my profile |
register |
faq |
search upload photo | donate | calendar |
06-16-2001, 07:25 PM | #1 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 339
Thanks: 81
Thanked 359 Times in 198 Posts
|
i
|
06-16-2001, 08:01 PM | #2 |
RIP
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bermuda (Eat Your Heart Out)
Posts: 1,626
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
Well I'll tell you this...
being proud to call my self a shooter, I would gladly own an "s" Luger, and shoot the hell out it!!! For probably the same reason I drive a Mitsubishi, but lust after a Jaguar. And nobody questions my decision on buying an "inferior" car.
Dok "> |
06-16-2001, 08:17 PM | #3 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cochran, GA
Posts: 305
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: Well I'll tell you this...
Hey Dok, I drive a Mitsubishi too! It's a white Eclipse. When I first got it, I seriously thought about having orange meatballs painted on the doors! And, I also lust after Jags, Porsches, and Alfa Romeos! We have a lot in common! I would also love to have a stainless steel Luger and I would indeed, shoot the Hell out of it too!
|
06-16-2001, 08:21 PM | #4 |
RIP
Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hot & Dry PHX, AZ
Posts: 2,078
Thanks: 24
Thanked 163 Times in 87 Posts
|
I don't have a Mitsubishi !!!
I don't have an "s" Luger either. Does that make me a bad person?
|
06-16-2001, 08:23 PM | #5 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cochran, GA
Posts: 305
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: I don't have a Mitsubishi !!!
Of course not!
|
06-16-2001, 09:08 PM | #6 |
RIP
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,864
Thanks: 1
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
|
APOLOGY
I am bothered a little by this. In my discussion of the stainless steel lugers I used 'ss' to signify stainless steel. That was my only intent. It never crossed my mind that someone would take it to mean something vulger. If anybody thought that I ment something else I am sorry.
Big Norm |
06-16-2001, 09:34 PM | #7 |
RIP
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bermuda (Eat Your Heart Out)
Posts: 1,626
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
Well I don't know...
that depends on if you have a Jaguar!!!
|
06-17-2001, 12:56 AM | #8 |
RIP
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southeast Texas Swamp
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 2
Thanked 165 Times in 64 Posts
|
I don't have a Zero or Mitsubishi
But I did have a Jag XKE and a MGA, and a Austin Healy 3000 many, many years ago BWC (before wife & children). I also pack a STAINLESS STEEL 32 Seecamp and sometimes a STAINLESS STEEL Colt Pony 380 and sometimes a STAINLESS STEEL Walther PPK and I have no regrets about it and no apoligies to make for it! So there!
|
06-17-2001, 03:54 PM | #9 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 72
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: "s" word
Gruss Gott,Rick W.!
I find many of your observations regarding the way the "s"-word is responded to on this forum to be most accurate. Unfortunately!! However,I must also state for the record,that I'm in a position to say that I do own 5(FIVE) of these pistols produced under various names,(z.B. "Mitchell Arms","Stoeger" and "Aimco".) I therefore think I've earned the dubious "right" to speak to the issue. Although I find some of the discussion to be,shall we say,pompous, I do have to concede that some points made are valid.I find some of Hr. Spuhr's comments to be a tad bit abrasive at times,he does nontheless make some good points.With regard to the "Mitchell Arms" pistols,they do have a fairly major problem with the strength of material (ss) as opposed to the power of the 9mm cartridge.One of the first questions I posted was "Why do I get these indentations in the frame where the toggle strikes it in recoil?"I got many good responses and possible explainations for this problem.I believe the main reason to be,as Hr. Spuhr and others have told me, "inferior materials used".Having said that,I also have to admit that I bought two "Mitchell" pistols,some three years apart,but both made in 1993.They both exibit the same problem. My 3rd example is a "Stoeger Navy". It also shows some sign of this same weakness in material - although to a lesser degree. My 4th & 5th ss pistols are the new AIMCO model.It's a heavier frame with with a couple of other modifications such as a bulkier extractor and a groove for the safety lever.Otherwise it appears to be the same.These pistols shoot very well and are quite accurate by my standards,which are not up to match grade,by any means. Why do I bother to write this?Maybe because Patrick was so gracious as to tell me that the one I had custom made to honor my late wife was truly "one of a kind".He also stated that this was the first Parabellum which he thought came even "close" to being worthy of any relation to the "LUGER TRADITION!" I know this was Looooong!,but I had to put in my .000000001 worth. BTW Rick, they do what I need them to do as well.They allow me to shoot without feeling guilty about destroying a piece of history in the process! Thank you for your patience. Tschuss! Mark M. |
06-17-2001, 04:29 PM | #10 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 72
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: "s" word
Gruss Gott,Rick W.!
I find many of your observations regarding the way the "s"-word is responded to on this forum to be most accurate. Unfortunately!! However,I must also state for the record,that I'm in a position to say that I do own 5(FIVE) of these pistols produced under various names,(z.B. "Mitchell Arms","Stoeger" and "Aimco".) I therefore think I've earned the dubious "right" to speak to the issue. Although I find some of the discussion to be,shall we say,pompous, I do have to concede that some points made are valid.I find some of Hr. Spuhr's comments to be a tad bit abrasive at times,he does nontheless make some good points.With regard to the "Mitchell Arms" pistols,they do have a fairly major problem with the strength of material (ss) as opposed to the power of the 9mm cartridge.One of the first questions I posted was "Why do I get these indentations in the frame where the toggle strikes it in recoil?"I got many good responses and possible explainations for this problem.I believe the main reason to be,as Hr. Spuhr and others have told me, "inferior materials used".Having said that,I also have to admit that I bought two "Mitchell" pistols,some three years apart,but both made in 1993.They both exibit the same problem. My 3rd example is a "Stoeger Navy". It also shows some sign of this same weakness in material - although to a lesser degree. My 4th & 5th ss pistols are the new AIMCO model.It's a heavier frame with with a couple of other modifications such as a bulkier extractor and a groove for the safety lever.Otherwise it appears to be the same.These pistols shoot very well and are quite accurate by my standards,which are not up to match grade,by any means. Why do I bother to write this?Maybe because Patrick was so gracious as to tell me that the one I had custom made to honor my late wife was truly "one of a kind".He also stated that this was the first Parabellum which he thought came even "close" to being worthy of any relation to the "LUGER TRADITION!" I know this was Looooong!,but I had to put in my .000000001 worth. BTW Rick, they do what I need them to do as well.They allow me to shoot without feeling guilty about destroying a piece of history in the process! Thank you for your patience. Tschuss! Mark M. |
06-17-2001, 08:22 PM | #11 |
RIP
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bermuda (Eat Your Heart Out)
Posts: 1,626
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
SO WHERE IS IT??? (the picture) (EOM)
|
06-18-2001, 07:14 AM | #12 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 72
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: "s" word
Sorry folks! I don't know how that happened!(EOM) Mark M.
|
|
|