Quote from: Lokmar post_id=504282 time=1687572809 user_id=3351
On a side note, I highly recommend the new Python. Its 4.25" long for Canada. It shoots 38's like they're nothing and 357's arent bad. Even my 3" Python handles 357 mags reasonably well once I put Hoague Grips on it.

Quote from: "Melson Gibson" post_id=504054 time=1687472245 user_id=3397

Quote from: Lokmar post_id=503985 time=1687443623 user_id=3351
This article sums it up as I remember it. Smith sucked the teet, the other gun mfgs. told nanny gub to GFY.

https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/">https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and ... rnal-lock/">https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/



Revolver safeties did not come about due to government regulation but as a way to market a revolver which would safely carry 6 rounds. Old pistols used to be carried with 5 so an empty chamber was lined up with the dropped hammer. Several safety designs were used over the years and ultimately, the current transfer bar style was adopted at least by Colt and Ruger as I remember. S&W might use them as well.



Smith didnt have to comply but instead rolled over on the revolver lock. The Bush Admin even told the stupid fucks they didnt have to comply and they did anyway!!! Today, they STILL dont have to continue to fuck up their guns with the lock but instead choose to continue to do so. My 4 Colt Revolvers, all made in the last 5 years, dont have these devices. Ruger doesnt have them either. In fact, there isnt a single revolver of any brand I can find at Scheels that uses this device.



S&W wound up losing MORE money by complying. They made a stupid bet and won a stupid prize.



I do own a few M&P 2.0's now. The 9 doesnt even have a thump safety on it AND it holds more than 10 rounds. This in and of itself proves they dont have to comply with the clinton regulations.

They didn't have to add the internal lock, but they were incentivized to do so.  I do believe they may have seen the error in doing so, as their J-Frames now don't come with the lock.



Realistically I do prefer the older pinned models, but being in Canada there wasn't always a good selection of those (barrels have to be over 4" long here, unless one is Grandfathered in which I'm not).  Didn't really want a huge .44 Mag with a 6" barrel at that time.



I guess that's all moot now too, as unless another government reverses the handgun freeze, I'm stuck with the revolver and pistol that I have.  I can shoot them at the range, but I can neither sell them nor buy another one.

Quote from: Lokmar post_id=503985 time=1687443623 user_id=3351
This article sums it up as I remember it. Smith sucked the teet, the other gun mfgs. told nanny gub to GFY.

https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/">https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and ... rnal-lock/">https://revolverguy.com/the-history-and-future-of-the-smith-wesson-internal-lock/



Revolver safeties did not come about due to government regulation but as a way to market a revolver which would safely carry 6 rounds. Old pistols used to be carried with 5 so an empty chamber was lined up with the dropped hammer. Several safety designs were used over the years and ultimately, the current transfer bar style was adopted at least by Colt and Ruger as I remember. S&W might use them as well.



Smith didnt have to comply but instead rolled over on the revolver lock. The Bush Admin even told the stupid fucks they didnt have to comply and they did anyway!!! Today, they STILL dont have to continue to fuck up their guns with the lock but instead choose to continue to do so. My 4 Colt Revolvers, all made in the last 5 years, dont have these devices. Ruger doesnt have them either. In fact, there isnt a single revolver of any brand I can find at Scheels that uses this device.



S&W wound up losing MORE money by complying. They made a stupid bet and won a stupid prize.



I do own a few M&P 2.0's now. The 9 doesnt even have a thump safety on it AND it holds more than 10 rounds. This in and of itself proves they dont have to comply with the clinton regulations.

Quote from: "Melson Gibson" post_id=503943 time=1687416145 user_id=3397

Quote from: Lokmar post_id=503908 time=1687383557 user_id=3351
This isnt unlike the controversy created when Smith & Wesson got onboard with gun control and even started putting internal trigger locks on their revolvers, commonly called "The Hillary Hole". S&W was owned by an English or some other Eurotrashian company at the time. Well, it took 2 more sales of the business and 20+ years before people "got over" that bullshit. I still wont buy a S&W revolver with a fukin lock on it.



So, Bud Light might make a comeback.......in another fucking generation.

