Tweet
I am thinking about adding a .45 handgun to my concealed carry license sometime over the next 18 months or so. Here's one I was looking at:
I'm pretty sure this is on the "safe handgun roster" that CA requires; I've seen this handgun or one of the same brand/configuration for sale locally, albeit for $200 more or so. It may be possible to have my local FFL process this transaction and still save money.
My question: When I handled a pistol like this at the gun shop, the employees were telling me something-or-other about how Rock Island 45's are assembled somewhat differently than higher-end brands like Kimber. I'd mentioned that a relative carries a Kimber Ultra Raptor II (also in .45 ACP), but that retails for something like $1200, more than twice as much - and that's WHEN you can find one for sale. Additionally, the employee was saying that different brands have different tolerances for different types of 45 ammunition.
If that's true, then I'd like to mention that I already have significant quantities of steel-cased Wolf .45 ACP that I wanted to use for practice. The employee seemed to think that the Rock Island would tolerate steel-cased ammo better than a Kimber UR or other high-end model.
I'm not opposed to having a small quantity of "premium" ammunition in the weapon while carrying concealed, but I don't want to use the good stuff when I'm doing routine training at the gun range. Furthermore, if the reliability is anywhere near the same, I'd actually prefer carrying a $500 .45 over a $1200 one. Why - simple, not as big of a loss if it is stolen from me or confiscated by the police during an investigation following my firing of it against an attacker.
It is possible that the gun shop employee I spoke to was biased in favor of the Rock Island model such as this one simply because he had one in his display case (but didn't have a Kimber) and wanted to make a sale...OR...maybe he was on to something.
Thoughts?
Am I completely barking up the wrong tree?
I'm pretty sure this is on the "safe handgun roster" that CA requires; I've seen this handgun or one of the same brand/configuration for sale locally, albeit for $200 more or so. It may be possible to have my local FFL process this transaction and still save money.
My question: When I handled a pistol like this at the gun shop, the employees were telling me something-or-other about how Rock Island 45's are assembled somewhat differently than higher-end brands like Kimber. I'd mentioned that a relative carries a Kimber Ultra Raptor II (also in .45 ACP), but that retails for something like $1200, more than twice as much - and that's WHEN you can find one for sale. Additionally, the employee was saying that different brands have different tolerances for different types of 45 ammunition.
If that's true, then I'd like to mention that I already have significant quantities of steel-cased Wolf .45 ACP that I wanted to use for practice. The employee seemed to think that the Rock Island would tolerate steel-cased ammo better than a Kimber UR or other high-end model.
I'm not opposed to having a small quantity of "premium" ammunition in the weapon while carrying concealed, but I don't want to use the good stuff when I'm doing routine training at the gun range. Furthermore, if the reliability is anywhere near the same, I'd actually prefer carrying a $500 .45 over a $1200 one. Why - simple, not as big of a loss if it is stolen from me or confiscated by the police during an investigation following my firing of it against an attacker.
It is possible that the gun shop employee I spoke to was biased in favor of the Rock Island model such as this one simply because he had one in his display case (but didn't have a Kimber) and wanted to make a sale...OR...maybe he was on to something.
Thoughts?
Am I completely barking up the wrong tree?
GFY 
Comment