Kel Tec Sub2000
Anyone know of these and their reliabilty?
0
-
Considering purchase of one of these neat little critters. In yawls opinion, which of the 2 choices for magazine set-up is best, Glock or S+W. In regards to magazine cost and availability.
Tanx, Taz
"A Fear of Weapons is a sign of Retarded Sexual
and Emotional Maturity" Sigmund Freud
"MOLON LABE !"0 -
In my opinion I would use Glock. They cost about $20. I dont think they will give you any trouble.
"The more guns the better"0 -
Besides the fact glock mags are cheaper, and more redilly available; why would you want to do biz with S&W at all? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ajb101
Besides the fact glock mags are cheaper, and more redilly available; why would you want to do biz with S&W at all?
In defense of Smith & Wesson, they are no longer owned by the British firm that "sold-out" to the Clinton administration. They are currently organized as a publicly traded company (symbol SWB; they trade on the AMEX). There are plenty of good, freedom-loving, 2nd Amendment friends working/owning S & W, so holding a "grudge" against the company for the actions of its former British owners is somewhat foolish.
Additionally, the "S&W" here only refers to the magazine design, not to the company.
and Taz,
I'm planning on getting on of those eventually too; I already have plenty of S&W mags (used in my Marlin Camp 9), but not sure where Hunter223 if finding quality Glock mags for $20. Seems to me you'll have better luck finding quality, high-capacity S&W mags over Glock.0 -
Unless the reference is to LEO Glock magazines, where can one find high capacity Glock magazines for $20? In my experience, high capacity Smith & Wesson magazines are much less expensive than Glock magazines, usually in the $40 range. The supply of Smith & Wesson magazines with capacities greater than 15 round (look for Mec-Gar and factory 20-rounders) is also larger than with Glocks, where the unrestricted factory 33-round magazines usually bring well over $100. You can find junky USA 30-round magazines in the Smith & Wesson pattern for $15-$20. A few minutes with a hammer and belt sander and file will usually make most usable and reliable. I have several that I have made work in my Sub-9 Kel-Tec. That makes for one small "assault rifle in a brief case!" Fun!
Why do some keep blaming the new Smith & Wesson for the sins of the old, with which there is NO current connection?0 -
quote:Why do some keep blaming the new Smith & Wesson for the sins of the old, with which there is NO current connection?
excuse me but, for some reason, my friend a gun dealer, still has to have $1,000,000 in liability ins, a 50 foot distance between the buyer and the gun, if its possible for a minor to see the guns, and alot of other BS
even to sell a S&W magizine if it comes from the factory0 -
I have been a stocking dealer with Smith & Wesson for years (since the 1980s or so) pursuant to a signed agreement and do not have to meet any of the requirements mentioned. The requirements mentioned were those rumored to be coming when the Smith & Wesson agreement was made with the Klinton administration, but I do not believe any such agreements were ever actually made with Smith & Wesson with dealers.
It could easily be that some localities adopted the rumored Smith & Wesson agreement terms and now require them for all firearms dealers, but I do not believe any such agreements are in place with the new Smith & Wesson. If such an agreement had been signed with the old Smith & Wesson, it seems it would be moot now since that entity no longer exists. If it is moot, why would anyone comply with it.0 -
Go with the S&W set up mags are far less expensive than glock mags. 0 -
As usual the Judge is correct S&W factory high capacity mags will be cheaper than Glock. If 10rd mags are all that are needed, then the Glock mags have the price advantage.
As for the "S&W selling out thing", hasn't that horse been beat enough? AJB101, if you still think that you need to keep picking on S&W, you really need to do your own homework and find out what really happened and why. Not just keep repeating the same old rhetoric. I was tired of seeing people (supposedly, GUN people) help to hurt one of their own a year or two ago when this was big news, but still now? Please!. If in all this time, gun people haven't learned that the industry needs to stick together to combat this, we are all in a world of hurt. None of that whole mess had anything to do with them being British owned. It had to do with the Gov't going after the biggest fish in the pond ... S&W. If they took them down, the rest of the industry would fall in line, or so they thought. Admittedly it back fired. The rest of the industry banded together after the S&W mess. S&W was the scapegoat, nothing more. You've seen the prison movies were the little guy gets thrown into the holding cell. He looks for the biggest guy. He figures if he kicks his butt, everyone else will be afraid of him and do what he says. That was what the Gov't did to S&W. If they could kick their butt, the rest of the firearms industry would tow the line. It was the public's reaction to what the Gov't forced S&W to do/sign that finally got the attention of the other manufacturers and caused them to work together rather than fight individually and/or amongst themselves. I always thought the anti-gun crowds had to be laughing their butts off watching the US gun owners help to kill the countries biggest handgun maker, S&W. Something they, the anti-gunners couldn't do, the pro-gunners did for them. I personally won't be their puppet, but if you want to do the work for Sara Brady and Handgun Control Inc, just keep up the ignorant behavior.0 -
Way off the original question here...
quote:Originally posted by lrarmsx
None of that whole mess had anything to do with them being British owned. It had to do with the Gov't going after the biggest fish in the pond ...
Excellent comments overall, Irarmsx, but I do recall the British firm (the name escapes me) making comments sounding extremely apologetic for being producers of "bad" guns. They never had a "philisophical base" to argue against the US government's "charges." They "went along" with the attacks rather than demonstrate any "backbone" and argue against the unfairness of attack.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments