gwalchmai
Member
Seen in that perspective, Clark, handload liability is about as worthy a topic for internet angst as most of the other things we post about.Clark said:
Are legal concerns over carrying handloads trivial?
- Thread starter Clark
- Start date
- Status
jerkface11
Member
I'll take my handloads in a revolver over any factory ammo in any auto. I'll also take them over clarks handloads in any gun.
armoredman
Member
I carry factory. I prefer to avoid any argument in court I can avoid. Actually, I prefer to avoid court!
Glad to see you here. Mas!
Glad to see you here. Mas!
Gentlemen;
I've tilted at this windmill in discussion for many years, and I'm not going to enter this particular furball very deeply. For my purposes, even after thirty-nine years of very active handloading, I carry factory loads for my permitted CCW guns. Mas Ayoob was highly instrumental in that decision many years back, and I have seen no reason to alter my choice.
That said, may I refer you to a very pithy and accurate saying from our own Jeff Cooper, especially in light of all the numbers/statistics/forecasting going on here?
"THE LAW OF AVERAGES IS FAINT COMFORT, IF -YOU- ARE THE EXCEPTION."
To me, this means that it doesn't matter one thin damn what ANYBODY says about "the odds", because I am going to reduce every single possible source of after-shooting trouble as much as I can, before the event occurs. As stated above, it means that I carry factory loads, but that's just MY opinion for MY circumstances. BTW, when I carry a handgun outside of "civilization", it is almost always a heavy-caliber revolver, and it is always loaded with good cast-bullet handloads. I don't lose sleep over the possibility of having to scrag some scumbag with the handload, either.
I've tilted at this windmill in discussion for many years, and I'm not going to enter this particular furball very deeply. For my purposes, even after thirty-nine years of very active handloading, I carry factory loads for my permitted CCW guns. Mas Ayoob was highly instrumental in that decision many years back, and I have seen no reason to alter my choice.
That said, may I refer you to a very pithy and accurate saying from our own Jeff Cooper, especially in light of all the numbers/statistics/forecasting going on here?
"THE LAW OF AVERAGES IS FAINT COMFORT, IF -YOU- ARE THE EXCEPTION."
To me, this means that it doesn't matter one thin damn what ANYBODY says about "the odds", because I am going to reduce every single possible source of after-shooting trouble as much as I can, before the event occurs. As stated above, it means that I carry factory loads, but that's just MY opinion for MY circumstances. BTW, when I carry a handgun outside of "civilization", it is almost always a heavy-caliber revolver, and it is always loaded with good cast-bullet handloads. I don't lose sleep over the possibility of having to scrag some scumbag with the handload, either.
massad ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 374
Clark said:
Clark, perhaps we can compromise on something that expresses both our feelings. How about:
"I DON'T KNOW ABOUT CLARK MAGNUSON'S HANDLOADS..."
Could you put your engineering skills to work one more time and, using the same Power Factor formula you used above, tell the good people on this thread where a factory .45 ACP 230 grain JHP at 880 feet per second would rate, just for purposes of comparison and perspective? Or a factory 125 grain .357 at, say, 1400 fps?
Seriously, it's sad to see that overworn "struck by lightning" thing brought out again.
In your post just before this one, you write, "That would make being killed by lightning nearly the same risk as court trouble from handloads if MO ever produces a court case."
First, please tell us all what "MO" stands for.
But second, and much more important, you're lying again.
Your statement clearly implies that there have been such cases. But you KNOW there have been. I have named them on "the other forum," and I have named them here on this very thread, and even people on your side of this argument have looked them up and acknowledged they exist.
In short, Clark, you're lying to these people...AGAIN!
For the sake of winning your argument, you are overlooking their best interests and completely ignoring the fact that once the defensive handgun actually has to be fired to fulfill its intended purpose, the likelihood of a hostile legal action of one kind or another now becomes huge. Ask any police instructor or administrator on this thread about that likelihood.
Now, take a look at the last few issues of American Rifleman, or any other NRA publication that carries their Armed Citizen column, that you might have lying around. Read each one, and calculate how many shootings occur within "powder burning distance" where GSR might be deposited.
As was explained to folks on the "other" thread, and needs to be explained here again after your most recent post, your argument is akin to Clark Magnuson saying "You don't need seat belts, becaust most auto accidents don't end up with someone flying through the windshield." Logical-minded readers of the thread would answer, "Clark, one reason they don't fly through windshields is that they ARE wearing seat belts!"
In your postulation, you are conveniently and deliberately ignoring the fact that the reason there aren't more handload-related fights is that almost nobody gets shot with handloads! Virtually ALL the cops and the overwhelming majority of armed citizens load factory ammo. You're telling them to leave a place of safety on this issue and go to a place of danger. Bad advice, IMHO.
And, while you're doing your statistical prestidigitation, why don't you explain how these folks can, without duplicating a factory load and creating a mere cheap imitation, come up with a handload has a proven track record on the street, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of shootings DO involve factory loads instead of reloads?
Finally, for anyone who came in late, you won't get the whole deal on this until you read the whole thread, AND go back to the Glock Talk postings where Clark began this flame war. The links were posted by BlackWidow, if my memory serves, on the first page of this thread.
jerkface11
Member
Mr. Ayoob i wouldn't get too worked up over clark. I doubt that anyone who's seen his handloads would take his advice. Which cartridge was it he was using a DOUBLE .357 magnum charge in? 9x21? or 9x23?
SpookyPistolero
Member
First, I just wanted to thank Mr. Ayood for showing up and sharing his data and experience with us.
Secondly, I voted according to my belief for the use of factory loads for defensive purposes. Primarily, they are well tested, both in the lab and on the street, in ways that I cannot reproduce. I can't test a load I come up with in the same way.
The main reason, however, that I would insist on factory loads is that there is no reason to tempt fate. We carry our defensive weapons in preparation for the very rare, off chance that we might be attacked. We don't leave it all at home, and give the gods of irony or bad karma or whatever the chance to inflict some unstoppable woes on us.
I might trust my handload very much, but if I put 500 rnds of my defense factory load through my gun without a hitch, I'll trust it too. There's just not a good enough reason to ditch the factory stuff, when there is a real and documented possibility of legal backlash from using reloads.
Why not hedge your bets and play it safe? Mr. Murphy hardly needs an invitation. Use factory.
Secondly, I voted according to my belief for the use of factory loads for defensive purposes. Primarily, they are well tested, both in the lab and on the street, in ways that I cannot reproduce. I can't test a load I come up with in the same way.
The main reason, however, that I would insist on factory loads is that there is no reason to tempt fate. We carry our defensive weapons in preparation for the very rare, off chance that we might be attacked. We don't leave it all at home, and give the gods of irony or bad karma or whatever the chance to inflict some unstoppable woes on us.
I might trust my handload very much, but if I put 500 rnds of my defense factory load through my gun without a hitch, I'll trust it too. There's just not a good enough reason to ditch the factory stuff, when there is a real and documented possibility of legal backlash from using reloads.
Why not hedge your bets and play it safe? Mr. Murphy hardly needs an invitation. Use factory.
walking arsenal
Member
Wow
This IS interesting.
Since i voted i guess i'll post my reasoning.
I carry factory loads only.
Heres why.
(1) I've been hit by lightning, twice. It was quite a shock. Sorry had to say that.
(2) I dont reload, but im going to start soon. I have space constraints that keep me from getting into it much. That and 9mm is stupid cheap, almost too cheap to warrant reloading it.
(2) Ayoob makes good sense with the court room stuff. Not only do i carry factory HP ammo. It's the same stuff our local PD carries. It just so happens it works well in my XD sub comp too.
(4) I Like to have as much of an edge as possible in a fight. A court room is an ugly battle field.
I figure why push my luck.
I've got nothing against reloading. If i were going to carry my reloads, i wouldn't carry them until i had reloaded for a few years or thousands of rounds.
Thats my .02
This IS interesting.
Since i voted i guess i'll post my reasoning.
I carry factory loads only.
Heres why.
(1) I've been hit by lightning, twice. It was quite a shock. Sorry had to say that.
(2) I dont reload, but im going to start soon. I have space constraints that keep me from getting into it much. That and 9mm is stupid cheap, almost too cheap to warrant reloading it.
