Wednesday, 13 April 2016 12:55

Concealment Express IWB J-Frame (brief) Review

Written by

It's not often I am planning for the season ahead but I found myself with the opportunity to buy a S&W (tm) model 640. It was an original series pre-lock original J-Frame 38SPL only. 
They are not the rage any more so I got it a fair price at my local LGS. 

I am also a fan of Kydex holsters. They are lightweight and thin. I was surprised to find that not a lot was available for an original J-Frame. My old favorite IWB CompTac (I think it was called a ShirtTucker) is no longer made and my favorite ankle holster company Renegade had gone out of business. But, I am pleased to see that Wilderness has picked up the line. 

So, for IWB it seems that there are very little variances in the available holster designs. The first one that I tried was a Concealment Express that I found on Amazon for $40 shipped. (http://www.amazon.com/Concealment-Express-IWB-KYDEX-Holster/dp/B00UFEIHAQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460577320&sr=8-1&keywords=concealment+express+642). How could I go wrong? It was a basic holster design with a large clip attachment in the center. Very common, very simple.

Their ad says that it fits a 442/642 - basically Airweight versions of my (older) 640. I emailed them to see if their holster would fit my 640. They replied that it was for a J-Frame. hmm. I clarified and they responded that they had not tried one specifically. Response was very quick. I decided to try one. It fit perfectly.

Well, to be honest I didn't like it. The clip was huge! My belts were simply dwarfed by it. I have an 1.5"-width super-thick Galco leather belt that is too thick for the majority of holsters - especially those with Kydex or synthetic clips. However, on this holster my belt was tiny. Wearing the holster it slid around in between the loops and my revolver's butt pivoted forward and back. I am also not a fan of putting the clip at the thickest part of the holster body and firearm.

The quality of the holster was good. The clip looked like it was one-size fits all holsters. Perhaps that is how they get the price so low. I emailed them about the clip and they never responded.

I think it would be fine for someone looking for an inexpensive holster that they would not be wearing for a long period of time or frequently. For me, I would rather pay additionally to get something that I could wear all-day, all the time. I sent it back. No use in having it sit in a drawer. 

So, that was my first try. lol

 

 Here is a pic of the holster's clip:

Friday, 01 April 2016 10:21

FL reduces CCW license costs by $10

Written by

SOURCE: http://www.guns.com/2016/03/31/florida-dropping-ccw-costs-for-its-1-5-million-carriers/

While $10 may not seem like much, when was the last time that you can think of that a government issued license went DOWN in price? 
This is welcome news to those with FL licenses as it is one of the more expensive licenses (in my case my most expensive license) to have.

 

"The 80-page appropriations bill dealing with Commerce and Tourism for the state was crammed with everything from exempting water-related amusement rides to authorizing tax collector offices and passed the state legislature without a single “nay” vote in either chamber. Relating to concealed carry permits, it reduced the license fee from $70 to $60 on the initial application and from $60 to $50 for renewals."

 

Thursday, 31 March 2016 10:03

EOTech 2016 added

Written by

By request the 2016 L3 EOTech instructor price list has been!
I have used this program previously and it works very well.

 

SOURCE: http://www.goshennews.com/news/local_news/ask-the-sheriff-can-violence-be-solved-with-more-guns/article_e3dbde4c-94dd-5310-9018-2a73ca22f06e.html

 

This is an incredibly well written (dare I say perfect?) response from a sheriff when asked if "guns are the answer."

I quote it here:

"DEAR SHERIFF: Why do you always want to solve problems of violence with guns? Guns in schools, guns in homes, guns here and there; that’s all you talk about. Why not address conflicts in a peaceful fashion to avoid gun violence?

ANSWER: I recently met with a group of citizens that were concerned with my community conversation to arm a limited number of school staff to protect our children. The meeting was very respectful, but we disagreed on many of the discussion points. They said I am trying to solve violence with guns.

There is a misconception among some people that those who defend gun rights and/or promote the removal of gun free zones in public places, are solving problems with violence. Likewise, there is an impression among some pacifists that law enforcement officers are violent people. Both concepts are false!

I am a peaceful person; a peace-loving person. I don’t like violence. I prefer to avoid violence. Every officer I know would prefer to avoid violence. I always try to resolve conflicts in a peaceful manner. Any officer, or person who carries a firearm, and who arrogantly and haughtily desire violence in resolving a conflict, should not be carrying a firearm, in my opinion.

In law enforcement, the goal is to resolve conflicts peacefully, thus the title that should be every officer’s banner, that of a “peace officer.” But any violence that occurs is typically dictated from the choices and culpability of the criminal.

If a criminal takes someone hostage, peace officers will attempt to resolve the conflict without bloodshed, including the use of negotiators. The last resort of force is only taken if there is someone killed or imminently in danger of being killed or seriously injured. Most hostage situations are resolved in a peaceful manner due to the restraint shown by law enforcement.

In a mass murder situation, where multiple people are shot and the murderer is on a rampage for a body count, I know of no situation where I, or any pacifist, would be able to set up a table and invite the murderer to sit down and initiate a peace conference. It’s just not going to be successful.

What will be successful in that situation? The matching of force vs. force while neutralizing the threat, either through the fear of the use of force, or the actual use of force. Sometimes this is necessary. Sometimes there are no options remaining. Then, there is peace.

If you are in the midst of a mass murder situation, and you believe the situation should be handled without violence, and you call 911, you are calling the force of government to protect you from the murderer. Officers will arrive prepared to defend you, putting themselves in harm’s way, and use the reasonable force necessary, up to and including deadly force, to resolve the situation. Your action of calling 911 may facilitate the use of deadly force by officers.

In a mass murder situation in progress, if you choose to peacefully resolve the situation yourself without the use of violence or calling the police, please let me know how that works out for you. The police will come and take photos of the bodies, call the Coroner and investigate the crime.

Those who are serious about concealed carry of a firearm, including peace officers, do so because of the love for their fellow man, to place themselves between you and the threat, to protect others and keep the peace.

Every year firearms are used 2.5 million times in the use of self defense or preventing a serious or violent crime. As a lover of peace, your premise that those who carry a firearm or support gun rights, or even discourage gun-free zones, are trying to solve conflicts through the promotion of violence, is just not accurate.

Ask-the-Sheriff a question by emailing Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.."

 

Tuesday, 15 March 2016 16:52

Today's unplanned downtime...

Written by

was a result of the old (Wordpress) site being hacked - yet again.
It is one of the reasons that I moved to this new site. 

Unfortunately, when my host detects malicious files they shut the whole domain down. 
If you are wondering why it is still running, it is because all the legacy posts have their images hot-linked to it.

I will be working on a way to freeze the old site so that we aren't impacted here again. 

 

SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/12/army-boss-takes-aim-at-bureaucracy-over-sidearm-choices.html

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley at the Future of War Conference had some specific and strong opinions about the selection of a new standard sidearm. Some people may not like what he said.

'Shaw said soldiers don't like the M9 and would much prefer some type of .45 caliber handgun.
“If I had to pick, I would lean towards a Glock 17 or 19 or their .45 model," he said.
"They are easy to maintain and you can beat the hell out of them.”

Shaw also says that another replacement for the M9 would be the one that it originally replaced.
“The 1911," he said. "The .45 caliber is a much better weapon now.” '

Page 1 of 53