Welcome to the new world.
I would invite you to attend and participate in a DT class with those you believe to be "slight built . . ."
Welcome to the new world.
Go to Boston , some I met looked like librarians .
I never met a slight built FBI agent, female or otherwise . . .
At least the early Glocks, maybe more current ones and some other firearms have an unsupported chamber area near the breech end at the ramp. It creates a small bulge (or smile) right at the rim. You can get a "bulge buster" die to iron it out but it still creates a weak area that can blow out.
During the testing period of the model 1006 with standard loads , the recoil and blast were too much for some of the after mentioned. I made no mention of anyone being issued full power loads.other ballistics test not withstanding would have also contributed to their finding the need for a reduced load.This topic had been covered by the entire gun industry news at the time.If what you say is correct on how it really happened, then I could never have any more faith in gunwriters, gun magazines , or Smith & Wesson for all misleading us with the very same account.No need to rewrite it since I was there. I will, however, correct fallacies when I see them. If you have some info that “female and slightly built” FBI agents ever were issued (or even tested with) full bore 10mm I’d love to see it. Somehow these same spindly agents managed to also qualify with the 14” 12 gauge 870 with buckshot and slugs ( no reduced recoil stuff!)
The Bureau downloaded the 10mm because it did what they wanted it to do. That these downloaded 10s lead to the .40 isn’t in dispute. The rationale for it apparently is, thanks to internet speculation that somehow becomes accepted as fact.
I know the idea that agents couldn’t handle the mighty 10’s recoil is a cherished piece of lore but it just isn’t so. I knew the guys and they saw the full 10 as a special issue item, much like .357 rounds were. They started with a bullet and a goal of what it was supposed to do in ballistic gel. When they got there, they stopped. It is just that simple.
During the testing period of the model 1006 with standard loads , the recoil and blast were too much for some of the after mentioned. I made no mention of anyone being issued full power loads.other ballistics test not withstanding would have also contributed to their finding the need for a reduced load.This topic had been covered by the entire gun industry news at the time.If what you say is correct on how it really happened, then I could never have any more faith in gunwriters, gun magazines , or Smith & Wesson for all misleading us with the very same account.
Well, there you have it!
You can certainly believe what you read in the gun press. I’ll stick with what I saw and know to be true. It’s all good!
I'm not saying that you are wrong. How could I , you were there and I was not. It is very disturbing to me that so many credible sources have all been spinning such a misleading tale.
How did you get the 10mm subgun you carried?
I'd shoot several 40s before making a decision. I own differently sized 40s from the Walther PPS40, S&W CS40, and a couple S&W 4054s. The PPS40 starts to hurt my hand after 30 rounds. I can shoot 100 rounds through the CS40 and 4054 without a problem.
People follow fads. You can save a lot of money by going against the current now and buying a sweet 40. I just picked up a lightly used 4053 off GB for $325.![]()
I like shooting my 9mm pistols but feel more comfortable carrying a 40cal. It really comes down to personal preference.![]()