1 posted on
02/09/2003 7:48:07 PM PST by
Mulder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
To: *bang_list
bang
2 posted on
02/09/2003 7:48:45 PM PST by
Mulder
(Guns and chicks rule)
To: Mulder
Well the additional receivers and barrels they'd sell would add to their income nicely.
3 posted on
02/09/2003 7:49:25 PM PST by
Bogey78O
(It's not a Zero it's an "O")
To: Travis McGee; Squantos; Inspector Harry Callahan; Jefferson Adams; Shooter 2.5; ...
FYI
4 posted on
02/09/2003 7:50:17 PM PST by
Mulder
(Guns and chicks rule)
To: Mulder
To: Mulder
if true, all I can say is
what a fool
To: Mulder
The heck with what Glock did. I'm burning with curiosity to know if Michael Jackson appeared to defend himself. I won't be able to sleep until I know.
(/sarcasm)
To: phasma proeliator
Glad I didn't go Glock.... hopin the new Springfield takes their market shares.
8 posted on
02/09/2003 7:59:21 PM PST by
da_toolman
(Vivat Jesus)
To: Mulder
Dang, and I was thinking about buying one. Oh well.
Maybe they should ask S&W if this strategy works.
10 posted on
02/09/2003 8:06:08 PM PST by
FreeInWV
To: Mulder
Maybe he is the VP for a reason. Are you sure this is the position of Glock or just the opinion of some guy who makes management decision? BTW glocks are wonderful firearms.
11 posted on
02/09/2003 8:06:16 PM PST by
Noslrac
To: Mulder
Doesn't Glock have a mfg. plant in MD - which has a ballistic fingerprint requirement? Sounds to me that they are geared to comply and are looking to squelch the competition.
To: Mulder
A couple of things: 1) There are millions of hand guns they will never "fingerprint". 2) The smarter crooks who use autos have a habit of picking up their brass anyway. 3) Revolvers don't eject the casings.
To: Mulder
You may recall that Glock and Ruger were ready to go lock-step with Smith & Wesson to sell out our rights -- until they heard the fan motor loading up . . .
To: Mulder
Must be fate. I busted my Glock today for the second time - the "indestructable" Glock, right? Trigger return spring. Crap.
Well, Mr. Kimber hasn't let me down yet.
To: Mulder
I'm not a gun nut, and don't even own any guns at the moment. (I also live in a densely populated suburb, Greenwich, CT, where most murders are done with golf clubs by Kennedy cousins, but I digress). Anyway, how hard is it to change the "fingerprint" of a barrel. Could you do it with a coat hanger? just ham it down the barrel to make new striations? Or would it require more?
24 posted on
02/09/2003 9:24:05 PM PST by
Koblenz
(There's usually a free market solution you know)
To: Mulder
Knowing this, I'll stick with my 1911.
To: Mulder
It's a shame to see this. S&W, Ruger, Glock...who's next?
I don't own or would not by a Glock. They might well be excellent guns, but uuuuuglyyy!
I do own lot's of S&Ws, Rugers, Colts, Brownings, Remingtons, Winchesters etc., and would hate to see more treacherous behavior like what S&W is now trying to rectify. That's just not good customer relations.
28 posted on
02/09/2003 10:04:15 PM PST by
Blue Collar Christian
(Okie by proxy, raised by Yankees, temporarily Californian)
To: AdamSelene235
FYI.
To: Mulder
Very old news. A couple of years back the Glock annual had a thing about ballistic fingerprinting and how they worked to prove that it could be effective.
To: Mulder
Didn't Glock hear about what happened to Smith & Wesson when they turned their back on the Second Amendment?
To: Mulder
The worst part about the (hit) piece was the "experts" who laughably tried to assert that violent criminals wouldn't bother going to the trouble to alter their weapon's ballistic signature.
41 posted on
02/10/2003 8:50:16 AM PST by
jpl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson