<p>Think I changed my mind on the Ruger Mk. III - the Mk. II sounds like the way to go, being a little more mature of a pistol while the former has that mature pistol as a base with some more immature, lawyer pleasing additions. After having shot James’ Buck Mark, I think I can say that the Ruger will be my first choice, should I purchase anything down the road. I liked the Buck Mark, too, just not as much - not fond of the magazine release on the side of the trigger guard (and that’s standard, unfortunate for me), the Ruger’s bolt was easier to pull with the ‘ears’, where as the Buck Mark was closer to operating a slide, and the Ruger just felt a little more solid all around.</p>
<p>Still peeking about at other pistols, but nothing so decisive on that front. Kinda digging the .22s, rifle-wise. Ruger (again) has some nifty semi-auto .22s with rotary magazines. Haven’t read any reviews, they just look neat :D I did better with the 10/22 and the single-shot .22 (falling-block action, I think? James?) yesterday than any of the other guns, which seemed mis-sighted or something, though the wind stayed up around attempt-to-divest-Matt-of-clothing force throughout the entire time, so that might’ve been why both .22 pistols seemed like they needed such heavy correction. While I started to get used to the DAO trigger on the Kel-Tec, I still could only aim in a general sort of POINT THIS WAY sort of way with it, so I don’t know if I hit anything, and the 30-30 ‘cannon’ was a bit much for me, sitting down like I was; James blew a pretty solid hole through a phonebook with it, though! Who knows what happened with the muzzle-loader :D I guess long story short, I don’t do well with much recoil.</p>
<p>Must’ve shot 300-400 rounds of .22, 20 rounds of 30-30, almost 75 of 9mm, and four shots on the powder rifle</p>
