On the handgun thing I'm a big glock fan, I own several different models in 9mm. They're not the prettiest, or the most comfortable, or the most accurate, so it's not for everyone. But in my experience (and many others), it's one of the best guns for a functional defense item, and the accuracy is more than good enough for any real-world scenario. They're a very simple design with fewer parts than most semi's, insanely reliable, always goes bang when you pull the trigger.

Here's a glock abuse test for your amusement. I've never seen any test of any other handgun on the market come close to what the glock lives through:

Glock 21 Torture Test - Theprepared.com

The #1 Compact, Full Size, and Modified M&P Pistol Source :: MP-Pistol.com

Its a matter of personal preference. When I went shooting for the first time, I shot a G19 first, then switched over to an xd45. The XD simply felt better in my hand. I know a lot of other people who swear by glocks though.

So, I just got a price quote of $1749 for a upper lwrc A2. Is this about right for a lwrc brand?
I'm looking into getting a lwrc upper.

Thats on the high side, I paid a little under $1500 for mine IIRC from NW Tactical in Ohio. That was a year ago though so that may be the going price now. Where you buying from?

What brand is a IIRC? Here's the link of the company i'm thinking of buying from:Welcome to U.S. Firearms Academy - On Target with Great Prices, Selection and Service

Although he doesn't have it on his website, he said he has the lwrc a2 available. I was thinking that is pretty pricey. So I may go with a POF which is about $1375. But he told me that there were some issues with the pof. He said he sold one to his friend and he had troubles with it. So, not sure what I want to buy now. I'm trying to google to find other companies that could get it cheaper if possible but so far i only found a couple of places.

I went to NW and the upper a2 is $1644. A little cheaper

Nothing against the LWRC guns, I understand they are running well throughout some high round count trials, but if it we’re my money I would buy a Colt or LMT... in either case my preference would be for a conventional gas gun.

I like Colt and LMT both, but my next upper (still being planned out, probably months away as all my hobby money is going into the Z lately) is going to be a Noveske. This one is going to be an SBR set up for mostly suppressed use, probably this 10.5 model since it comes with an M4-2000 flash-hider (which is the mount for the suppressor I want to use with it), and Noveske's "switchblock" for controlling the gas (basically, lets you cut the gas flow back a bit when suppressed, or cut it completely for manual cycling). I'm still kinda waffling between 10.5 and 12.5 barrel lengths though. The 12.5 gives a little bit more velocity, which extends the useful range of the gun for effective 5.56 terminal ballistics, but the 10.5 obviously has the compactness advantage.

Oh, and IIRC is "If I Recall Correctly", it's not a gun brand :)

yea I noticed that now LOL

I hear nothing but good about this company, but the price is on the very high side. Pretty steep. I not sure if I want to pay that much, but I may go with a pof. I hear they are good, and not as pricey.

They are roughly comparable. Except for that hideous rail POF uses, thats what killed them for me. I dont remember if I asked you or not, but is there a specific reason youre going piston? I just want to reiterate that after going this route, Id rather have a regular DI gun. You dont seem quite sure you want to spend this much for just an upper. Youre still gonna need BUIS/optic and a complete lower at the least.

Well as you can tell i'm new to the ar weapons. I hear that the pistons from a few people i've talked to on other forums said that they don't generate as much heat, which mean it's better for the rifle and probably last longer and there isn't much cleaning involved.

I guess for some people they rather stick with the older style, plus the DI system has been used for a long time. Some people rather not pay that much for a Piston system. Personally I dont mind paying a little more for a quality build AR. It's just that for an upper costing over $1700 for lwrci a2 and over $1800 for an a3 it's just a tad bit much. That's why I'm leading toward the POF which cost about $1395 for an upper, still expensive compared to the other brands, but I hear that the quality of build is good.

From the different websites i've been to regarding Piston AR's, that piston rifles from reputable companies seems to be priced around the $1300 to $1500 range.
I'm a little hesitant buying from POF because POF is really a small company and who knows how long it will stick around. If that company goes under what will I do if I need certain parts that are proprietary? Plus, I talked to a gun store owner in reno, NV and he told me that he and his buddy had some problems with the pof. I have to ask him what were the problems. That worries me a little.

