Starting With A Bang

[thaeffman]

I'd have included a revolver in the mix just for some variety. But welcome to the addiction. There's lots of time for a wheelgun since this won't be your last such spree by any stretch....

You know I was seriously considering getting a Smith and Wesson 686 or an r8, but ammo has to be factored in at some point as well

Oh I also cancelled my glock 17c order and replaced it with a stock 17, getting a non comp barrel for it is just too much of a hassle

 

[Tongarirohiker]

At some point, you'll likely add a .22. Wouldn't be surprised if it was a GSG 1911. You've been warned.

 

[thaeffman]

At some point, you'll likely add a .22. Wouldn't be surprised if it was a GSG 1911. You've been warned.

what if told you I had an advantage arms conversion kit transaction processing right now?

 

[Tongarirohiker]

what if told you I had an advantage arms conversion kit transaction processing right now?

I'd say you are a far smarter man than I coming out of the gate with the pistol addiction. I should've bought my .22 first, not second.

 

[Jarvy]

It begins. I started with just getting a Lee-Enfield because I always wanted one. Then an AR15, because I was leaving the army and I knew I'd miss it. I always considered myself a solid rifle guy until I get a Steyr M, then a Steyr L which I shoot more than anything else. Now I'm eyeing up P99s, M&Ps, Glocks and Sigs. It never stops. Ever.

 

[Archer069]

I have never had a buying spree for my handguns.... if it didn't fit with my stubby fingers why by something I wasn't comfortable with. I normally take my time and shoot at the club those firearms that are brought by other members, that seems like the most sensible way to go. For those who have the money...buy, buy ,buy and worry about the fit later.

 

[Avenida]

What you said, I have said in other words. I do not see where I contradicted myself, I think you need to review your semantics.

So you are saying that a gun that does not fit is shootable with good fundamentals, thank you, I said the same thing before you. Are you reading what other people say or are we just wasting our time here?

I can use new words if you need me to, before I do that, stop measuring your #####, put the ruler down and wash you hands.

I also said that a gun that fits + good fundamentals is more accurate + deadly, because you can shoot for longer periods of time. All my guns fit me perfectly and I can shoot for 4-6 hours a day at the range with no pain in my hands, wrist, palms, fingers, nothing. Try that with a gun that does not fit.

I never say that a gun that fits is more accurate on it's own, that was your own assumption and your mistake. You gotta do your part, if you read again, in my statement I had said that a gun that fits + GOOD FUNDAMENTALS is more deadly because you will be more accurate, in a stressfull moment, all the things that you can have in your advantage will make a difference.

If you think about it, it is a no brainer.

Now go and shoot your glock.

You contradict yourself in the first sentence. Fundamentals are what make hits, end of story. The gun doesn't know nor does it care how comfortable it feels in your hand. If you align your sights and depress the trigger without disturbing that sight picture, you make hits, that simple. Fit and comfort are purely for your personal ease of mind. They play zero role in accuracy. The vast majority of standard service pistols all share similar sizes, shapes, and circumferences about their grips. Aside from this fact, we have a plethora of people who say they can't hit sh*t with brand X while an equal number of people say they shoot like a laser with the same brand. With different ages/heights/genders/experience level/hand size etc etc involved, how is this possible? Clearly none of the mentioned variables have much of anything to do with performance. The one variable that does is called SKILL which is a direct result of ones ability to understand and apply the FUNDAMENTALS.

Comfort is what plinkers and enthusiasts look for in a firearm because they are concerned with feeling as comfortable as possible when they miss. Those who compete/train/or seek to improve themselves are primarily concerned with improving THEIR skills with said firearm/system. A long day of practice or training is never comfortable and it shouldn't be. If fit and comfort are key to performance then I best hear that as an excuse when you miss. "sorry guys, I blew that stage because I wasn't comfortable with my pistol." Somehow I doubt anyone would attempt that excuse on principle alone. What I hear from most is this "sorry guys, I blew that stage because my ammo/sights/recoil spring/trigger are off/wrong/not tuned." Honestly, I don't care what you believe, as both lines of thought are wrong.

I'm curious, how many on here believe "fit" and "comfort" are key to performance? And how many of these folks have received professional training(and I don't mean the military, they're 10 plus years behind the learning curve when it comes to handguns. Rifle work is improving.) I bet that most from the "fit" camp are untrained...

