I would get it installed anyway. As a range toy and a nightstand gun, it doesn't matter as much. And, although the market might be smaller, there would be plenty of people that would probably buy it with the safety if I chose to sell it (Although, I will never sell my G19). Take the advice above and get the safety if you are planning on installing the hair trigger.

I agree on the ugliness of the XD, and I don't like the grip safety.

PX4 is on my short list. I think there are much more attractive guns, such as a 92FS or a CZ75B, but I love the PX4 trigger. I wish it would accept the 92 magazines, though. I would certainly like to have one, but I cannot decide between that and the FNH FNX. I think I actually prefer the FNH FNX-9, though. It looks better and it a little less blocky feel to me (imagine that)! Yes, I like the FNX. If I could get magazines for it that were NJ commpliant, even 10-rounders. But, there are two things I don't like about the FNH. It cannot be completely broken down and has to be factory-serviced, and it will not accept the magazines from the soon-to-be released FNS. I might have to get both to fully decide which I like better, though, and I might need to compare it to the Stoeger Cougar as well. Everyone should have a gun with a name like Cougar. It sounds better than Storm. Still, the PX4's beauty kinda grows on you. And, the grip feels really good and that trigger is awesome. If anything, I mimight have to get this for my wife. Really nice photo, by the way.