(2) Ayoob makes good sense with the court room stuff. Not only do i carry factory HP ammo. It's the same stuff our local PD carries. It just so happens it works well in my XD sub comp too.
(4) I Like to have as much of an edge as possible in a fight. A court room is an ugly battle field.
I figure why push my luck.
I've got nothing against reloading. If i were going to carry my reloads, i wouldn't carry them until i had reloaded for a few years or thousands of rounds.
Thats my .02
Last edited:
OP
OP
Clark
Member
massad ayoob said:Clark, perhaps we can compromise on something that expresses both our feelings. How about:
"I DON'T KNOW ABOUT CLARK MAGNUSON'S HANDLOADS..."
Could you put your engineering skills to work one more time and, using the same Power Factor formula you used above, tell the good people on this thread where a factory .45 ACP 230 grain JHP at 880 feet per second would rate, just for purposes of comparison and perspective? Or a factory 125 grain .357 at, say, 1400 fps?
The 45 would be 202.4 and the 357 mag 175.
You have written many words and not done your research on my handloads.
I know you like to just make everything up, but try the high road seach function with my name. You will find years of my posts on my handloads.
When I say "the probablilty of court trouble from carrying handloads", I am not saying "the probablilty of court trouble from shooting someone with handloads"
I don't appricate your calling me a liar.
I don't appriciate your referring me to glocktalk where my IP address is banned.
I would appriciate the court cases, so we could read the proceedings.
I am NOT convinced that you have presented any.
massad ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 374
good evening, Clark
Thanks for doing the math. It still comes out to, "Clark Magnuson Carries a .380."
You still haven't explained "MO." Please do...
If you don't appreciate being called a liar, stop lying.
You are the only one reading this thread who doesn't NEED to go to GlockTalk to read what was said there. YOU opened the flame war, YOU know the BS you posted, and YOU already saw it all before you pressed the "send" button.
And, if your .380 loads in a 1903 Browning come out to 186 power factor on your formula and a .357 125 grain at 1400 foot-seconds comes out to only 175 by the same standard, you've given us all the research we need to make common sense judgments on your approach to handloads.
And dammit, Clark, you're STILL lying, because you HAVE to know by now that I haven't made any of this up.
Thanks for doing the math. It still comes out to, "Clark Magnuson Carries a .380."
You still haven't explained "MO." Please do...
If you don't appreciate being called a liar, stop lying.
You are the only one reading this thread who doesn't NEED to go to GlockTalk to read what was said there. YOU opened the flame war, YOU know the BS you posted, and YOU already saw it all before you pressed the "send" button.
And, if your .380 loads in a 1903 Browning come out to 186 power factor on your formula and a .357 125 grain at 1400 foot-seconds comes out to only 175 by the same standard, you've given us all the research we need to make common sense judgments on your approach to handloads.
And dammit, Clark, you're STILL lying, because you HAVE to know by now that I haven't made any of this up.
OP
OP
Clark
Member
Where are the court cases?
Where is the link to the transcripts?
I want to read what happened in those trials, if they exist.
Where is the link to the transcripts?
I want to read what happened in those trials, if they exist.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Mas, I appreciate your honesty and affection. It has been enlightening. I have learned here, as in your articles, that your presentation of information is often biased and wrong.
Ayoob said,
Four cases. Of those, nobody is convicted. I know, I read your rationalization. So of the four, the first one fit. The next two were garbage because you were unable to provide the correct citations. You told me I had the wrong Barnes case. I don't think so. Prove me wrong and provide the case and citation.
The third case, you provided the wrong information. You claim to now have the right case cited. Present the correct case and citation. After all, I looked up your four cases and in 50% the correct cases could not be found because you were either too vague in the citation or too lazy to bother looking up the information to start with that you posted we all needed to review.
And contrary to how you think the fourth case applies, it is NOT a handload case. It is a case where you have showed there was a problem ferreted out for factory ammo and you claim it could not be done with handloads, which is interesting, but just because you claim it would not work with handloads does not make it a handload case, does it? How can it be a case of handloads being a problem in court when there were not handloads in the case? So 25% of the cases you presented were definitely not an actual handload case.
I can tell by your response to my points that you are a person that does not like being taken to task. It is interesting where others said they looked at the cases when in reality they could not have looked at them, not all of them, because the information you provided wasn't sufficient. So all this time, you have been arguing from those 4 cases and half were screwed and one didn't actually apply as you claimed.
