home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!mimsy!mathcs.emory.edu
- From: brad%slammer.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu (Brad Isley)
- Newsgroups: rec.guns
- Subject: Re: Colt or Springfield 1911A1
- Message-ID: <1992Dec27.155514.483@slammer.UUCP>
- Date: 29 Dec 92 01:49:21 GMT
- Sender: magnum@mimsy.umd.edu
- Organization: Just me & my computers
- Lines: 28
- Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu
-
- In article <1992Dec22.230807.3306@bbxrbk> bbx!bbxrbk!russ@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Russ Kepler) writes:
- #
- #The whole argument here is that when you send a .45 to a smith for an
- #accuracy job the smith is promising to send it back shooting to a
- #particular level of accuracy. If you send a frame/slide combo that
-
- That makes sense. Now that you put it that way, I understand.
- What I was responding to was something like:
-
- "I know a smith who refuses to work on brand-x pistols."
-
- The phrase "work on" actually meant "accurizing(sp?) to a <certain level>."
- What you folks relly meant was:
-
- "I know a smith who refuses to do an accuracy job on a <brand-x>."
-
- BTW: Got my Springfield "worked on" with no guarantee of accuracy and
- managed to shoot 5 into a 3" group at 25 yds freestanding. I stoped after
- the first try so I wouldn't spoil it! That might not be anything to brag
- about, but it's LOTS better than I thought I could do! They all went 8"
- high (the slide is now being milled to lower the rear sight to match the
- front sight height).
-
- Got a Glock 23 for Christmas. YOW! I like it!
- --
- emory!slammer!brad (Brad Isley)
- +1 404 841-5018 Work Nopottopeein: "Howzit Goink?"
- +1 404 925-9663 Home The gang: "Fine, just fine."
-