|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
The Drawbacks of a Subcompact Single-Stack 9mm
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Probably the hottest niche in concealed-carry guns right now is the slim, subcompact, single-stack 9mm semi-automatic pistol. What a biologist would call the “type specimen” of the single-stack 9mm species would probably be the early Kahr models from the late 1990s. Over time, the market has diversified to the point where it featured everything from budget-priced offerings from Taurus or Kel-Tec, all the way up to guns like Walther’s PPS and the recently-discontinued Kimber Solo.
|
| Comment by:
mickey
(10/25/2017)
|
Hard to shoot?
I shoot better with my P938 than I do with a full sized 1911.
Short barrel means poor terminal ballistics?
See ShootingTheBull410's Ammo Quest series, where he tests an assortment of 9mm self defense ammo in a P938. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