This is the kind of work I have come to expect from you. I find that you often have similar problems in your published articles where you claim X number of cases support your point, only not all do.
For example, the article in 2004 Combat Handguns where you present 6 shooting cases where flight equals guilt, only there were just 3 cases that involved shooting. How is it a shooting when no guns are fired? Of the 3 shooting cases, flight didn't equal guilt in one. What did equal guilt was the fact that it was murder!
Ayoob said,
You are amazing. You say that there are problems with using handloads because they will create trouble for you in court. Your were critical of us for not understanding that even being acquitted means that a person has gone through an expensive trial, even if acquitted. When I pointed out two of your own cases where factory ammo caused problems in court, you blow off the contrary cases by saying it is easy for a properly prepared lawyer to diffuse arguments against factory hollowpoints (which apparently would then result in an acquittal maybe?). You play both sides, don't you? As with handloads, factory ammo can cause trouble in court. You gave examples where factory ammo caused problems. So, if using handloads can cause problems in court and still be very costly to the shooter even if acquitted, won't using factory ammo cause problems and be very expensive even if acquitted? Obviously if you have to hire a lawyer to defend you in court and part of the case against you involves ammo type, then it is going to cost you money, acquitted or not.
Then again, playing both sides isn't uncommon for you when it suits your purposes. I really liked how you played both sides of the fence in summer of 2003. In Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement, you had an article on mastering the 1911. At the same time, you had an article in Combat Handguns that dealt with potential legal issues and you cited your lawyer quite a bit in saying that 1911s are hard to defend in court and that the lawyer, a previous 1911 owner, would never carry one for self defense. Why would you be giving tips on handling a platform is so hard to defend in court?
And finally, it has been very enlightening to read your opening insult comments to those who don't share your opinions, both here and on Glock Talk. As a highly respected gun expert, this is surprising. Your insult to Clark reflects the same trait in yourself. You said,
By opening with personal attacks, just what emotional age are you projecting about yourself? Is it that easy to unseat your emotional control so much that you feel the need to insult others?
No doubt you are as guilty as you claimed Clark to be on Glock Talk where you said, "u projecting
Ayoob said,
Four cases. Of those, nobody is convicted. I know, I read your rationalization. So of the four, the first one fit. The next two were garbage because you were unable to provide the correct citations. You told me I had the wrong Barnes case. I don't think so. Prove me wrong and provide the case and citation.
The third case, you provided the wrong information. You claim to now have the right case cited. Present the correct case and citation. After all, I looked up your four cases and in 50% the correct cases could not be found because you were either too vague in the citation or too lazy to bother looking up the information to start with that you posted we all needed to review.
And contrary to how you think the fourth case applies, it is NOT a handload case. It is a case where you have showed there was a problem ferreted out for factory ammo and you claim it could not be done with handloads, which is interesting, but just because you claim it would not work with handloads does not make it a handload case, does it? How can it be a case of handloads being a problem in court when there were not handloads in the case? So 25% of the cases you presented were definitely not an actual handload case.
I can tell by your response to my points that you are a person that does not like being taken to task. It is interesting where others said they looked at the cases when in reality they could not have looked at them, not all of them, because the information you provided wasn't sufficient. So all this time, you have been arguing from those 4 cases and half were screwed and one didn't actually apply as you claimed.
This is the kind of work I have come to expect from you. I find that you often have similar problems in your published articles where you claim X number of cases support your point, only not all do.
For example, the article in 2004 Combat Handguns where you present 6 shooting cases where flight equals guilt, only there were just 3 cases that involved shooting. How is it a shooting when no guns are fired? Of the 3 shooting cases, flight didn't equal guilt in one. What did equal guilt was the fact that it was murder!
