Re: What is your Every Day Carry?
Just curious as to what led other to the conclusion that there was a difference.
I thought this was a pretty strong statement that needed some fact to be valid.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sorry to tell you, but whoever convinced you of this was full of complete and utter nonsense.
"Just as many" high end 1911 builders do not support the use of the USGI system. It is an objectively inferior system that reduces the life of the recoil spring and in many ways diminishes reliability.
A rational person may consider "both sides" of an argument, but the decision to forego something that is objectively superior in the name of "preference" is not a rational decision.
I really couldn't think of any strong arguments against a FLGR except, perhaps, weight, if applicable to the particular competition in which you're entering, but other than that, foregoing a part that increases reliability and service life is a really bad decision.
In my opinion, a gunsmith that recommends the USGI system for a pistol that may be used to save someone's life is incompetent. The recoil system is an absolutely critical functional part.
I think the press check/malfunction clearing question is important, too, and thus highly suggest that goes into the decision on rear sight.
I also think it's important not to have an adjustable rear sight on a fighting pistol, but as that doesn't really affect the actual function of the pistol, even that is secondary compared to the FLGR.
The USGI system served its purpose for a long time, but those days are behind us. Do yourself a favor and seriously reconsider the importance of installing a FLGR in your fighting pistol. </div></div>
Wanting to know if there are some facts to back up what was said or if it's just BS that was heard or read. The silence leads me to believe the latter.
