TexasCHLforum.com

austinrealtor wrote:

YabuUS wrote:I have a lot of confidence in the safety of modern handguns - so much so that I plan to carry my Millennium Pro .45 in a "Smart Carry" rig that's worn around the waist. The gun sits in a pouch with the muzzle pointing directly at your private parts. How's that for "confidence"?

Rule # 2: never point the muzzle of a firearm at anything you do not intend to DESTROY

- I intend to destroy whatever surface I am walking on.

Only time i've had a gun "go off" is when I pulled the trigger

Ammunition, guns and people...You can have any two of the three and nobody will get hurt without someone being feloniously stupid. But when you put all three together in the same place at the same time, combine with just the slightest bit of ignorance, distraction, ego, fatigue, or stupidity, and you are sure to eventually have a story of a gun that just "went off." As others have said, this generally doesn't happen. Those saying otherwise are usually trying to deny responsibility for their own mistakes.

I've fired over a million rounds in the last twenty years...A substantial chunk of it on the taxpayers dime in high school and college. And while I've seen a number of interesting accidents with guns, I can count on one hand the number of guns that I've personally witnessed discharging without someone's booger-hook or another object engaging and activating the trigger. Two such incidents involved crew served weapons being loaded improperly and the other three involved guns that were improperly assembled or otherwise compromised during assembly that discharged when safeties or selectors were moved to/from the fire or safe position while a round was in the chamber.

There were some old west (19th century) single-action wheelguns that could go off from the jarring forces of running, walking, riding a horse, or dismounting a horse.

I believe it was common for some to leave the chamber directly under the hammer empty to avoid an unintended discharge.

I'll leave it to a true historian to confirm the veracity of this legend and to identify the specific models of firearms demonstrating this trait.

fickman wrote:There were some old west (19th century) single-action wheelguns that could go off from the jarring forces of running, walking, riding a horse, or dismounting a horse.

I believe it was common for some to leave the chamber directly under the hammer empty to avoid an unintended discharge.

I'll leave it to a true historian to confirm the veracity of this legend and to identify the specific models of firearms demonstrating this trait.

Yep, it's true! Users of these early revolvers would sometimes put a dollar bill or other piece of paper in one chamber to "remind" them to keep it empty.

The transfer bar safety was invented sometime around the turn of the century. it's exactly the opposite of a hammer block.
When the transfer bar is away (trigger NOT pulled) the hammer falls short of the primer. When the trigger is pulled, the transfer bar moves up, the hammer strikes the transfer bar, and the transfer bar strikes the primer.

Same here ... tha' English language is terrible.
I went to High School to learn English and finall got in to College, ta git my English degree.
I always wanted to be "A English teacher .... Now I are one !
Mac .45 >>>>> #%%%#

I have not. I guess nothing is impossible, just very, very unlikely.

Jeff B.

I think Glocks are the only ones that do that.

fickman wrote:There were some old west (19th century) single-action wheelguns that could go off from the jarring forces of running, walking, riding a horse, or dismounting a horse.

I believe it was common for some to leave the chamber directly under the hammer empty to avoid an unintended discharge.

I'll leave it to a true historian to confirm the veracity of this legend and to identify the specific models of firearms demonstrating this trait.

AFAIK, only dropping the gun caused it to fire. Now, you might be running, walking, riding a horse, or dismounting a horse when it happened, but I don't think anything specific to those activities caused the gun to discharge.

This situation persisted until Ruger's transfer bar modification in 1973. I have a pre-73 Blackhawk that I would rather carry with five than to have it modified with the newer system.

I've seen a couple that would just go off if left cocked and unlocked, but both were hair-trigger target rifles. One had an adjustment screw that would occasionally back out enough that it would fire when the bolt was closed, no matter how gently, while even in "proper" adjustment (you wouldn't actually feel your finger touching the trigger before it fired) it would fire if left ready for about 3-5 minutes. The other was a set-trigger muzzleloader that almost always would go off 2-3 minutes after the set trigger was pulled with no other external influences.

Abraham, on page 1 of this thread wrote:
Peeps?

Is that a word out of the ebonics vocabulary?

I see these words sprinkled here and there and wonder what happened to standard English?

Props/peeps and the rest of cool-guy speak isn't effective if the word used isn't understood by all.Abraham Senior Member

Here's the 411 (information) on what these terms mean. There's multiple definitions provided by many people:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=peeps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=props" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Urbandictionary.com is where you can go to decipher all the new slang.
Be there, or be square. :-) :-)

SIA

Don't forget about the pops peeps. . . an elite class of peeps.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... pops+peeps

AEA wrote:

Purplehood wrote:. . . So y'all just keep on keepin' on.

. . . Watch out with that "y'all" ...
Could be unknown by "some" as well!. . .

As a traditionalist speller of "ya'll", I've had a few people try to correct me and say that I should convert to "y'all". (Seeing your spelling in the context of this off-topic discussion made me think about it.)

Their reason: it is a contraction of "you all".

I was really getting frustrated at them being right. . . but still being stubborn enough to be set in my ways, I tried to find a solution. Then it hit me.

A Texan wouldn't say "you all" if he/she pronounced the whole phrase. We'd say, "ya all".

Here's my logical proof:
Base singular sentence: I have about had it with you.
Texan singular: I've about had it with ya.
Extreme Texan singular: Ahv-bout had it with ya.

So then make it plural. . .

Base plural sentence: I have about had it with all of you.
Modified plural sentence: I have about had it with you all.
Texan plural: I've about had it with ya'll.
Extreme Texan plural: Ahv-bout had it with ya'll.