Ayoob said,
You are amazing. You say that there are problems with using handloads because they will create trouble for you in court. Your were critical of us for not understanding that even being acquitted means that a person has gone through an expensive trial, even if acquitted. When I pointed out two of your own cases where factory ammo caused problems in court, you blow off the contrary cases by saying it is easy for a properly prepared lawyer to diffuse arguments against factory hollowpoints (which apparently would then result in an acquittal maybe?). You play both sides, don't you? As with handloads, factory ammo can cause trouble in court. You gave examples where factory ammo caused problems. So, if using handloads can cause problems in court and still be very costly to the shooter even if acquitted, won't using factory ammo cause problems and be very expensive even if acquitted? Obviously if you have to hire a lawyer to defend you in court and part of the case against you involves ammo type, then it is going to cost you money, acquitted or not.
Then again, playing both sides isn't uncommon for you when it suits your purposes. I really liked how you played both sides of the fence in summer of 2003. In Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement, you had an article on mastering the 1911. At the same time, you had an article in Combat Handguns that dealt with potential legal issues and you cited your lawyer quite a bit in saying that 1911s are hard to defend in court and that the lawyer, a previous 1911 owner, would never carry one for self defense. Why would you be giving tips on handling a platform is so hard to defend in court?
And finally, it has been very enlightening to read your opening insult comments to those who don't share your opinions, both here and on Glock Talk. As a highly respected gun expert, this is surprising. Your insult to Clark reflects the same trait in yourself. You said,
By opening with personal attacks, just what emotional age are you projecting about yourself? Is it that easy to unseat your emotional control so much that you feel the need to insult others?
No doubt you are as guilty as you claimed Clark to be on Glock Talk where you said, "u projecting
BlackWidow
Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 13
Clark said:
Clark,
It has been said that there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. You have revealed a fourth: Made up statistics. You state "If there are 3.4 million concealled carry permints in the USA" and "if half them carry handloads" are the variables that you used to reach your numbers, in order to make your point. You must know better than this, you can not just make up numbers to arrive at your desired answer. Your statement "if half them carry handloads" calls all of you other numbers into question too, where did you obtain all these numbers you are throwing around? The burden of proof is on you.
Clark said:
The risk may be small but if it happens to me it is 100%, wnich is why I do not go out in a storm with a metal bat, golf club or firearm in my hand. I choose to diminish my risk of becoming a human lightning rod. It does not mean that I am afraid to go outside at all, it just diminishes the risk.
Clark said:
Why don't you just carry a larger caliber gun?
BlackWidow
R.W.Dale
Member
OP
OP
Clark
Member
I am going to have to change this due to Double Naught Spy's last post.
There seems to be no court cases.
If 5% carry handloads, thier annual risk of court trouble is .000 000 000
This could change if one of these years there is a court case.
It could happen
Again, this needs to be stated LOUD AND CLEAR. from my previous post...
-----------------------------------
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=471695
Steve Koski: I'm not convinced. I need to see more case law.
Mas Ayoob: First, it won't be caselaw because that's determined by appelate courts. Which means, from our perspective here, that the guy has to get convicted. In the cases I'm aware of, none have yet been convicted.---------------------------
Again, Mas Ayoob says none have yet been convicted.-------------------------------
-----------------------------------
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=471695
Steve Koski: I'm not convinced. I need to see more case law.
Mas Ayoob: First, it won't be caselaw because that's determined by appelate courts. Which means, from our perspective here, that the guy has to get convicted. In the cases I'm aware of, none have yet been convicted.---------------------------
Again, Mas Ayoob says none have yet been convicted.-------------------------------
Last edited:
i think the truth is somewhere in between these two sides. just because nobody's been convicted yet doesn't mean we can't reasonably speculate on what would happen based on similar cases.
e.g. i doubt most of us would CCW certain class III weapons for a variety of reasons, but one of those would surely be that we would not be treated favorably by police or juries, as they would no doubt consider it excessive. i don't have to be a lawyer or have an extensive precident to exercise common sense.
otoh, i dont' buy the anti-lightning or terminal ballistics arguments. plenty of factory loads use Gold dots and XTPs. heck, there's nothing wrong with ball ammo's terminal ballistics. i think hydra shoks are one of the few bullets unavailable to handloaders.
e.g. i doubt most of us would CCW certain class III weapons for a variety of reasons, but one of those would surely be that we would not be treated favorably by police or juries, as they would no doubt consider it excessive. i don't have to be a lawyer or have an extensive precident to exercise common sense.
otoh, i dont' buy the anti-lightning or terminal ballistics arguments. plenty of factory loads use Gold dots and XTPs. heck, there's nothing wrong with ball ammo's terminal ballistics. i think hydra shoks are one of the few bullets unavailable to handloaders.
