Cute dog, z. Is she good with kids?
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Almost any woman can rack the slide on any gun, with technique not muscle, left hand on slide, right hand on grip, arms straight, locked, rotate the shoulders, right shoulder to the front, left shoulder back, slide racked. Have taught that to many that didn't think they could not do it.
CADPIPE
So far no problems with anyone in the family- people, cats or dogs. But with the Neo that is not uncommon. As she gets older her guarding instincts will kick in and then anything outside the pack is in danger unless properly socialized and trained in how to tell good people behavior from bad. We have already begun socialization training in that regards. The more sights, sounds and people she meets the better adjusted she will be.Originally Posted by gunnut
The more I read on this breed the better I like them as guardians. Not as fierce or as athletic as a bandogge (pit/neo cross) but they don't need bite training. A lot of molosser dogs are gentle giants, not the Neo. They come to guard work naturally, they tend not to be barkers, but actors. A burglar/home invader won't get a warning and a chance to protect themselves. When she is full grown she will have nearly the bulk of a grown man with much more powerful jaws. Plus they are a low metabolism dog so they don't need massive amounts of exercise and do not tend to roam, jump or dig. They have a unbreakable bond inside the family and a super high pain tolerance making them good with kids if supervised. No dog should be left with a small kid alone as it invites disaster. A well trained and supervised neo's only danger to a child is knocking them down or drowning them in drool.
People claim the Neapolitan Mastiff is the ancient Roman war/gladiator dog reborn- utter hogwash. What we do know is that the breed was "discovered" shortly after WWII in the rural areas around Naples. It had been plentiful if unknown before the war but WWII had nearly killed off the breed. However ancient the dog is, the guarding instincts of the post-WWII breedstock come from the Italian peasantry who had been dealing with bandits, marauders and even invading armies for centuries . The threat in the countryside is why the dog is such a good protector of home and family.
The modern "American" Neopolitan Mastiff is not the same dog as was discovered in Italy in the late 40's. As is typical American breeders used too little breedstock and bred for physical attributes over breed vitality. Luckily, the guarding instinct and problem solving was somehow preserved even as the dog morphed into the massive headed, massive dewlapped, massively flewed beast of today. Breeding for physical traits however means the dogs have chronic health problems even for a giant breed. Not only are the dogs inbred, but even the crosses into the breed from other dogs were done for overblown physical traits not vitality. Thus the crosses were likely full of genetic mistakes they added to the Neopolitan's gene pool.
You mean I let you shoot my gun and by CA standards you where not smart enough too?!?!?!? Wow! Good thing we were in good ole stupid Missouri!Yes, the PK380 was fun to shoot. The slide was the easiest to rack out of all the semi-autos I have ever fired. The locked breech mechanism, atypical for a 380, made the recoil almost non-existent. The slim profile is great if you want to carry that concealed.
Unfortunately, the PK380 is not approved for California sale. Us peons are just too dumb to operate it safely. Thus, I bought a Glock 36, 6 rounds of 45 goodness.
Scary thing is I can shoot the Glock 36 better than most of my 9mm pistols.
Heck, I just remembered that my 1911(s) didn't pass that test either...whoops.
Sure was fun shootin all those "dangerous" guns though, huh?
This is a long thread and I don't know if this point has been raised previously but....
It would seem to me that that having all the firearms in the world at your disposal means nothing if you don’t:
A) Have a plan for dealing with home emergencies (of all types); and
B) If you decide that firearms are part of that plan, practice using those specific firearms regularly so that you can build up the muscle memory/marksmanship skills necessary to make having the firearm worthwhile.
If you don't do the above then you are arguably almost as much a danger to yourself and your immediate family as any intruder could possibly be. The idea of having a loaded firearm in the house without the skills/training to use it properly could I fear give to many people a false sense of security.
Making that critical shoot/don't shoot decision in a darkened house whilst other family members are rushing around in unknown locations is not a responsibility that should be taken on lightly. Having said all that I'm sure that those members of this forum who have contributed to this thread have already taken all of the above into consideration.
P.S. If a had to choose a home defence firearm I would probably go with revolver (3" or 4" barrel) in .38 or .357 (loaded with .38)
Reasons: compact/mechanically simple/reasonable stopping power/no safety to forget in an emergency/no mag springs to ruin via prolonged over tensioning (although that shouldn't be an issue if your practicing as much as I suggested).
No offence intended to anyone’s professionalism/experience here with the above - just putting on the police hat for a little while
Cheers All
[QUOTE]Very good point.
Mag springs are quite reliable now. Advances in metallurgy have made modern springs much better than those close as 40 years ago. Cycling is actually what wears out springs, long cycles of compression are not bad at all. I have many mags that have stayed loaded for over twenty years and get emptied every 5 or 10 years or so. They all work fine, every time.P.S. If a had to choose a home defence firearm I would probably go with revolver (3" or 4" barrel) in .38 or .357 (loaded with .38)
Reasons: compact/mechanically simple/reasonable stopping power/no safety to forget in an emergency/no mag springs to ruin via prolonged over tensioning (although that shouldn't be an issue if your practicing as much as I suggested).
I guess there is the possibility if you bought a cheaply made mag, you could have problems, but you will usually have problems right from the start. Be very wary of many cheap mags at gun shows and non-gun stores(like some sporting good stores and wal-mart). I would not trust my life to them.
Are you a current or former LEO?No offence intended to anyone’s professionalism/experience here with the above - just putting on the police hat for a little while
Are you a current or former LEO?
Thats a yes ... a detective, mainly organised crime work now but with a fraud/money laundering background plus some drug work and a little bit of counter terrorism thown in.
"Mag springs are quite reliable now. Advances in metallurgy have made modern springs much better than those close as 40 years ago. Cycling is actually what wears out springs, long cycles of compression are not bad at all. I have many mags that have stayed loaded for over twenty years and get emptied every 5 or 10 years or so. They all work fine, every time.
I guess there is the possibility if you bought a cheaply made mag, you could have problems, but you will usually have problems right from the start. Be very wary of many cheap mags at gun shows and non-gun stores(like some sporting good stores and wal-mart). I would not trust my life to them."
7th, you are undoubtable correct. Still I just can't help worrying about all those fully loaded mags sitting in a draws somewhere and not being used for years on end. It only takes one to ruin your day. A noted this is not an issue anyway if you are keeping in practice and cycling through your mags regularly. Still if you are going to have a "home defence firearm" you are really talking about emergency use and in that situation I like to keep "murphys law" as far away as possible, hence my preference for a revolver for that specific situation... as opposed to a general purpose "carry" firearm.
That's the question I had about loaded mags sitting for an extended period of time.
Many people have asked on the 2 gun forums I frequent and the answer is exactly the same as what 7thsfsniper said: compression/decompression cycle is what kills mag springs. Leave them loaded actually doesn't do much to harm them.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Uncle Sam cain't be wrong brudda! Now guess how many cycles it takes to before a good quality 1911 mag wears out? How long it can be depressed? You won't believe the rating for an AR15-30 rnd mag!
The two Pachmayr 7rnd .45 mags that you shot in the hardballer long slide have been kept fully loaded since 1988. Cycled about 6 times in that time frame. Do you recall any malfunctions?
I have yet to have the need to replace a mag spring in anything, nor any of my 1911s which spend ALL thier resting hours cocked, locked and ready to rock. And they have rocked on demand everytime, so far.
You have a good point and believe it or not, I used to be a very devout revolver guy.
When I was a deputy, I carried a 6" Ruger GP100. Thing was like a tank with about a hundred pound trigger pull. However, at the competitions and quals I could still put 18 rnds center mass in 15 seconds!(Jerry Miculek, eat your heart out).
I carried as backups in various locations in my car, a colt chiefs model, a colt King Cobra, and a stainless S&W mod 29 4" .44mag.
One day at the quals range I pulled the Cobra and commenced firing. Click, click, click, click, boom, click! WTF! All primers were struck, one fired. Reloaded, two went off. Turns out that those cartridges had some hard primers( I guess) but the hammer spring on the Cobra had to be replaced. It was two months old! Brand new gun!!
Point is, anything can go wrong with anything. I like your advice of shoot often, and take care of your equipment. I wouldn't lay anything in a drawer for twenty years and expect it to work right off every time.
I just don't want to convey a false sense of security for anyone here that revolvers don't malfunction, because they can. I do admit that they are probably more reliable in firing every shot without jams because of the nature of the machine. But I will tell you that we used to have a poster here, GraniteForge, who ran a range and was top of his game. He could tell you about some major revolver failures and other type guns as well.
Nothing is a sure thing.
And I also agree that for simplicity, the revolver is king for the beginner.
Very informative 7th (& gunnut). I trained up on S&W revolvers and always liked them, then we transferred over to Glocks and wouldn't imagine of going back. In the event I get back into (private) shooting again I will almost certainly stick with pistols (and just admire the revolvers from a distance).
Here is my take on the big advantages/disadvantages for each.
Full size auto, + more rounds to fire, faster reload, can reload while maintaining the ability to fire. - Crush that grip or stovepipe, unless its a DA you have to either carry with the tube empty or cocked and locked.
Full size revolver- + bigger rounds for smaller hands, does not require a crush grip to load the next round which makes it easier to fire off hand or while wounded. This makes it probably the better choice for small framed/weaker individuals. - fewer rounds to fire, heavier trigger pull vs SA autos, more carry weight and bulk than plastic autos like the Glock.
Here's my take on a revolver being simple. It actually isn't. Ever seen an exploded diagram of a revolver? It usually contains many more parts...springs, screws, latches...etc. Autos usually don't have screws other than the ones keeping the grips on. The new plastic...sorry...polymer autos don't even have those. A Glock is the ultimate in simplicity. The gun itself contains something like 37 parts. It is simple to operate (no manual safety to fumble under stress). Point and click, just like a mouse.
I have a Uberti clone of a Colt SAA. A spring (the one that locks the cylinder and offers the trigger return) broke. The gun was useless. I took it apart and fixed it. It was a small leaf spring that had metal fatigue issue, I suppose. Then I took apart a modern revolver (Taurus 85) just to take a look. Being a double action revolver, it was much more complex than the SAA. Far more than I had expected. I would trust a Glock more than any revolver.
I guess the perception that a revolver is "simple" came out of its mode of operation. Back in the day when autos weren't fully reliable and had all sorts of controls to fiddle with, a revolver was the "point and click" device. Most didn't have safeties. There were no slide release, mag release, grip safety, and the slide itself to operate. Just load the cylinder and it was ready to rock.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
My wife carried a .38 Smith for a very long time. She said she liked it because it was simple and safe to carry. I literally had to force her to try a small 1911. After i bought my Kimber ultra RCP, she shot it and that was it. The revolver was out the door and she now carries a Kimber ultra crimson carry. Eight rounds of .45 in the same space as her old Smith. I couldn't get that one away from her if i wanted to. She wasn't a shooter when we married, now she has her own AR15, her own 1911, an FNP45, a 30-30 Winchester, and a Fox SxS 20 gauge! This marriage is gettin expensive!!
:gunut:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: