GunTalk-Online.com

After 20 years away from shooting, I've been shooting with my son for the last year. So far, out shooting has been limited to a lot of .22 rifle shooting and a little plinking with my great-grandfather's old 38 S&W revolver. The revolver is fun, especially for its family heritage, but not very accurate and sort of expensive to feed. All of which is a long intro to saying: I think its about time to try a .22 pistol.

I've had an opportunity to shoot both a Browning Buckmark and Ruger Mark III recently (upper end versions of both). Both seemed very nice. They are my top 2 contenders.

Our uses will be mainly target shooting. Maybe some speed shooting (Steel Challenge), so fast target acquisition and reliability are important. I teach a 4-H rifle group and maybe will expand that to pistol next (school) year.

From what I've read, the Mark III seems a lot more upgradable, should I want to go that way someday. Also, it comes with a weaver mount, so if we want to play with a scope, it'd be easy. From their webpage, it looks like some Buckmarks come with a scope rail built-in. For the others, can you easily add a scope?

One other thought: I am FAR from the most mechanical guy around. Simple and foolproof are good words for things I use. So, reading the two manuals on-line, the Buckmark seems much easier to field strip. I'd like to be able to clean it with only the most basic mechanical knowledge and without hurting it or myself. Life (both mine and the gun's) will probably be better if cleaning doesn't involve a mallet and a punch. Am I overreacting here or is that a valid concern for those of us low on the mechanical ability scale?

The flipside, perhaps, is that I see you have to remove the rear sight to clean the Buckmark. Not so with the Mark III? Does the sight seat exactly the same way every time or does a cleaning mean having to resight the gun pretty much from scratch?

Other than my obsession with simple, are there other considerations? Do both guns shoot about as well as each other (accuracy, reliability)? Anything else?

Thanks!

Both the Buckmark and the Ruger Mark III are fine pistols. Both fit the requirement of a solid plinking or target pistol. There are peculiarities to both pistols when fieldstripping.

I am not personally in favor of the Buckmark, although these fit and feel well in my hand. I did not like the breakdown with an Allen wrench and a screwdriver. I'm also not fond of the small serrated surfaces found on the slide for cocking the pistol. It is very uncomfortable for me to grasp the slide and overcome the hammer spring to activate this firearm. I know that Browning as attempted to address this problem by increasing the surface area, but this fix still falls short for me. Your experiences may vary based on hand size; mine are big. Many of my customers have experienced front barrels that came loose at the barrel mounting screw. Recoil vibration caused the screw to back out and loosen the barrel.

If you only remove the Buckmark's rear take-down screw, then getting the sight ramp to return to the same position after fieldstripping is pretty easy. As long as you use the Browining lock washer, the sight screws will not loosen under recoil. Losing one of these washers will require a new one from the manufacturer.

There aren't as many aftermarket parts for the Buckmark but some can make the arguement that's because they come set-up right from the factory the first time. I like the possiblility of changing the pistol to suit my varying shooting styles, this pistol doesn't meet that expectation for me.

Rugers don't take a mechanical genius to fieldstrip. They are a little unusual and often cause new owners some frustration. The biggest problem is seating the hammer strut onto the mainspring cap. This procedure usually requires switching the pistol's orientation a couple of times during the reassembly process. Some people are uncomfortable with this kind of procedure but once one understands the mechanics of it, then assembly is actually very simple. If one cannot seat the strut then all that has to happen is break the pistol down again and reassemble another time. The Mark III adds a new dimension with the magazine safety, where a empty mag has to be inserted to drop the hammer for fieldstripping. The magazine has to be inserted and removed a couple of times before breaking the pistol in two. Not a big deal but some are uncomfortable with the process.

I do like the variety of aftermarket parts for the Ruger. One can virtually buy a drop-in trigger kit that a novice can install and do a trigger job bringing the trigger down to a respectable weight for target shooting. There's many grip styles available for this gun. Now all new pistols come predrilled and tapped for a weaver scope mount, that is included with the pistol. Not a big deal for new shooters but those who have older eyes can appreciate the ability to add a red dot aiming device without breaking the bank.

Yes, the frame and receiver are tight and sometime require a little coaxing from a rubbber mallet but they don't come apart under recoil. Many people are not happy with striking the receiver with a mallet but the factory instruction book even recommends this for difficult pistols. I use one all the time on my personal firearms and never have had a problem.

I cannot stear you to one or the other pistol, they are alike in many ways. You're just going to have to make the best choice based on your preferences and suitability of needs. Both are fine pistols, I've worked on many of each for my customers, but I only own one of these products for myself and I have several of them in different models. My needs are not yours, so make your best choice and enjoy shooting with your son. The quality time you spend together will give both of you a lifetime of memories.

Hope this helps.

R,
Bullseye

SLOPlinker wrote:Anything else?

I'm gonna nominate 'BullsEye' for some diplomat job...
He just did a great job of responding, but staying neutral.
He is an excellent resource for Ruger-Mark concerns,
but it may take a few months of reading his responses to
fully appreciate it. That said, I'll try to push you off the line.

I have a Buckmark. I like it. It would probably be my favorite,
except that Bill Ruger invented his .22 pistol about 55 years ago!
I own five Rugers (plus two 10/22 rifles AND two more NIB pistols
that I have stashed away). ... why ?? ...

I'm kinda-sorta mechanically inclined... but nothing exceptional,
I mostly just enjoy getting my hands dirty.

I have my box of "spare parts" for my Rugers, so I can fix some
replacement-trouble without waiting for an order or GunSmith.
The (dis)assembly of the Pistol (or Rifle) is intended for the owner,
it allows cleaning and inspection, lube and re-assembly with only
a few 'practice sessions'. I expect my "spare parts" will rarely be
used as they do not 'wear' easily... just me 'being prepared'.

When you need to know something about your Buckmark, I wouldn't
have a clue as to where to send you. your Ruger? there are 3-4
forums that have a lot of assistance.

Simple: I regularly clean/lube my Mk2-22/45 with a large PaperClip,
couple toothpicks, 4-5 Qtips and a Blue-ShopTowel with my Solvent
and GunOil. An extra-cleaning... I blow-out the grip with compressed air!

I shoot Federal#510 "all the time", they are competitively priced locally.
I have Federal#AM22 (Auto-Match) and Federal#711B (Premium Target)
for when I think I am doing everything right.

The (dis)assembly of the Ruger-Pistol is just plain-common-sense,
just (in my opinion) it is poorly illustrated/documented.
When a Ruger is "cocked", the hammer is pushed back into position.
A "hammer strut" pivots on the back-side of the hammer and is a
"shaft" that pokes into a cup which sits on top of the MainHammerSpring.
The last steps of assembly require that the strut be "dangling" straight
down (holding the pistol... muzzle up about 45-degrees)...
--you can't SEE the strut, you just need to envision-it's position --
Once you KNOW to allow for this, you're an expert.
The "new owner" has little or nothing to go on except the manual
and will sometimes have the 'strut' mis-aligned and it becomes
"pinched" and then the bolt, hammer... "everything locks up"
and panic sets in... easily avoided with a little inspection during
the initial break-down for cleaning and lube.

My cleaning regularly includes removing the firingPin from the Bolt
and getting all the moving-parts in the Bolt/Receiver clean for the
next trip to the range.

So, if/when you get a couple Ruger pistols and a couple Ruger rifles,
there are a LOT of forums, parts and upgrades to consider and enjoy.
Good luck with your selection.

Thanks for the info. I agree: a very balanced set of info with just enough to hint which one you'd buy if you could only have one.

BTW, I do realize that the CORRECT answer is: buy (at least) one of each. Unfortuantely, the family CFO hasn't OK'ed that expense just quite yet. Our 21st anniversary is coming up an I'm pretty sure the traditional gift for a 21st anniversary is blued steel, right???

Thanks again for the replies.

I, too, think Bullseye should get some kind of award for his diplomacy.

However, I've finally had my hands all over my 12th Ruger Mark III, and I wouldn't own one of those guns if it was free. I'm not diplomatic, so I'll just say that I believe that Ruger has gone completely off the reservation with the Mark III.

1. Why include a loaded chamber indicator when it's already produced one recall for the company, and I've even installed the factory-supplied replacement parts on 7 different guns. I'm still not convinced this thing is entirely safe.

2. I'd like to ask the guy who decided on the magazine disconnector if he keeps his head up his butt for the warmth or the aroma. One of the great things about the Ruger pistol was the ability to shoot the gun as a single-shot. Sure, you can still do that, but now you have to add another step to your manual-of-arms when teaching young children.

Besides that, it gives young or inexperienced shooters the mistaken impression that perhaps ALL guns are safe by simply removing the magazine.

3. The magazine disconnector also has the effect of making the trigger pull so crappy I can't describe it without resorting to ugly language that would probably be unacceptable on this board.

I can't get a decent trigger pull on the Mark III without removing the offending disconnector, and I know that's a no-no from a liability point-of-view.

The ONLY way I've been able to improve the trigger on any Mark III I've worked on so far was to buy the expensive adjustable target trigger parts from Ruger, and even then, the results were pretty sorry.

Now, I've never owned or even worked on a Browning Buckmark, but I was always under the impression they were very similar to the old High Standard Sport King (and similar models). I've owned both pre- and post-war models of that gun, and were all nothing short of magnificent with excellent, crisp, creep-free triggers that broke at 3 pounds or even less.

I'd advise the shopper to drop his quest for a Browning Buckmark AND the Ruger Mark III and instead look for a used High Standard (disadvantage is high spare magazine costs) or a Ruger Mark II (still plenty available on the market). I know this last first-hand because I just bought my SECOND Ruger Mark II 50th Anniversary Commemorative Model, still new-in-the-box, for $254.

The Mark II, even if it initially has a crappy trigger, usually improves after a few hundred rounds and is easily improved. And the Mark II is PLENTY SAFE if the user has any functioning brain cells and follows all the rules of safe shooting.

Ruger has laid an egg, and I'm disappointed to learn the Browning Buckmark is such a departure from the High Standard/Colt Woodsman design, which were both EXTREMELY simple.

If the buyer doesn't mind paying a premium for magazines, I'd much recommend the High Standard Sport King (or similar model) over even the Ruger Mark II, only because they're simpler to clean and maintain. And they shoot like rifles, too, just like the Ruger.

Just my two cents' worth.

Allen

allendavis--

Do you know if the High Standard Sport King is built by the Houston facility? If so, there are many, many unhappy campers that have bought guns from that facility. (I read Jim Spacek's forum and John Stimson's forum; I hope I have their names right!)

I have two, nearly identical HD-Military machines. Point and shoot. The guns are fantastic. I wish someone--say, Volquartsen--would buy High Standard and restore their reputation for quality and customer service.

I have a 4" Ruger Mark III. I bought it for my wife. She quickly determined that the she and the iron sites are incompatible. I handed her my 7.25" Browning Buck Mark Hunter with a Nikon 6610 red dot on top. She kept it.

Now, Browning advertises the fact that you can remove and replace the optic--which you MUST do for cleaning--and return to zero. But, can you? First, the optic (probably, as in my case) must be removed from the rail, then the rail must be removed from the slide. Then it must all be put back together. (None of it is difficult.)

I question the "return to zero" claim after doing all of this. I do have to admit that the few times I have done it, the zero has been pretty close, but "pretty close" may not be close enough for a firearm with a 7.25" barrel.

In any case, I love the Buck Mark . . . AND the Mark III!

Here is my Buck Mark in its current configuration . . .



--seal killer

Seal Killer:

You wrote:

Do you know if the High Standard Sport King is built by the Houston facility? If so, there are many, many unhappy campers that have bought guns from that facility. (I read Jim Spacek's forum and John Stimson's forum; I hope I have their names right!)

The two High Standards I owned were both made in Connecticut. One was a first-issue model Sport King, the other a 1950s vintage. They both had 4-3/4" barrels and fixed sights. The only difference was my older one's barrel slid off the front of the frame after depressing the take-down button; the newer one, the barrel lifted straight-up off the frame (it had a "ball" thingie that secured the barrel to the frame).

I have two, nearly identical HD-Military machines. Point and shoot. The guns are fantastic. I wish someone--say, Volquartsen--would buy High Standard and restore their reputation for quality and customer service.

I've shot a few HD models and admired them. Can't afford to buy a decent one now!!!

I have a 4" Ruger Mark III. I bought it for my wife. She quickly determined that the she and the iron sites are incompatible. I handed her my 7.25" Browning Buck Mark Hunter with a Nikon 6610 red dot on top. She kept it.

My wife's favorite gun (and the one she carries) is a Smith & Wesson Model 34 .22 LR with a 5" barrel AND adjustable sights!!!!!!!!!! It was made in early 1964. I stole this gun from my brother-in-law for the princely sum of $100. This gun is almost too sweet to describe, other than its tiny grips. But Connie can crack clays at 75 yards with this thing 5 out of 6 shots all day long. She puts me to shame even with my Ruger Mk II!

Now, Browning advertises the fact that you can remove and replace the optic--which you MUST do for cleaning--and return to zero. But, can you? First, the optic (probably, as in my case) must be removed from the rail, then the rail must be removed from the slide. Then it must all be put back together. (None of it is difficult.)

I can't answer this question since I don't own a Browning like yours. I simply don't know. I can say that I can repeatedly remove my scope from my AK-47 and re-mount it, and it stays on-zero. But that's a different sack of cats altogether.

I question the "return to zero" claim after doing all of this. I do have to admit that the few times I have done it, the zero has been pretty close, but "pretty close" may not be close enough for a firearm with a 7.25" barrel.

It works on the side-mount rail with the AK, but it looks like you have a top-mount. My son's AK has a top-mount scope bracket, and it requires re-zero every time I clean the gun.

In any case, I love the Buck Mark . . . AND the Mark III!

Everyone I know who has a Buck Mark loves them. Everyone I know who's purchased a Mark III Ruger regrets it. They're junk as far as I'm concerned unless you remove that dumbass magazine disconnect safety, which you need to consider very carefully for liability reasons. I took the same thing out of my Hi-Power, and the trigger pull went from almost 8 pounds down to just under 4.

Similar results can be achieved with the Mark III, but I think the best thing to do would be send the thing back to the factory and have them install the competition adjustable trigger, and when you get it back, take out the magazine disconnector. But that's me. I prefer to assume responsibility for my own actions. I'm not into suing everyone in sight if I shoot myself in the foot because I was a dumbass (that's why the "New Model Blackhawk" exists today).

Here is my Buck Mark in its current configuration . . .

Great looking gun. I trust this critter DOES shoot "where it looks!!!"

BTW, do you use this gun to kill seals with??? Just wondering.

I'm a Frank Zappa fan. I'd just as soon use a lead-filled snowshoe like Nanook. (If you aren't familiar with the music of Frank Zappa, this obscure reference will fly right over your head.)

Kind regards,

Allen

Allen--

First things first: Do Ahmet Rhodan, Moon Unit, and Dweazel ring a bell?

Thank you for all the time you spent on that e-mail response.

Trying to go in order without quoting . . .

The Connecticut guns are reputed to be outstanding.

I have decided to collect High Standard "letter" guns. However, I am really very hesitant to buy a gun off the net. Therefore, it must be local. I cannot find ANY "letter" guns locally anymore! And, the prices on the net are outrageous. I did find a BEAUTIFULLY restored HD-Military with the long barrel. This thing was perfect and it was only $200. But, it was a restored gun and I just could not convince myself to buy it. (I guess I could have displayed it and said, "This is what they should look like.")

Ironically, my wife and I both started shooting off-hand at roughly the same time. (In fact, we were both shooting the HD-Military machines!) She was so much better than me it was embarrassing. Today, after thousands and thousands of rounds of practice, I am much better. Still, all things being equal, I would not want to be within 15 yards of her if I were the BG and she had a gun in her hand.

I do not regret buying the 4" Mark III bull barrel. I believe my initial cussings of the firearm were due to the manual which left several important reassembly steps out. Now, after annotating my manual and downloading the latest one, I can put that sucker back together in less than three and a half hours!

Yes, the Buck Mark shoots where it looks. Off-hand at self-defense distances is like cheating . . . except there is no cheating in the game of life or death. Twenty five yards from the bench with a sandbag and good ammunition will consistently produce half inch groups (edge to edge).

No. I use THIS gun to kill seals with . . .



--seal killer

First things first: Do Ahmet Rhodan, Moon Unit, and Dweazel ring a bell?

Zappa is one of my musical idols. He produced Grand Funk Railroad's last album as an intact band back in 1976 -- the same year I saw him live in Nashville, and he lifted me up to the stage just to take pictures of him. That Gibson SG guitar he was playing that night was AWESOME.

Thank you for all the time you spent on that e-mail response.

I try to be thorough, and accurate, but I was mistaken on one detail: my wife's M34 S&W revolver only has a 4" barrel. I mistakenly typed that it had a 5" barrel. I wish it DID have that length -- it would be among the rarest S&W revolvers ever produced since NO M34 had such a length. Nevertheless, the 4" length is rare enough as it is.

Crap -- I'm an idiot -- I can't remember how to do the html to insert an image!!! Do I have to upload them somewhere???

Trying to go in order without quoting . . .
The Connecticut guns are reputed to be outstanding.

They really were. Even the little short-barreled pistols were like rifles. I can't say enough about them.

I have decided to collect High Standard "letter" guns. However, I am really very hesitant to buy a gun off the net. Therefore, it must be local. I cannot find ANY "letter" guns locally anymore! And, the prices on the net are outrageous. I did find a BEAUTIFULLY restored HD-Military with the long barrel. This thing was perfect and it was only $200. But, it was a restored gun and I just could not convince myself to buy it. (I guess I could have displayed it and said, "This is what they should look like.")

I'm not the smartest guy on the block about collecting High Standard pistols, but I do know that any "restored" pistol will have lost much of its value if it indeed had any to begin with. It would be akin to taking one of the only 11 known-to-exist genuine Walker Colts and refinishing it. Sacrilege.

Ironically, my wife and I both started shooting off-hand at roughly the same time. (In fact, we were both shooting the HD-Military machines!) She was so much better than me it was embarrassing. Today, after thousands and thousands of rounds of practice, I am much better. Still, all things being equal, I would not want to be within 15 yards of her if I were the BG and she had a gun in her hand.

I shot competitively in IPSC, Silhouettes and Bowling Pin matches up until 1997. My eyesight was beginning to fail me then, but I also began developing a constant tremor. Then my little brother died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, and I gave up guns altogether for over five years. I knew guns weren't the problem, but I couldn't stand to be around handguns for a long time.

When I began traveling back into Indianapolis on a daily basis, I knew I needed protection, and within just a few months, I re-built my little "arsenal" and "armory" and even upgraded every piece of handloading equipment I own.

My wife had never fired a handgun when we met (tonight is the 6th anniversary of our very first date, BTW). I started her out on an old Iver Johnson TP-22, a close copy of the Walther PPK in .22 LR, and she got VERY good with it in short order. I soon found her a better handgun, the S&W M34, and she puts most men to shame when we hold matches at our range.

I will forward you the link to our range club and the pictures if you'd like.

I do not regret buying the 4" Mark III bull barrel. I believe my initial cussings of the firearm were due to the manual which left several important reassembly steps out. Now, after annotating my manual and downloading the latest one, I can put that sucker back together in less than three and a half hours!

Any Ruger .22 Auto pistol needs to be shot a ton, and torn down and re-assembled many, many, many, many, many times before they get easier. They're so tight when they come from the factory. They get easier to clean with a lot of use. I still say the Mark III is a piece of s**t.

Yes, the Buck Mark shoots where it looks. Off-hand at self-defense distances is like cheating . . . except there is no cheating in the game of life or death. Twenty five yards from the bench with a sandbag and good ammunition will consistently produce half inch groups (edge to edge).

You need better sandbags, dude. Even with my bad eyesight, I can do that with my 50th Anniversary Ruger Mk II. And with my buddy's Mark II Competition Model (scoped), I can shoot 1/8" groups at 50 yards.

No. I use THIS gun to kill seals with . . .

You ARE evil, aren't you? I think I still prefer the lead-filled snow shoe.

Regards,

Allen

Yes Allen, you have to have your images hosted with direct linking capabilities. A free web image hosting site like photobucket. com is a good place to link the pictures from and display theim here. Then place the http address between the img brackets, or use the Img button on the post a reply page.

Hope this helps.

R,
Bullseye

allendavis--

Yes! Send me the link to your range!

I have been very satisfied with the Browning Buck Mark Hunter. But, I have not shot it THAT much. My main machine--until about a year ago--was a 7.25" Beretta NEOS Inox DLX. The best I ever did with the NEOS was 0.354", edge to edge. (This was before I knew you were supposed to measure them center to center.)

Today, I shoot a 10" custom Volquartsen Deluxe. (My actual gun is shown on Volquartsen's web site.) This is what it looks like with the scope . . .



I usually shoot 200 rounds per session before my eyes start making twenty cents a round a little too expensive for my tastes. I shoot for zero-inch, center to center groups at 25 yards from the bench with a mickey mouse sandbag. Usually, I get four to five zero-inch groups per brick.

However, here is my "prettiest" zero-inch group, but it is only 3 rounds . . .



My ultimate goal is to shoot with the bench rest rifle boys at 100 yards. I THINK the Volquartsen will produce sub-one inch groups at 100 yards. I will know this summer.

--seal killer

Yes, that VQ Deluxe makes one sweet hole!

The only way it could be sweeter was if it was in the center of a terrorist's forehead.

R,
Bullseye

To Seal Killer --

Yes! Send me the link to your range!

http://home.insightbb.com/~sportsmansco ... html-.html

Check out the photos section while you're there. Pages 4 & 5 have pictures of me and my wife, Connie, and my best friend, Lt. Dan. The humorous captions were added by our webmaster.

I have been very satisfied with the Browning Buck Mark Hunter. But, I have not shot it THAT much. My main machine--until about a year ago--was a 7.25" Beretta NEOS Inox DLX. The best I ever did with the NEOS was 0.354", edge to edge. (This was before I knew you were supposed to measure them center to center.)

Today, I shoot a 10" custom Volquartsen Deluxe. (My actual gun is shown on Volquartsen's web site.) This is what it looks like with the scope . . .

Mother Mary and Joseph!!! Where's the d****d shoulder stock for this thing? And how do you carry it around without wheels with that scope???

I usually shoot 200 rounds per session before my eyes start making twenty cents a round a little too expensive for my tastes. I shoot for zero-inch, center to center groups at 25 yards from the bench with a mickey mouse sandbag. Usually, I get four to five zero-inch groups per brick.

However, here is my "prettiest" zero-inch group, but it is only 3 rounds . . .

With that barrel and scope, you should be able to shoot 1" groups out to 75 yards, I'd think. Lt. Dan has a stainless competition model with a 4-12x scope on it, and we're both constantly flirting with MOA @ 100 yards with really high-priced ammo and using my sandbag, but we don't like shooting that high-priced stuff.

I just go to Wally-World and buy the 550-round bricks of Federal hollow-points for $8.96/box. It's plenty good for both hunting and long-range plinking.

BTW, I think my wife is a real cutie. She's so protective of her S&W M-34. It's almost funny to watch her when I show her gun to other club members. She gets all antsy. But she's a female and doesn't understand the brotherhood thing among shooters. "Oh, would you like to take his wife out on the town for a night of dining and dancing, too???" she'll ask. I think she believes that me letting another man shoot her revolver is closely akin to letting another man bed her down for the night. Women. Go figure.

Regards,

Allen

I usually shoot 200 rounds per session before my eyes start making twenty cents a round a little too expensive for my tastes.

Seal Killer --

It just struck me that you're spending $40 per range session (and this just shooting a .22??????????). Holy crap!

That's the equivalent of what I spend in loading 1,000 rounds of 9mm practice ammo!!! 4.0 grains of Hodgdon HP-38 in front of a standard Winchester small pistol primer and topped off with a 125-grain lead round nose bullet, which consists of my own #2 alloy formula that's hardened a bit with a little extra tin and antinomy, but still close enough to call it #2 alloy (maybe I should call it #2 alloy PLUS).

Must be nice to be able to shoot that much high-falootin' ammo!

Regards,

Allen

allendavis--

I looked at all the pictures. It is obvious you have a tight group of friends/shooters and an EXTREMELY well maintained range.

I carry the Volquartsen in a large case. But, it's heapie-cheapie (the case, not the VQ!). In a couple of weeks I should have another upper for it, two inches longer; that would make it an even foot. The new upper will not have the useless compensator, either.

By the way, the scope--and the new one for the new upper--is a Burris Signature Select 8-32x44. The one in the picture has been customised by Burris to allow it to focus as close as 15 yards. I shoot it at 25 yards. It will not focus much past 35 yards. That is the MAIN reason I am getting another one. Besides, it will be easy to have two uppers, each with its own scope . . . I can just swap uppers and rock and roll.

I can't wait to see the quarter-inch target I uise at 100 yards at 32x! If I can see it, I can hit it. It is not really me, it is the equipment and ammunition. I am just the trigger man.

--seal killer
ps Your wife is a cutie!