AnthonyRSS
Member
I am still trying to figure out how they are going to figure out that I am carrying handloads, if I were. 230gr ball all looks the same, doesn't it? I don't even remeber what kind I put in the gun. Remington, I think. I figure, if anything were to really happen, they would assume you shot the guy with handloads because you handload, regardless of whether or not you had handloads in your gun at the time.
Still trying to figure out that .380 load, though. I am glad I don't shoot with you...
Still trying to figure out that .380 load, though. I am glad I don't shoot with you...
BigSlick
Member
I guess the only resolution to this dilemma is buy gunshow reloads
The Bushmaster
Member
Halvey...Your link doesn't work...
Clark...A .380 with a power factor better then a .357 magnum??? Hotrodding a .380 seems like an oxymoron not to mention very dangerous. To begin with, I wouldn't even carry a .380. I concider 9mm X 19 to be the minimum for carry.
Massad...Although I have enjoyed many of your magazine articles. I believe that the number of cases that you have mention are not enough to convince very many that loading "carry weapon" with handloads is a bad idea.
Massad and Clark...Please continue. I'm not bored yet...
Clark...A .380 with a power factor better then a .357 magnum??? Hotrodding a .380 seems like an oxymoron not to mention very dangerous. To begin with, I wouldn't even carry a .380. I concider 9mm X 19 to be the minimum for carry.
Massad...Although I have enjoyed many of your magazine articles. I believe that the number of cases that you have mention are not enough to convince very many that loading "carry weapon" with handloads is a bad idea.
Massad and Clark...Please continue. I'm not bored yet...
I fixed the link, but Mas said it here:
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=471695
Why not hotrod a .380 if you can? I can get 1000 fps out of my P3At with a 100 gr RN bullet. Besides, I have 3 reloading manuals that list 3 different max charges for the combo I use. I worked it up safely, and can shoot it.
http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=471695
Why not hotrod a .380 if you can? I can get 1000 fps out of my P3At with a 100 gr RN bullet. Besides, I have 3 reloading manuals that list 3 different max charges for the combo I use. I worked it up safely, and can shoot it.
The Bushmaster
Member
Halvey...How do you say, without starting a side war on this string, that popguns just don't get it with me. Winter carry is a mod 19 2 1/2" and summer carry is a well tested Wonder nine Firestar. I'm one of those arcaic old farts that believes that bigger is better when it comes to self defence. I would carry my slightly modified .45 ACP if I could hide it on my 155 lbs 5' 7" body...
atblis
Member
It may have come up in court before
,but the reason that I don't carry factory ammo is because it's too expensive. Plus I have more faith in my handloads than factory ammo.
I think people who worry about carrying handloads need to get on some anti-anxiety meds.
I have to agree on the CZ52 thing. I really don't think there that strong a pistol. Actually I think they're a total piece of crap (but they are fun).
,but the reason that I don't carry factory ammo is because it's too expensive. Plus I have more faith in my handloads than factory ammo.
I think people who worry about carrying handloads need to get on some anti-anxiety meds.
I have to agree on the CZ52 thing. I really don't think there that strong a pistol. Actually I think they're a total piece of crap (but they are fun).
Kurac
Member
um, maybe we should start a new poll
1.) Do you want to be the fist person convicted for using handloads?
2.) Would you rather wait for someone else to be convicted for using handloads?
3.) Would you rather carry factory loads and not worry about it?
1.) Do you want to be the fist person convicted for using handloads?
2.) Would you rather wait for someone else to be convicted for using handloads?
3.) Would you rather carry factory loads and not worry about it?
You need to read the entire thread. Your chances of conviction are almost nil. The more honest question should be "Of those who handload, do you carry your own handloaded ammo."
Maybe you shouldn't worry so much about what you carry, but that you are carrying.
Maybe you shouldn't worry so much about what you carry, but that you are carrying.
Well, I agree with you to a point. The P3AT is a 7 oz gun. To have a .380 that can shoot at what a standard 9mm will shoot and still fit in my shirt pocket is a nice convienance.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked