Walther Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok I got my P99 compact AS 9mm a few weeks ago. Ive been to the range once to break it in and did so. I just shot at a plinker at 25 yards. I dont even know if I hit it at all as I just wanted to get some round through and do the proper break in and everyting worked fine. Im sure I hit it at least a few times but I couldnt hear it over the shots. So I have to go to my CCW class this weekend and the shooting portion is as follows. 36 rounds-12 at 6 yards, 12 at 10 yards, and 12 at 15 yards on a normal silohette(sp) target. You have to get 100% accuracy anywhere on the silohette(sp). If I dont ahve time to go to the range before my class to sight it in IM wondering if it would be ok out of the box. I got the test target from the factory which is 5 shots(all in the middle circle from 25m(27 yards).So what do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ShipWreck @ Jan. 05 2006,19:15)]U'd be silly to take a class where U MUST pass w/o shooting the gun enough to familiarize yourself. Go try it at a range tomorrow.
Ive shot P99compacts alot. Im very comfortable with the gun just wanted to knwo the out of the box accuracy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Since a blind man recently passed a similar shooting test, you would have to try very hard to fail.
At 15 yards the gun is accurate enough for you to choose which tooth to shoot out in the head of the target.


Fritz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
[b said:
Quote[/b] (fritzthecat @ Jan. 05 2006,19:58)]Since a blind man recently passed a similar shooting test, you would have to try very hard to fail.  
At 15 yards the gun is accurate enough for you to choose which tooth to shoot out in the head of the target.  


Fritz
Im not too worried about it being accurate at those distances but I felt it was worth a check. Im gonna heva chance to go to the range tomorrow to seef for myself though! Thanks for the help!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
I've got several thousand shots through mine so far and I've never even touched the sights. They sight it in and at those ranges with super sonic ammo there's not significant windage to compensate for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Yeah, those ccw classes here in KY require you to pretty much hit the broad side of a barn. Sometimes they will have a gun you can use. I popped off the shots as fast as I could. Your gun should be good enough out of the box. If you have not shot a lot in general you should get some practice though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
[b said:
Quote[/b] (walrus @ Jan. 10 2006,01:56)]Yeah, those ccw classes here in KY require you to pretty much hit the broad side of a barn. Sometimes they will have a gun you can use.  I popped off the shots as fast as I could.  Your gun should be good enough out of the box.  If you have not shot a lot in general you should get some practice though.
the shooting part of the CCW test in KY is indeed a joke. but remember, KY is a 'shall-issue' state which basically guarantees CCW permits to anyone who can pass the criminal background check.

also note the we don't have 'concealed handgun' licenses here in KY, we have 'concealed carry deadly weapons' licenses, which means you can carry ANY kind of deadly weapon. if someone wants to carry a long bootknife or a black-jack, is it fair to deny them that because they can't can't shoot a pistol? which leads me to my next point . . . .

i think it is silly AND unconstitutional (both state and fed constitutions) to require anyone who isn't a felon to beg permission from the gov't to carry a deadly weapon.

". . . .the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

seems pretty straight forward to me, but i'm one of those relics who still believe the COTUS is the fundamental and untrumpable law of the land. too bad there aren't more like me around . . . .
.

frye
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
I'm in Ashland.  Lived in Lexington for a while as well.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]i think it is silly AND unconstitutional (both state and fed constitutions) to require anyone who isn't a felon to beg permission from the gov't to carry a deadly weapon.  
 
You can carry a deadly weapon but you just can't conceal it.  

I don't mind the added benfit of being able to carry the other things concealed but I suppose it doesn't make sense to require someone wanting to only carry a concealed boot knife to shoot at a target. It depends on what side of the fence you are on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
fryeg7, just an fyi, "infringed" does not mean that it can not be legislated, it only means that it can not be legislated to the point where the right no longer exists. IE outlawing ammo would infringe in the right to bear arms, but a class making sure you know which end to point is not an infringement. LOL. That is just in case you get in a debate with one of those left wingies. Hope it helps.
Wagemage:;):
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
[b said:
Quote[/b] (walrus @ Jan. 11 2006,01:24)] 
You can carry a deadly weapon but you just can't conceal it.  

I don't mind the added benfit of being able to carry the other things concealed but I suppose it doesn't make sense to require someone wanting to only carry a concealed boot knife to shoot at a target.  It depends on what side of the fence you are on.
walrus, points well made.

speaking of open carry, the most specific law concerning open carry in kentucky is our state constitution:

"Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons."

i also cannot find a court case where someone was prosecuted for openly carrying a firearm in the state and cases related to concealed carry violations seem to imply the right to carry openly ANYWHERE (other than places where loaded firearms, i.e. bars, polling places and a few others i think).  it seems even in these places that forbid 'loaded firearms', which is specifically define in KY statutes, you may carry an unloaded firearm openly.

i believe the safest place for a weapon that isn't locked up in my home is on my person.  i don't like leaving it in the truck where it could get stolen.  people breaking into cars is very common and i don't want to give a criminal my pistol.

there are many kentucky statutes laws and court cases providing legal precedent to the fact that open carry in KY is virtually unlimited.  the implications of other rulings are very clear, but i cannot find the specifics about open carry clearly and legally spelled out.

here is a link to a thread from another board i participate in with lots of info i found after many hours researching this:

http://www.sksboards.com/forum....6b3bcec

frye
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
accuracy...-

My 9mm p99 was my first pistol.  Previously only fired a Ruger mk2 .22 and a S&W modle 10, maybe 100 rnds total at tin cans.

This it my target from the first time firing my p99.  Right out of the box, no adjustments.  First 35 rnds (10rnd and 2-15rnd mags). 10m range

http://lrg.zorpia.com/0/1287/8238034.3c1749.jpg

Good enogh to defend myself and others with if necesary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Wagemage @ Jan. 11 2006,02:29)]fryeg7, just an fyi, "infringed" does not mean that it can not be legislated, it only means that it can not be legislated to the point where the right no longer exists. IE outlawing ammo would infringe in the right to bear arms, but a class making sure you know which end to point is not an infringement.  LOL. That is just in case you get in a debate with one of those left wingies. Hope it helps.
Wagemage:;):
the language used in the COTUS and the bill of rights was very carefully chosen.  if they had meant this right could be compromised by legislation, they would have specified this.  there are examples of this in the text of the constitution.

'infringed' is a synonym with 'violated'.  the founding fathers put the 2A second for a reason, it's important.  without the 2A, the people are left with no recourse to dispose of a tyrannical government, which was the whole point to begin with.  

if you view the constitution in context of the times and other documents written by the same men who wrote the constitution (i.e. the federalist papers, etc.), it is very clear what they thought about the right to keep and bear arms.

any legislation that hinders, hampers, interferes with, infringes upon, violates, impedes, restricts or dilutes 'the right to keep and bear arms' is unconstitutional.

to imply otherwise is being revisionist.  you have to take the words to mean what they meant at the time of their writing and in the context they were written.

anyone who had a hand in drafting the COTUS is spinning in their graves at the amount of liberal interpretation and outright subversion of the document they wrote to be the end all, be all basis of all laws in this nation.

Article VI

. . . This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


i do appreciate the help, but i have no problem defending myself when faced with left-wingers  
.  stuttering and speechless is the way i like to leave them when i'm done with them  
.  

the bill of rights is a non-negotiable item.

frye
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Frye
Infringed has not changed much over time. Yes I agree liberals have a broader want for its interpretation such as that they can pretty much do away with the effectiveness of its purpose. But requiring a simple accuracy skill check does not infringe on your right to bear arms. You have a better argument for saying the Brady Bill was an infringement, but a background check making sure your not a felon or crazy etc is OK. You still have full use of that right to keep and bear arms. There may be more paper work, but paperwork does not infringe on that right. At most its a hastle. I've read a majority of the federalist papers and understand what they meant. The founders never considered the constitution to be the only law, just the highest, and as long as the other laws don't, in this case, INFRINGE the other laws are OK. Don't thing that I am all for reform and all that stuff, but the founders did choose their words carefully, they knew that there would be laws about firearms in the future, they had some then, they just wanted the people to be able to retain the right to take back the government if it came to that.
Wagemage out:)
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top