How come you don't like the rail system on the pof? It seems similar to other rails systems i've seen POF rail
I'm not sure if I want to go with the 14.5 or the 16".
I also here that the 5.56 AR's can use the 6.8 ammo, but all you need is a different barrel. Is this true? Or do you have to get a different lower rec?

By the way what does BUIS stand for? I'm thinking about getting a spikes tactical lower. But I haven't done a lot of research for lowers yet. I also read that Kaiser defense make pretty good lowers.
I noticed on some lowers, that said 2 stage trigger! What does that do?
But I just need to make a quick decision soon cause who know what laws will be passed regarding AR's, especially in Cali.

Well first off, before you even get your hopes up check out the laws in CA. I dont really remember them too well but they arent good thats for sure. Cali legal guns are pretty neutered (sp?)

But for conversations sake- Have you been over to AR15_com? There is a ton of info over there. You have to install a BS filter because a lot of it is pretty biased but that site is THE resource for the AR.

BUIS is Back Up Iron Sight. Since Many of the AR nowadays come with just flat rails every where (like the M6A2) you need to provide your own sights. Magpul, Troy, M.I, GGG, La Rue, and LMT are some good ones. Or you could just go straight optic which is how I have my LWRC now at the moment (just an ACOG). While were on the topic of sights, Ill give you a quick primer on "co-witness" which is when you can see your iron sights through your optic. Either full co witness in the middle or the lower 1/3 of the optic is most popular. Just something to keep in mind when looking at the specific rail on the upper.

As for POF vs LWRC. The rail is way to bulky for me. In general full railed gun are very much heavier so the POF is just too much IMO, I just didnt like it. Personal preference aside I dont think you can go wrong with either.

If you want to shoot 6.8 or any other caliber youll need a new upper and mags to do so reliably. A good one to look at right now is S&W's 5.45x39 upper since that ammo is so damn cheap right now. Lowers, as long as they are to spec I dont feel one is better than any other. Just go fo rthe cheapest from a reputable brand, no fly by night back of Shotgun News adds for $50 or crap like that. I have a CMMG and an AERO Precision, I prefer the latter just because the markings are a little different. The 2 stage trigger is usually in some type of "match" variant and IMO a waste. I go for more of a field grade gun so I just stick with the trigger that comes in the lower parts kit (LPK).

As for the rage these days, the Piston vs DI question. How much are you going to be shooting? The piston guys like to say that they can take the bolt out after shooting XX number of rounds and it cool to the touch, thats fine but now the operating group (ie piston) is hot as hell and guess what? Its right where you hold the forearm and in front of your optic (mirage anyone?). In addition, and as you somewhat alluded to is the bunch of new moving parts that may break and good luck getting new ones! POF does offer replacement op group parts but theyre a couple hundred bucks. LWRC does not or did not when I got mine. A DI AR has a gas tube, and as long as you have a spare bolt youre gtg. Are you the type to shoot guns and not clean them at all? Ive shot AR's all day in salt spray in the middle of the ocean and had not one failure. Ditto for being in the desert up in Camp Pendleton. Now if youre going to be blasting thousands of rounds out per week in desert sandstorms and not doing any maintenance you may have a problem. But who does this? I think the regular AR is very nicely balanced, but find the piston to be front heavy. And to be honest the AR is pretty damn simple (remember KISS) and that appeals to me.

Also have you heard of carrier tilt? Real quick here. Some say its an issue(DI guys) some say its not(piston guys). All I know is that on my LWRC I have marks on the bottom of the receiver extension from the carrier rubbing on it. I dont like stuff like that. On the DI (direct impingment) AR the gases come straight back into the carrier key, but with the piston the op rod pushes back on a solid carrier key, and it is said that due to the inherent design of the AR the carrier has no support so it is knocked of kilter and contacts the receiver extension. Ive seen some pretty banged up pics myself. It probably isnt enough to cause any real damage, even over long term automatic fire but it doesnt give me a fuzzy.

Now Im not trying to talk you out of buying what you want, just giving you an un-biased opinion from someone who has both. If you went with a standard AR you could have a top tier complete gun (like say a Colt LE 6920) for around what youd pay for one of those uppers out the door and youd never know the difference.

Picked up a sweet ruger service 6 357 Mag.
just about in perfect condition, hasn't been fired much.

http://www.the370z.com/members/grahf...4072-ruger.jpg

Enjoy


Bureau of Firearms - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php

I use to be a FFL but sold my business, I use to specialize in AR15s. I can no longer get lowers and entire firearms but I can get all accessories and upper receivers.... If your interested let me know, it'll be cheaper than anywhere else I promise you.

I sent you a couple of pms

Senate rejects law on carrying concealed weapons
Senate turns down proposal to make permits valid despite differing laws

Foes said it would force states to honor laws in more gun-permissive states





WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate narrowly rejected a measure to allow people to carry concealed weapons from state to state Wednesday.


A Miami, Florida, gun store offers concealed weapons training.

The vote was 58 to 39. The amendment needed 60 votes to pass.

The measure would have required each of the 48 states that allow concealed firearms to honor permits issued in other states.

It was the first significant defeat this year for the gun lobby.

The concealed weapons proposal was an amendment to a larger defense appropriations bill, introduced by Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican.

Supporters of the measure argued it would help deter criminals; opponents claimed it would endanger innocent people by effectively forcing most of the country to conform to regulations in states with the loosest gun ownership standards.

Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who is a co-sponsor of the amendment, argued Wednesday that gun licenses should apply across state lines, like driver's licenses.

"People travel," he said on CNN's "American Morning."

"We have truck drivers on our roads, people traveling for vacation in their vehicles, and if you have a license... you should be able to use that license in other states. It should apply like a driver's license," he said.

He argued that concealed weapons deter crime.

But Republican Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City and an opponent of the law, said the proposed amendment would trample on states' rights.


"Wyoming shouldn't be subject to New York state laws, and we're going in that direction," he said. "What's right for the people of Wyoming isn't necessarily right for the people of New York and vice versa."

Bloomberg insisted that guns do not make people safer.

"There's no evidence that if you have a gun, you're safer. Quite the contrary. If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed," he said on "American Morning."

"We have to protect our policemen, protect our citizens. We can't have all these guns, and it's reasonable to have each state make their own laws," he said.

The issue has blurred Capitol Hill's usual partisan lines. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, is one of several Southern and Western Democrats who supported the measure. Others Democrats opposed it.

Before this vote, gun control advocates faced a setback when President Obama signed a credit card bill that included a provision allowing people to carry guns in national parks

Too bad Bloomberg doesn't know the facts (re safety), but regardless, this should be passed, as it is just like the driver's license issue. Yes, driver's license reciprocity means that any state allows drivers from states with the most lax driving tests to drive. Most states don't really even have driving tests beyond what you do at age 16 when you first get your license anyways, and cars kill far more people than handguns in this country.

If they're really concerned about training standards for concealed carry reciprocity, they could simply add a measure to the bill stating minimum federal requirements for the concealed handgun standards and training in order to participate in the reciprocity.

Many concealed-carry states have already independently signed reciprocity agreements with each other anyways, just not all of them, and it's a huge, slow, bureaucratic mess getting every state to individually sign off with every other one.

What New York (and similar states, the very few of them there are) are more concerned about is that their version of concealed carry licensing is prohibitively restrictive. They generally don't issue them to anyone who isn't a judge, cop, ex-cop, or famous person, whereas states like TX are required by law to issue a license to anyone who meets all the basic requirements (which generally amount to not being a criminal or insane, taking some classroom instruction on gun safety issues, threat escalation, and criminal psychology, and passing a shooting proficiency test). So they don't want people bypassing their restrictive issuance of licenses by just going and getting licensed in another, more lenient state.

Again, this is easily remedied by amending the bill to only apply to states with "shall issue" -style carry licensing (meaning it's not up to the whim of a random person in power whether you get licensed or not, like NY is).

Still, we almost got it passed, only missed it by two votes. Fix one or both of those issues and get it through already, lazy-*** congress-critters.

NRA warns senators Sotomayor vote will be rated


WASHINGTON – The National Rifle Association is warning senators that it will consider their votes on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as part of its influential annual ratings of lawmakers.

The NRA says President Barack Obama's first high court nominee has a hostile view of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It announced last week that it was opposing her nomination, although her confirmation in early August is virtually guaranteed.

Its promise Thursday to score the upcoming vote amounts to a threat to Republicans and conservative Democrats whose constituents are strong gun rights advocates. It comes one day after the gun lobby suffered a major loss in the Senate with defeat of a concealed weapon measure.

I see this as a states' rights issue. Every state has different training requirements and different exclusions. Some states disqualify a person if they've had DUI, domestic abuse, felonies, dishonorable discharges from the military, and others have very few if any. I am a big believer in the right to carry, but each state should be able to decide what's legal and what's not. Just like assited suicide, medical marijuana etc.

I'm generally pro-states-rights as well, so I certainly see your point. To me this is a practical issue of concern though, which is why I lean the other way. I like to travel around the US a bit at times, and with the way things are now it's a pain in the *** re: concealed carry. Have to go research the current reciprocity status between TX and the other state(s), and then find out everything about how their carry laws and deadly force laws differ from ours, etc. This stuff really needs to be standardized and simple, because as it stands now it's an impediment to one of the core concepts of the 2nd ammendment: that regular people should have the right to arm and defend themselves (without hours of legal research and big question marks in their heads as they cross state borders).

Part of fixing that is getting rid of the superfluous restrictions some states have (which are arguably too infringing on 2A rights), and standardizing the rest. For instance, fed law already makes it illegal to own any kind of gun if you've ever been convicted of a felony, so that one's obvious. TX extends this in the concealed carry case to also exclude people who've committed class A misdemeanors in the past 10 years, or Class B in the last 5 - that sort of thing could be standardized across states pretty easily.

But once you start getting down into things like whether you've had a dishonorable discharge, or whether you owe unpaid child support (I think we have that restriction in TX currently), you're getting into the murky territory of suppressing a person's 2A freedom's just to punitively enforce an unrelated moral (as opposed to restrictions which relate more directly to a person's likelyhood to be a net increase rather than decrease in everyone's safety by carrying). Encouraging people not to do those things is great, but we have other laws for that, and it just seems like the gun-law version of pork. Standardize on the basics that make sense for restricting carry at a federal level: felons, misdemeanor convictions within X years, any history of mental illness without a clean bill from a psych, restraining orders, etc.

+rep for such a well thought out post. I cannot disagree with you either. If it had passed I would have been happy as well as I can certainly understand the frustration for many people that travel or want to go on an extended vacation.

What's the solution a single federal CC permit that trumps all states...?

Ok sooo I was at the outdoor range today... Shooting my 6.8SPC 16" POF Piston Driven M4's and after getting home I took some pics! Also I have a video of a Headshot on a mannequin @ 700yds!!!! It took 12 rds to get it but none the less a head shot! lol I shot like 8 of the 12 rounds within 1" of the head with a 10x scope...

Enjoy...
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4207.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4208.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4190.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4185.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4211.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4215.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4216.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4213.jpg

Other Gun with 10x Nikon with BDC sight:
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4193.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4195.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4197.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4199.jpg
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...7/DSC_4202.jpg


Plus I have my new ACOG coming this next week!!!! I am excited!!!

Nice bullitt - Ive got a free ACOG coming my way soon I hope :). Got my M3 upper just for it. Tired of iron sights :(

Nice Mighty! I wish mine was free but I did find a brand new TA31F 4x32 for a steal price!!! it cost me $949.99!!!! I mean thats hella cheap!!! I was tired of my iron sights too! shoot it was getting tuff for my 300yd shots... 100-200 was spot on but at 300 you loose the whole target to the iron sight :(

Sooo I got my ACOG :D and I have a tactical shoot out on the 8th so I have to go sight it in this weekend!!!

Not too shabby. I've made shots on target at 650yds w/ my M16 and iron sights before. Of course that's on a controlled range with very little wind to try to adjust for.

Omg, I'll think twice about flipping the bird to a z owner that cuts me off next time. If you guys desire to own MR15s so badly you should really join the army or something. I like guns too and go to shooting range but I've never found it neccessary to own a gun that weights as much as I do. I guess what I am trying to say, cut it out, you're making me look bad as a z owner :)

Find another thread, this one's full of a different viewpoint already... :p

But to answer in detail: First, nobody who's into the shooting sports is going to pull a gun on you for cutting them off. If they're that irresponsible, they're just as likely to ram your car with theirs anyways, so a firearm is hardly necessary. Second, the generic term for these semi-auto variants of the M-16 is AR-15, not MR15. Third, they're perfectly legal for civilian use in all but a few places in the US, so nobody needs to join the Army (which uses not AR-15's, but M-16's and M-4's anyways, which come in full auto). Fourth, they're very light, so they don't weigh anywhere near as much as you. A lightweight AR-15 build is usually going to be well under 10 lbs, whereas a bulkier build with lots of accessories might be closer to 15-18 lbs. Lastly, If you think gun ownership makes you look bad, perhaps you need to find a new country to live in. In this one, gun ownership is a right which is exercised with pride, not a dark secret to be ashamed of. A law-abiding armed citizen is one less potential defenseless victim of crime.

The best-of-the-best shooters in the op-services hit the head shot at a mile and do it in a single attempt. And also these kinds of accomplishements are not something you want to be advertising on the public forums...this falls under the heading "to much information" if you catch my drift...

I see were in the same state, wstar laid out things perfectly. Virginia has some of the best (meaning least restrictive) firearms laws in the country and thats about the only thing keeping me here instead of California!

I agree with the intent on your post, but its easy to say that the mil guys can do X. Its easy to do anything when your paid to do it, and have deep pockets (that arent yours) with which to practice.

I could have got you that ACOG for $900 shipped :hello:

I don't have any :hello:

I agree with what you are implying here. I just didn't want to end up hearing about some young kid who lets a few meaningless scores go to his head and ends up either being profiled or worse yet maybe letting the allure of that particular "dark-side" overcome his sensibility and he ends up getting "sorted out" because he involved himself into something that was way over his head of understanding.

I hate reading in the paper where a young kid under 10 sometimes accidentally shooting there brother, sister, or father and killing them. Those are some crazy accidents. That's why people need to very, very responsible, especially with children or teens around.

I think its proper education of the kids pertaining to firearms. If you just hide the guns, well you know what kids do when you hide stuff. But if you educate them and involve them with the firearms they gain knowledge and respect for them. When I was a kid my dad didnt always have a safe but he always took me aside and showed the guns to me in a safe environment, and I also knew that if I ever wanted to see them i could just ask. I never ever touched them without him there. I dont see whats so difficult about that. I like citing history as well so: you rarely heard about this type of thing, or school shootings for that matter back in the 50's when kids with guns was a much more common thing I wonder why? (I really dont)

Just as a counterpoint though, there was an accident in the 80's in the small town where I grew up where a small boy (I want to say ~4-5 years old) got into dad's closet and found his loaded revolver which was hidden in a boot (of all places - the father was a cop and should've known better) and accidentally shot himself in the stomach playing with it. The kid lived, with lots of surgery and a giant scar up his abdomen. I'm all for the argument of educating kids to know and respect firearms, and I think that strategy works well after a certain point in the child's maturity level. However, there's nothing you can show to a 5 year old, or tell them, that will make them not play with a dangerous thing left available. Any kind of locked cabinet (even the cheesy old gun cabinets made of paper-thin wood with a glass front and a skeleton key) would have prevented that.

That's a good point. That's the big thing is "educating" them would be great first step.