I sent them both emails and will give H-S Precision and territorial supplies (where I bought them from) a call tomorrow and raise hell

I have a Remington 870 super-mag shotgun. Does anyone know where i can order a shorter barrel for it? Thanks

Cabelas or Bass Pro might have em. Im not really sure

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/te...O-8859-1#chart

That might help..or



http://www.remington.com/products/fi...ry_barrels.asp




You could always just saw it off lol

Here is one on Gunbroker. It is used, but he has two of them both 20".

Ability, maybe, but intent? How does one determine that?

With 23 years in law enforcement, I can safely say that not everyone who robs a store with a gun has the intent to kill. :-)

My apologies. Yes, I meant the Taurus 24/7. From what I understand, it's a great weapon for a great price.

Point granted. That is a bad situation. Unfortunately, he has the initiative thus far in this engagement. A very bad start for an armed bystander.

Icehog stole my thunder and made my point on that particular aspect of this situation.

Do you really think so? I think that could be a fabulous philosophical discussion if we ever get the opportunity to HERF. Even though I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd ammendment and completely agree that any educated, trained, law-abiding citizen has the right to defend themself and their family, I also have a hard time with someone losing their life when it's not absolutely necessary to preserve the lives of others.

Unfortunately, I wasn't there, didn't see what the armed bystander saw and can't negatively judge him for taking action. I don't want that statement to make me sound hypocritical in regards to my previous comments here, I want to make a clarification on that. IMPO, any armed bystander who chooses to enter into an armed dispute and comes away shot ( multiple times just enforces the point ) isn't in a good shoot. I wouldn't doubt it was a righteous kill.

Couldn't agree more.

Again, hard to speculate on. Depending on what the grand jury decides, it could be determined that when the armed bystander took action, noone's lives were being threatened anymore and that would thereby make the bystander's action criminal.

Florida law states that deadly force can only be used when it can be proven the person using deaedly force was defending themself or another in the face of an immediate life threatening situation. The moment that immediate threat has passed, the armed person may no longer use deadly force. An example of my point would be: If you walk up to your home and you come face to face with someone who has just walked out of your home after killing a loved one inside, you can not use deadly force on them.

I'm not a big Glock fan primarily because to me they have the ergonomics of a brick. If I was going to buy one it would probably be the G36 due to the single stack design. High-capacity is nice, but usually not required. Statistics show that usually 1-2 rounds is all the shots fired most every time. My Kimber magazine holds 8 and I get 1 in the chamber since SAO are carried cocked and locked. So, I don't see too many situations where I'll need more than 9 rounds of .45ACP. It could happen but not likely.

That said my next holster purchase will be a shoulder rig with a dual mag pouch on the opposite side. This is primarily for balancing the weight of the pistol but, the extra capacity doesn't hurt.

Again I agree with the statements above. Shoot first, buy second. It's the only way you can know you'll be happy with an investment of $400-$1000.

I agree.

Catfish,

While I think most are on the same side in this debate. I think many disagree on the issue of whether or not the CCW holder should have shot.

I believe that as soon as the perp brandishes their firearm, they are threatening the lives of everyone in the room/building. Nobody knows what the perp will do next so the best course of action is to wait until you have the opportunity to draw and fire safely; safely for the CCW holder and anyone in the path of his shot.

Michigan had a story hit the news a few years ago where a woman was being beaten with a metal pipe on the side of some side street. She was within moments of being beaten to death. Someone drove up, stopped, shot the assailant in the head, and drove away. The reason the person was believe to have drove away was because they were either carrying a gun illegally or they were a legal CCW holder who didn't want to be charged with a crime. What crime you ask? Failing to flee the scene. Until July 1, 2004 any CCW holder was required to flee the scene if at all possible before resorting to using their firearm. Sounds logical, except in the case above a CCW holder would have been guilty of a felony. So, the law was changed to a "stand your ground" position. Now as a CCW holder I do not have to flee. If I am in no violation of the law when I am presented with a commission of a felony or life threatening bodily harm to me/others, I have the right to defend myself/others.

Just my :-)

The perp was holding someone at gunpoint making demands this constitutes an immediate life threatening situation. The perp should have been killed. Rant over. Catfish i respect your views but they are just different than mine.

Thank you for your service.

:-) Quoted for truth.

:-) Thank you Tom!

I echo the above, thanks Tom.


Catfish, I just remembered that the Michigan law I spoke of (stand your ground) was lifted almost word for word from a Florida law passed a year or two earlier. I think we should both double-check our state laws. Neither of us want to be unsure in a situation like that.

Indeed. :-)

Glad Tom said it. I'm also reluctant to risk my life to save a bank or store's cash register, and didn't become a freelance policeman when I got a license to carry a concealed weapon.

I like to think if I saw someone at risk of losing their life in the act of a felony, I would help, but until I am in such a high stress situation, it's easy to type away about what a hero I would be.

I have no doubt at all that if a bad guy entered my house, I would rack the Mossberg 500 at blast him to hell though.....:-)

I've gone through a lot of scenarios in my head and read books on self defense and am under the impression that situational awareness and avoidance come first.

Also, you're normally looking at a long and expensive trial if you are involved in a shooting, so I like to think I pick my fights carefully with the best chance to win.

Firing off a shot at a guy robbing a store might sound noble, but you better make damn sure you're a perfect shot.

Lately, I've been spending most of my forum time in a gun forum and some of the guys are pretty gung ho. One guy's signature line really sticks with me...

"It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

Interesting.

I just wanted to say that I am not making any judgements on any opinions in here, I believe that a suspect with a gun has the ability to kill and creates a "deadly force" situation by having the weapon. I was just pointing out that not everyone who commits a crime with a gun has an intent to kill, but they have certainly put themselves in a position to be justifiyably killed by creating the deadly force situation. The suspect's intent is no longer relevant when he points a gun at anyone....he has made his bed.

This is a great example of the possible ramifications of pulling your weapon and / using it. There have been times I've been reading / researching case history, etc. and seriously contemplated not being armed for self defense in public. :-)