http://tinyurl.com/nb8dgjs


Nah. It's my new S&W 686 in .357 MAG with a 4" barrel. Those are
snapcaps in the chambers.


--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:28:11 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/nb8dgjs


Nah. It's my new S&W 686 in .357 MAG with a 4" barrel. Those are
snapcaps in the chambers.

===

Don't you have trouble wrapping your fat little fingers around that
grip? I really think you'd be happier with some sort of pink poodle
gun.

http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?i=615381

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:28:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/nb8dgjs


Nah. It's my new S&W 686 in .357 MAG with a 4" barrel. Those are
snapcaps in the chambers.

I'll have to stick with the N frame, thank you.
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.

On 3/7/15 4:04 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:28:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/nb8dgjs


Nah. It's my new S&W 686 in .357 MAG with a 4" barrel. Those are
snapcaps in the chambers.

I'll have to stick with the N frame, thank you.


N frame .357s are nice, but too heavy. Now, for a larger caliber, maybe
not.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:27:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/7/15 4:04 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:28:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/nb8dgjs


Nah. It's my new S&W 686 in .357 MAG with a 4" barrel. Those are
snapcaps in the chambers.

I'll have to stick with the N frame, thank you.


N frame .357s are nice, but too heavy. Now, for a larger caliber, maybe
not.

Too heavy for what? Concealed carry?
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.

On 3/7/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:27:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/7/15 4:04 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:28:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/nb8dgjs


Nah. It's my new S&W 686 in .357 MAG with a 4" barrel. Those are
snapcaps in the chambers.

I'll have to stick with the N frame, thank you.


N frame .357s are nice, but too heavy. Now, for a larger caliber, maybe
not.

Too heavy for what? Concealed carry?


Open carry out in the woods in a holster. About 10 ounces heavier than a
686, which is also fairly heavy. I would have gone for a 686 with a 3"
barrel, but the one that came up I was offered has the 4" barrel. Still,
it is lighter than the Ruger GP100 I had and sold.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:44:45 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/7/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:27:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/7/15 4:04 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:28:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/nb8dgjs


Nah. It's my new S&W 686 in .357 MAG with a 4" barrel. Those are
snapcaps in the chambers.

I'll have to stick with the N frame, thank you.


N frame .357s are nice, but too heavy. Now, for a larger caliber, maybe
not.

Too heavy for what? Concealed carry?


Open carry out in the woods in a holster. About 10 ounces heavier than a
686, which is also fairly heavy. I would have gone for a 686 with a 3"
barrel, but the one that came up I was offered has the 4" barrel. Still,
it is lighter than the Ruger GP100 I had and sold.

How many miles do you walk in the woods with a pistol in a holster? I can't imagine
ten ounces making a difference unless you're putting in about 40 miles a day.
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:44:45 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/7/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:27:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/7/15 4:04 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:28:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nb8dgjs


Nah. It's my new S&W 686 in .357 MAG with a 4" barrel. Those are
snapcaps in the chambers.
I'll have to stick with the N frame, thank you.

N frame .357s are nice, but too heavy. Now, for a larger caliber, maybe
not.
Too heavy for what? Concealed carry?

Open carry out in the woods in a holster. About 10 ounces heavier than a
686, which is also fairly heavy. I would have gone for a 686 with a 3"
barrel, but the one that came up I was offered has the 4" barrel. Still,
it is lighter than the Ruger GP100 I had and sold.
How many miles do you walk in the woods with a pistol in a holster? I can't imagine
ten ounces making a difference unless you're putting in about 40 miles a day.


My money is on ZERO...

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 22:28:05 -0500, Someone wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:44:45 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/7/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:27:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/7/15 4:04 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:28:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nb8dgjs


Nah. It's my new S&W 686 in .357 MAG with a 4" barrel. Those are
snapcaps in the chambers.
I'll have to stick with the N frame, thank you.

N frame .357s are nice, but too heavy. Now, for a larger caliber, maybe
not.
Too heavy for what? Concealed carry?

Open carry out in the woods in a holster. About 10 ounces heavier than a
686, which is also fairly heavy. I would have gone for a 686 with a 3"
barrel, but the one that came up I was offered has the 4" barrel. Still,
it is lighter than the Ruger GP100 I had and sold.
How many miles do you walk in the woods with a pistol in a holster? I can't imagine
ten ounces making a difference unless you're putting in about 40 miles a day.


My money is on ZERO...

I bought small luggage carrier to put on our bicycles. When I mentioned same to my
bicyclist brother, he commented that they added too much weight. I told him it
weighed only a little over a pound. His reply, "That's a lot of weight when you're
carrying it from here (Seattle) to Portland in a weekend."

I suppose he was right.
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.

On 3/8/15 8:36 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 22:28:05 -0500, Someone wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:44:45 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/7/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:27:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/7/15 4:04 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:28:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/nb8dgjs


Nah. It's my new S&W 686 in .357 MAG with a 4" barrel. Those are
snapcaps in the chambers.
I'll have to stick with the N frame, thank you.

N frame .357s are nice, but too heavy. Now, for a larger caliber, maybe
not.
Too heavy for what? Concealed carry?

Open carry out in the woods in a holster. About 10 ounces heavier than a
686, which is also fairly heavy. I would have gone for a 686 with a 3"
barrel, but the one that came up I was offered has the 4" barrel. Still,
it is lighter than the Ruger GP100 I had and sold.
How many miles do you walk in the woods with a pistol in a holster? I can't imagine
ten ounces making a difference unless you're putting in about 40 miles a day.


My money is on ZERO...

I bought small luggage carrier to put on our bicycles. When I mentioned same to my
bicyclist brother, he commented that they added too much weight. I told him it
weighed only a little over a pound. His reply, "That's a lot of weight when you're
carrying it from here (Seattle) to Portland in a weekend."

I suppose he was right.



There are some interesting trails we hike in the Shenandoah/Skyline
area. The ones we like are not like walking around a golf course pulling
a bag of clubs in a cart. Every ounce of weight you carry on your belt
or in your pack matters sometimes. We usually do Old Rag Mountain twice
a season, starting before dawn. Perhaps you should try it and report
back here.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.