TDC

 

[hercster]

I'm curious, how many on here believe "fit" and "comfort" are key to performance? And how many of these folks have received professional training(and I don't mean the military, they're 10 plus years behind the learning curve when it comes to handguns. Rifle work is improving.) I bet that most from the "fit" camp are untrained...

TDC

There's no arguing with technique being of prime importance, but I'm in favour of balance in this "argument". A good trigger press calls for proper positioning of the finger but if the grip is too big for the shooter he or she will have to compensate and other aspects of the grip will suffer. Why start learning with a built in disability? I've had some very good pistols in my stable. The SIG X-Five is a bit of a hand full or it was for me. Installing a "short" trigger helped me and fortunately that was an option. Releasing the magazines in IPSC competition was a challenge for me so I was able to get a more suitable mag release. These options are not always available so being able to operate the controls easily is important as "poor" fit causes the learner to focus on overcoming physical issues rather than focus on developing good fundamentals.

My SIG P-210 is another example. It's a wonderful pistol but I bought that gun after two or so years with a 1911. I found the safety difficult to operate at speed and so had to play with that by modifying the grip panel which fortunately is wood and yielded to some careful carving and polishing. Otherwise I had to rotate the gun which destroyed my otherwise fairly solid grip. Many if not most new pistol buyers have little idea of what they will be facing in practice. Sadly most sales people are clueless and don't take the time to provide good advice to buyers.

One thing I will readily agree with is that how the gun "feels" at the counter means little as that's a comfort consideration. How the gun shoots in your hand is much more relevant and therefore the advice to try as many guns as possible is better. That said, repetitive practice of poor technique is counter productive. Ask any golf pro who has to undo terrible swing habits. Too bad few of us have access or take advantage to good coaching.

If we have the means and a bit of sense we get '"fitted" for everything from bowling balls to golf clubs. We would likely check the fit on a $300 tennis racket so why not a $1000 pistol? You can probably skate or ski with boots one size too big or too small but why? Most arguments don't benefit from extreme positions.

 

[metalbender]

If " FIT" doesn't mean anything, then the Olympic pistol shooters are wasting their money on custom grips. Some people on here should expand their horizons. The free pistol " FITS" like a glove, an extension of your hand so to speak.

 

[TDC]

What you said, I have said in other words. I do not see where I contradicted myself, I think you need to review your semantics.

So you are saying that a gun that does not fit is shootable with good fundamentals, thank you, I said the same thing before you. Are you reading what other people say or are we just wasting our time here?

I can use new words if you need me to, before I do that, stop measuring your #####, put the ruler down and wash you hands.

I also said that a gun that fits + good fundamentals is more accurate + deadly, because you can shoot for longer periods of time. All my guns fit me perfectly and I can shoot for 4-6 hours a day at the range with no pain in my hands, wrist, palms, fingers, nothing. Try that with a gun that does not fit.

I never say that a gun that fits is more accurate on it's own, that was your own assumption and your mistake. You gotta do your part, if you read again, in my statement I had said that a gun that fits + GOOD FUNDAMENTALS is more deadly because you will be more accurate, in a stressfull moment, all the things that you can have in your advantage will make a difference.

If you think about it, it is a no brainer.

Now go and shoot your glock.

Your contradiction is in bold above. Fit has NOTHING to do with accuracy, fundamentals do. As for fit allowing for many hours of shooting. I have yet to see, handle, or use a pistol that caused pain during use. anything in 9mm/40S7W/45ACP is comfortable for extended shooting. I have shot to the point where I developed a blister on the web of my hand from repeated presentations. The answer there is to suck it up.

There's no arguing with technique being of prime importance, but I'm in favour of balance in this "argument". A good trigger press calls for proper positioning of the finger but if the grip is too big for the shooter he or she will have to compensate and other aspects of the grip will suffer. Why start learning with a built in disability? I've had some very good pistols in my stable. The SIG X-Five is a bit of a hand full or it was for me. Installing a "short" trigger helped me and fortunately that was an option. Releasing the magazines in IPSC competition was a challenge for me so I was able to get a more suitable mag release. These options are not always available so being able to operate the controls easily is important as "poor" fit causes the learner to focus on overcoming physical issues rather than focus on developing good fundamentals.

My SIG P-210 is another example. It's a wonderful pistol but I bought that gun after two or so years with a 1911. I found the safety difficult to operate at speed and so had to play with that by modifying the grip panel which fortunately is wood and yielded to some careful carving and polishing. Otherwise I had to rotate the gun which destroyed my otherwise fairly solid grip. Many if not most new pistol buyers have little idea of what they will be facing in practice. Sadly most sales people are clueless and don't take the time to provide good advice to buyers.

One thing I will readily agree with is that how the gun "feels" at the counter means little as that's a comfort consideration. How the gun shoots in your hand is much more relevant and therefore the advice to try as many guns as possible is better. That said, repetitive practice of poor technique is counter productive. Ask any golf pro who has to undo terrible swing habits. Too bad few of us have access or take advantage to good coaching.

If we have the means and a bit of sense we get '"fitted" for everything from bowling balls to golf clubs. We would likely check the fit on a $300 tennis racket so why not a $1000 pistol? You can probably skate or ski with boots one size too big or too small but why? Most arguments don't benefit from extreme positions.

Your mistake is also in bold. The SIG P210 is a target pistol, not a service pistol. Operating the controls at speed is not a concern for the discipline that pistol was designed for. Furthermore, such problems are not a "fit" issue, they are a design issue.

If " FIT" doesn't mean anything, then the Olympic pistol shooters are wasting their money on custom grips. Some people on here should expand their horizons. The free pistol " FITS" like a glove, an extension of your hand so to speak.

Olympic shooters are concerned with extreme accuracy and take it to the extreme. Their fit of the pistol has more to do with ergonomics and a trigger pull that has near zero influence on the sight picture. If that's your discipline then have at it. If you seek that level of performance and run a service gun, you're wrong. I couldn't care less what Olympic shooters do or run, its impractical.

For those in the "fit" camp, please explain what you're looking for in a proper "fit"??? I suspect most couldn't articulate what the finer details are or should be. My guess is that most haven't a clue what a proper grip, trigger finger placement, and trigger control are based on what I see at the range or match. But, that falls back to lack of training which again, most here don't have and dismiss as beneficial or necessary. Remember, men are natural born drivers, lovers, and shooters. Men don't need training in anything. Talk about ##### measuring....

TDC

 

[Lead hammer]

Not really in the "fit camp", but as a new pistol shooter, I tried 5 different handguns at the range. The best group that I got was from a crappy feeling gen4 Glock. My second best groups (only by about 1/4" ) was from the Shadow, and it "felt" comfortable right from the start, and I ended up buying one. Did I make the wrong choice?

 

[Avenida]

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Talking to you is like talking to a wall!

Keep developing blisters while others shoot great with guns that fit + blister free! take care.

Your contradiction is in bold above. Fit has NOTHING to do with accuracy, fundamentals do. As for fit allowing for many hours of shooting. I have yet to see, handle, or use a pistol that caused pain during use. anything in 9mm/40S7W/45ACP is comfortable for extended shooting. I have shot to the point where I developed a blister on the web of my hand from repeated presentations. The answer there is to suck it up.



Your mistake is also in bold. The SIG P210 is a target pistol, not a service pistol. Operating the controls at speed is not a concern for the discipline that pistol was designed for. Furthermore, such problems are not a "fit" issue, they are a design issue.



Olympic shooters are concerned with extreme accuracy and take it to the extreme. Their fit of the pistol has more to do with ergonomics and a trigger pull that has near zero influence on the sight picture. If that's your discipline then have at it. If you seek that level of performance and run a service gun, you're wrong. I couldn't care less what Olympic shooters do or run, its impractical.

For those in the "fit" camp, please explain what you're looking for in a proper "fit"??? I suspect most couldn't articulate what the finer details are or should be. My guess is that most haven't a clue what a proper grip, trigger finger placement, and trigger control are based on what I see at the range or match. But, that falls back to lack of training which again, most here don't have and dismiss as beneficial or necessary. Remember, men are natural born drivers, lovers, and shooters. Men don't need training in anything. Talk about ##### measuring....

TDC

 

[relliott]

I have a slightly different take on the concept of "fit".

I shoot quite a bit, have taken lots of professional training and do quite a bit of coaching. I can shoot just about anything; look at the design parameters of the piece and apply the fundamentals and do pretty well with it. As well, people who know me and know my background, know how anal I am about things like body mechanics and correct application of fundamental shooting skills.

While I absolutely agree that strong fundamentals are the backbone all forms of shooting, saying that the relative "fit" of a platform doesn't matter at all in terms of individual performance doesn't really eat the whole jeep. Sorry for the M*A*S*H reference there.

To use another sporting analogy; if you tried running a marathon in say, a pair of steel toed work boots rather than a properly fitted pair of running shoes, you would likely find your performance curve dropping relative to your usual mean. You can apply your proper stride mechanics all you want, but you are running with crap equipment and there's only so much you can do with it. A shooting platform is the same thing. There is no gun that can be all things to all people and there is absolutely no question that correctly chosen equipment permits performance to occur at a higher level of function.

Correct application of the fundamentals will always permit a shooter to adapt to different shooting platforms and do acceptably well. The fundamentals will thus always be the golden base-line and will always be the fall-back position when things start going sideways in your shooting and you aren't sure why. When in doubt, it's the fundamentals.

But assuming those are constant, improved ergonomics (relative to the individual) will definitely yield measurable results. This does not necessarily mean that great ergonomics will mask poor fundamentals, though they can, but only to a point. Ergonomics can take you only so far if your form is crap. You can buy a 5K custom fitted pistol that feels like an extension of your own hand, yet still shoot minute-of-washtub groups if you don't actually know how to shoot. You'll just find your self bumping up against the limit of your own incompetence.

Now take that same custom pistol and put it in the hands of an expert and watch it sing. If you use the running shoe analogy when considering which gun you will buy, it may help you narrow your choices down a little.

 

[Tongarirohiker]

Not really in the "fit camp", but as a new pistol shooter, I tried 5 different handguns at the range. The best group that I got was from a crappy feeling gen4 Glock. My second best groups (only by about 1/4" ) was from the Shadow, and it "felt" comfortable right from the start, and I ended up buying one. Did I make the wrong choice?

No, you didn't make a wrong choice. Your range time is valuable. Ever press of a trigger is valuable. Buying the Shadow because it felt right was not a mistake. A Shadow's an awesome gun. It's a lot of money to throw down, and you want to enjoy what you're doing.

Just understand that you will get to a point with your pistol shooting where you'll be able to pick up any other service pistol, and do the same amount of damage. Understand that you'll get to a point where you'll appreciate a pistol regardless of its differences from your other pistols.

I'm starting a new thread on this fit discussion. Sucks that the OPs original message (which was buying 3 awesome pistols) got lost in all of this.

 

[aqsw]

Good for you OP. I am alot like you. I bought three guns (all very different) within the first 4 months of getting my RPAL.
I love them all. I shoot about the same with all of them (lousy), but I am getting better, and enjoy seeing the improvements.
I really like the diversity of my handguns, and enjoy using them all. A friend I shoot with only shoots 1911s. He has four different calibers.
It's like he only likes blondes. I like Blondes, Brunettes, Red Heads, and Pink Hair too.
As for fit, I'm probably not experienced enough to tell the difference. I have big hands and they all feel pretty good to me. I'm still a newbee and have alot to learn, but I'm trying.
Jim

22lr - Buckmark UDX
9mm - CZ75B Shadowline
45ACP - Sig STX 1911

 

[TDC]

Not really in the "fit camp", but as a new pistol shooter, I tried 5 different handguns at the range. The best group that I got was from a crappy feeling gen4 Glock. My second best groups (only by about 1/4" ) was from the Shadow, and it "felt" comfortable right from the start, and I ended up buying one. Did I make the wrong choice?

Your post clearly illustrates the lack of knowledge that most suffer from. Your best group was what YOU were capable of with said pistol, not what the pistol was capable of. Your performance is entirely based on your ability to apply the fundamentals, it has little to do with the tool used. Some pistols by design will cover up more of your poor form than another, like a 1911 for example. The same holds true for "fit". Seeing as how the vast vast majority of handgun owners have zero training, they have near zero concept of the fundamentals as well. Complaining about something as trivial as "fit" is a joke when you see how most operate their guns. Poor grip and trigger control are to blame for most poor shots, not "fit". relliott is on the mark. What I think his post lacks and what most fail to notice, is that the "fit" of most common duty guns is just fine for all but a small percentage of users. Complaining about a minor "fit" issue when you can't depress the trigger without a flinch, or have your finger crammed through the trigger guard past the first joint, or fail to understand and use the reset is a moot point. To add to that ridiculous excuse is the love affair with looks and aesthetics. On one hand the less informed "fit" camp champion a gun that "fits" properly as a means to achieve better results. However, this same group fails to select a firearm that has attributes that pay off much greater dividends with regards to performance, such as constant trigger pull weights and lengths, lower bore axis, no external safeties. I'm sure this is sounding like an add for a Glock or similar striker fired pistol, and you'd be right. The positives of certain designs far outweigh the marginal and often fabricated excuse of "fit" use by so many to discredit these same designs or validate others. The reality is that most can't shoot for sh*t and blame equipment as an easy scape goat. If you're set on improving your abilities with a firearm, then performance enhancing design features should be a priority over minor gripes about "fit" or "comfort". Ahead of both should be training and mastering the fundamentals. The most important aspect when it comes to marksmanship is the shooter and their ability. This is what most fail to understand and fail to improve. The "fit" issue is more hardware solutions to software problems...

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Talking to you is like talking to a wall!

Keep developing blisters while others shoot great with guns that fit + blister free! take care.

Your comprehension skills are lacking. Do tell what professional athlete(or any skilled trade for that matter) hasn't trained(or worked) to failure, or trained(worked) until they developed blisters or sore muscles? I'm betting the answer is zero. When you do nearly 500 presentations from the holster over several hours, you'll develop sore spots and/or blisters. I mention that not to complain or as an attempt to validate "fit" or "comfort". I mention that to illustrate that even a comfortable setup can result in pain and/or injury if you practice/train/work hard enough. It didn't bother me then, and it doesn't bother me now. H*ll, I've shot enough rounds through both handgun and rifle to sustain burns when reloading, holstering or making incidental contact with a hot barrel. So should I change make/model or accessory to prevent this? Perhaps I should shoot less?

I have a slightly different take on the concept of "fit".

I shoot quite a bit, have taken lots of professional training and do quite a bit of coaching. I can shoot just about anything; look at the design parameters of the piece and apply the fundamentals and do pretty well with it. As well, people who know me and know my background, know how anal I am about things like body mechanics and correct application of fundamental shooting skills.

While I absolutely agree that strong fundamentals are the backbone all forms of shooting, saying that the relative "fit" of a platform doesn't matter at all in terms of individual performance doesn't really eat the whole jeep. Sorry for the M*A*S*H reference there.

To use another sporting analogy; if you tried running a marathon in say, a pair of steel toed work boots rather than a properly fitted pair of running shoes, you would likely find your performance curve dropping relative to your usual mean. You can apply your proper stride mechanics all you want, but you are running with crap equipment and there's only so much you can do with it. A shooting platform is the same thing. There is no gun that can be all things to all people and there is absolutely no question that correctly chosen equipment permits performance to occur at a higher level of function.

Correct application of the fundamentals will always permit a shooter to adapt to different shooting platforms and do acceptably well. The fundamentals will thus always be the golden base-line and will always be the fall-back position when things start going sideways in your shooting and you aren't sure why. When in doubt, it's the fundamentals.

But assuming those are constant, improved ergonomics (relative to the individual) will definitely yield measurable results. This does not necessarily mean that great ergonomics will mask poor fundamentals, though they can, but only to a point. Ergonomics can take you only so far if your form is crap. You can buy a 5K custom fitted pistol that feels like an extension of your own hand, yet still shoot minute-of-washtub groups if you don't actually know how to shoot. You'll just find your self bumping up against the limit of your own incompetence.

Now take that same custom pistol and put it in the hands of an expert and watch it sing. If you use the running shoe analogy when considering which gun you will buy, it may help you narrow your choices down a little.

TDC

 

[hercster]

Your mistake is also in bold. The SIG P210 is a target pistol, not a service pistol. Operating the controls at speed is not a concern for the discipline that pistol was designed for. Furthermore, such problems are not a "fit" issue, they are a design issue.

TDC

Au contraire Me. TDC,

The mistake is more yours than mine. I researched the the P-210 very carefully before I layed down the $2600 I paid. The pistol was designed for the military and LE agencies of several European countries in the mid 40's and first issued in 1949 to the Swiss and Danish military. It was only later that the pistol became so popular with the sports shooters. Interestingly, the P-210 and 1911 share a common history and some design features, starting with the military and LE units and progressing to a huge following with private users. The P-210 was issued to the Swiss military from 1949-1975 and replaced by the SIG P-220 primarily because it was too expensive to produce. It is still used by the Danes. The pistol was produced in about 6/7 models most of which were service guns. The pistol is still being used by specialist guard units. There were a couple of civilian complaints about the design one feature of which was somewhat deliberate. The original safety design was stiff and difficult to operate. The magazine release was at the butt of the pistols and difficult to use quickly.

The new Legend line is now produced on modern CNC machinery in Germany. Mine is the target model with adjustable sights. The other 4.7 inch model has fixed sights and then there is the longer Super Target also with adjustable sights. The two "standard" sized pistols use the same much improved safety and while I had some difficulty with it, those with larger hands and longer thumbs would not. Fortunately I was able to consult a couple of P-210 experts and evolved a solution that works for me. While not perfect, mostly because of an eight round magazine capacity, I compete with it and manage fairly well for an old man.

I was very well aware of the guns design and its shortcomings as a competition pistol in the "action games". I wanted the gun for its phenomenal qualities and compromised somewhat because the design and fit issues didn't suit me perfectly. I would have preferred not to but went into the adventure with both eyes wide open and thanks to the expertise I used from extremely well-informed and competent P-210 collectors and shooters.

My 1911 is well designed for my purposes and it also fits me well. So I'm a happy camper.

 

[TDC]

Au contraire Me. TDC,

The mistake is more yours than mine. I researched the the P-210 very carefully before I layed down the $2600 I paid. The pistol was designed for the military and LE agencies of several European countries in the mid 40's and first issued in 1949 to the Swiss and Danish military. It was only later that the pistol became so popular with the sports shooters. Interestingly, the P-210 and 1911 share a common history and some design features, starting with the military and LE units and progressing to a huge following with private users. The P-210 was issued to the Swiss military from 1949-1975 and replaced by the SIG P-220 primarily because it was too expensive to produce. It is still used by the Danes. The pistol was produced in about 6/7 models most of which were service guns. The pistol is still being used by specialist guard units. There were a couple of civilian complaints about the design one feature of which was somewhat deliberate. The original safety design was stiff and difficult to operate. The magazine release was at the butt of the pistols and difficult to use quickly.

The new Legend line is now produced on modern CNC machinery in Germany. Mine is the target model with adjustable sights. The other 4.7 inch model has fixed sights and then there is the longer Super Target also with adjustable sights. The two "standard" sized pistols use the same much improved safety and while I had some difficulty with it, those with larger hands and longer thumbs would not. Fortunately I was able to consult a couple of P-210 experts and evolved a solution that works for me. While not perfect, mostly because of an eight round magazine capacity, I compete with it and manage fairly well for an old man.

I was very well aware of the guns design and its shortcomings as a competition pistol in the "action games". I wanted the gun for its phenomenal qualities and compromised somewhat because the design and fit issues didn't suit me perfectly. I would have preferred not to but went into the adventure with both eyes wide open and thanks to the expertise I used from extremely well-informed and competent P-210 collectors and shooters.

My 1911 is well designed for my purposes and it also fits me well. So I'm a happy camper.

A target gun, from 60 plus years ago. Like the 1911, the world has progressed markedly from those days, perhaps the shooting public should keep up. Its design is out dated and poorly setup for modern tactics. You said it, the 8 round magazine and some difficulty with the manual safety, you manage "fairly well". You decision to run an inferior design is yours to make, but that doesn't validate the design nor the "fit" argument.

TDC

 

[hercster]

Mr. TDC,

What can I say? You're right. You are right again. It's a target gun.Unfortunately most of us just sort of stumble through life with no skills, no intelligence and definitely without the right to preferences and opinions. We are lucky to have you here trying to keep us on track. We are hopeless. I'm going to eat some worms......

 

[Lead hammer]

I've been meaning to acquire handguns for a long time now ( it was the main reason I decided to get my license) but so far its been a waiting game, wait till you are in your own place, wait till you join a club, wait till you take the safety course. I just couldn't take it anymore so tonight I came online and in the span of 20 minutes bought a CZ 75bd, an MP446c Viking and a Glock 17c. I've been reading a lot of articles over the months about what handguns to buy and whats the best out there I figured why not try a whole bunch and sell the ones I don't use later down the road. Now I get to wait for them to get to my grubby paws . (pics forthcoming)

Did you get them yet???