S&W was pushed into a corner and didn't really have much of a choice.  As the owner of a S&W Hillary Hole'd revolver (.357 Magnum Model 66), I studied up a bit on this.  In fact, that's not the only changes that were made.  I could also argue that doing away with the hammer mounted firing pin was the first change on a revolver that most of us would be familiar with, whether we know guns or not, but that's a completely separate change for separate reasons.



So the biggest purchaser of S&W revolvers used to be police forces.  Cops in many parts of the world historically packed a .38/.357 revolver.  This meant a lot of sales.  Then semi-auto's started replacing them...  Typically Glock's.  Now S&W was in trouble financially, having lost all of those supply contracts.  You are now given two choices:  Your business fails (or at least the revolver portion of that business fails), or the government gives you a bit of undisclosed 'help' to keep you afloat, but with one caveat:  You need to incorporate an internal lock.



And they did.  At least they don't scribe a warning onto the barrel like my Ruger .357 Mag had...

Quote from: DKG post_id=503894 time=1687365399 user_id=3390
An executive with Bud Light maker Anheuser-Busch said the boycott against the brand was a "wake-up call" and claimed the light beer will make a comeback.



"It's tough to see the controversial and divisive debates that have been happening in the U.S. in the last couple of weeks involving lots of brands and companies, including and especially Bud Light," Anheuser-Busch's global chief marketing officer, Marcel Marcondes, told the Cannes Lions International Festival, according to a report from AdAge. "It's tough exactly because what we do is all about bringing people together."





Elaborating, Marcondes said the backlash was a "wake-up call" for marketers like himself to be "very humble" amid controversy and during "times like this."

Quote from: Lokmar post_id=503908 time=1687383557 user_id=3351
This isnt unlike the controversy created when Smith & Wesson got onboard with gun control and even started putting internal trigger locks on their revolvers, commonly called "The Hillary Hole". S&W was owned by an English or some other Eurotrashian company at the time. Well, it took 2 more sales of the business and 20+ years before people "got over" that bullshit. I still wont buy a S&W revolver with a fukin lock on it.



So, Bud Light might make a comeback.......in another fucking generation.

Quote from: DKG post_id=503894 time=1687365399 user_id=3390
An executive with Bud Light maker Anheuser-Busch said the boycott against the brand was a "wake-up call" and claimed the light beer will make a comeback.



"It's tough to see the controversial and divisive debates that have been happening in the U.S. in the last couple of weeks involving lots of brands and companies, including and especially Bud Light," Anheuser-Busch's global chief marketing officer, Marcel Marcondes, told the Cannes Lions International Festival, according to a report from AdAge. "It's tough exactly because what we do is all about bringing people together."





Elaborating, Marcondes said the backlash was a "wake-up call" for marketers like himself to be "very humble" amid controversy and during "times like this."

Quote from: cw_ post_id=447354 time=1650399060 user_id=3226
Thanks for the replies.  However, answering When, Who, and, Why, to my What and Where question isn't really very useful!

 (Don't type CBT three times in a row.)

Quote from: Poppy post_id=447276 time=1650331319 user_id=3287
CBT has five members at most, the "Dinosaur poop" Facebook group has more members than that.

Quote from: cw_ post_id=447261 time=1650320298 user_id=3226

Quote from: Fashionista post_id=447259 time=1650314537 user_id=3254
https://i.imgur.com/Aax7tH5.gif">https://i.imgur.com/Aax7tH5.gif[/img]

CIndybeentrippin forum

Quote from: cw_ post_id=447261 time=1650320298 user_id=3226

Quote from: Fashionista post_id=447259 time=1650314537 user_id=3254
https://i.imgur.com/Aax7tH5.gif">https://i.imgur.com/Aax7tH5.gif[/img]

We had a few of them post here. They were on SG too. And I posted for about a week on their tranny board.



They are all shills for prog money, They don't give a shit how much collateral damage their globalist policies cause. Those Trump voting blue collar folkss are a dang nuisance anyway.

Quote from: "Shen Li" post_id=447235 time=1650303725 user_id=56

Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=447234 time=1650303441 user_id=1676
Libertarian.... purrrfect!

I used to lean in that direction. I'm less enthusiastic about laissez-faire capitalism today.