Scandium? Anyone Shoot one?

Scandium good, Smith & Wesson Bad... That sum it up?


Okay, Scandium merely gives Aluminum a near-Steel-like strength. It doesn't, however, make it much if any more resistant to abrasion, wear, or scratches. That's what I am being led to believe. It will not line barrels, that's a job for steel, and it will not make good cylinders, hammers, or triggers. That leaves the frame and barrel around the steel liner.

I think this whole lightweight revolver issue is on it's way to the absurd. Imagine a technology to make plastic as strong as aluminum. Shooting a 6 oz 38 special might be a little bit painful, but it will DEFINITELY hurt the bad guy more than you. Practicing in a Scandium revolver with 38's and then carrying 357's might be just the ticket. How many people are going to care when they are defending their life if the gun kicks 30% more. Heck, the adrenaline alone will attenuate most of the recoil, noise, blast, and probably most of your accuracy and good sense too.

The same debate applies to the small 32's out there. My NAA Guardian leaves me with a red thumb webbing and dinks in my forhead from the brass, but I still carry it. I'm looking to get a P32 now.

A Scandium Revolver, hell yes! A S&W Revolver, HELL NO. The redcoat owners will need to rot in hell and restore Smith & Wesson to gun-loving American hands first.
 
Stoic - Sorry!

I guess I am part of running your thread in a direction you didn't intend :(

I can't help be somewhat passionate about S&W. My first ever firearm period was a 686; although I have come close to selling it a few times I always decide on keeping it. Just can't bear to sell. I have sold off my 4516 in favor of a short 1911, but only because my budget priorities have shifted somewhat since getting married (can't keep them all!), and the 4516 was too large & heavy for everyday carry.

But.....S&W has now taken an action that I, & I think all gun owners, can't ignore. I feel sad an abandoned - but I won't compromise my rights.

Scandium? Nope, never shot one but being of the school of thought that says "the lightest, smallest package per caliber" is what you want for summer time carry, it will be interesting to see if it becomes popular. However, I doubt it could be much more than a last ditch close quarter weapon as extended pratice with carry loads would probably be punishing. If it proves to show real advantages over Ti, Taurus might come out with one to compliment their expanding revolver line.
 
I haven't bought a scandium revolver, but only because I haven't seen one yet. As soon as I can find one, I will buy it (trading or selling my .357 model 60 and my .38 model 342ti). This is regardless of any agreements.

I also happen to have an HK USPc with an internal key lock, along with lots of guns which came with trigger locks. I can tell you that I've never used the lock on the HK, nor have I ever placed any external locks which came with the guns on them (though I do keep many guns in a locked cabinet when not in use). Quite frankly, it never bothered me. I can handle paying an extra 3 bucks for a gun with a trigger lock I'll never use so someone who has kids in their house and decides to keep a gun can lock it if necessary. Furthermore, the internal lock on my HK has never bothered me, and if it's an extra half ounce of weight I'm carrying, so be it.

My biggest problem is the 10 round ban. I'm told that was Bill Ruger's fault. And while I own a 10/22T, if I was to boycott anyone it'd be Ruger. I'll buy 3 dollar trigger locks for all my guns to avoid paying 90 bucks for 13 round magazines!
 
Kevinch

Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, HCI, VPC, Bill Clinton, et al. want non-removable, built-in gun locks on guns. A manufacturer puts them on a gun in order to placate them. Unless Sarah Brady, Chuck Schemer, HCI, Bill Clinton, et al. have suddenly became pro-gun, then it was done to placate (sell out to) an anti-gun folks.

As far SW=Hitler and gun owners=Jews in the Holocaust. I think another layer of tinfoil is needed for your hat.
 
cuerno de chivo wrote:
Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, HCI, VPC, Bill Clinton, et al. want non-removable, built-in gun locks on guns. A manufacturer puts them on a gun in order to placate them. Unless Sarah Brady, Chuck Schemer, HCI, Bill Clinton, et al. have suddenly became pro-gun, then it was done to placate (sell out to) an anti-gun folks.
Click to expand...

then of course, he thought he would try to anger me by this:
As far SW=Hitler and gun owners=Jews in the Holocaust. I think another layer of tinfoil is needed for your hat.
Click to expand...

Again, by dear cdc, you fling simple insults when you have no fiction left in the face of fact. Anyone reading this thread, reviewing the agreement, and analyzing your support of S&W while blasting away at Taurus would have to surmise that you simply have not grasped the issue, or chose to ignore it.


I won't return the insult - I don't have to. Although you feel I haven't grasped the issue, I believe you have. You simply have chosen to ignore the consequences in favor of your own desire for their product(s). That's your choice - but what is amusing is your attempt to hide your own guilt at doing so by insisting that no damage has been done. That's sad - why don't you just handle it like an adult & admit you don't care?

I wasn't attempting to compare S&W to Hitler (whoops! another fluke of that lack of cerebral capacity, or too little tin foil) but instead draw a parallel: the erosion of your rights will come in small steps until you find yourself defending those involved in removing them. You, and anyone who patronizes S&W, is speaking volumes with their $$ and announcing that it is OK, well, & good to enter such an agreement as long as they put out a desirable product.

Know what is alarming? By your logic, you would also support Taurus if they would have signed with S&W, and their guns didn't include a lock! (Yet.) Although S&W isn't Hitler what they have done is dangerous & could lead to our 2nd Amendment rights dying, and your reaction is to wink at it.

That's a message I'm not willing to send, & I am thankful that the majority of gun owners agree with me.

Hey - did you know this tin foil on my head, while not being heavy enough, doesn't seem to be affected by your flames? Ah..never mind. I'm probably not smart enough to understand them or know when my scalp is burning..\

Edited to say this:
The difference between you & I is that if I believed that any other gun manufacturer had done this level of damage to the RKBA, I wouldn't buy from them. Period. No matter whether I liked their product or not. (For what it is worth, I haven't bought a new Ruger since Bill made his stupid statement, but it still pales in comparison to Shultz). By your own admission, you will buy from a company that has sold out our RKBA. I would put a definition on that, but I did say I wouldn't insult you.
 
To quote that great modern-day philosopher and facilitator of communication, Mr. Rodney King..."Can't we all just get along???" Agree to disagree...what a NOVEL concept!!!....mikey357
 
Please keep the racist remarks down. Saying Smith & Wesson is bad is alright, but saying they are bad by substituting the word "Shultz" for "Smith" implies that there's something wrong with those of the German Race. I hate Hitler too.

Aaron Shuler
 
Wasn't there a legitimate question about scandium?

Shouldn't the rest of this gibberish be hashed out on the Legal/Political forum?

Thanks,
Mikey
 
Heck I must be some kind of a sissy cause I don't want anything lighter than my SS J frame going off in my hands. Deliver me from all that ultra light stuff, thank ya very much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top