message board home
Next
7/20/2018 3:49:10 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 10: Defense Weapons/Ammo Subject: S&W 1076 Msg# 1020779
|
||||||
Right, there is two ounces difference in weight but the 1006 is slightly more muzzle heavy, which some of us prefer. This is clearly ALL about preferences--you also prefer the Colt Commander over the 1911, the opposite of my tastes. Back to S&W, I've not shot the 1076 but I've shot a few same-size 4516s and I don't much like them either. I just don't like the chopped muzzles which I feel offer no benefit whatsoever in any area. Personal taste? Sure, but your comments are too. We can both articulate small aspects that seem to each of us important (we clearly have inner ear differences based on your comment about "balance"   ), but it comes down to preference. I have both the 1006 and 4506 and think they're awesome horse pistols. 
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Dear Mr. Controversial: I've owned both 1006 and 1076, so I can probably be more unbiased than a certain Forum Manager. As for the 5" barrel 1006 generating more velocity than the 4.25" 1076, that may be true, but it's minimal IMO. Nothing to write home about. The weight difference between the 1006 and the 1076 is about 2-3? ounces, so compared recoil absorption again, IMO would be minimal. The frame mounted decocker is easier to access for me than the slide mounted version. I don't have to stretch my thumb to activate it as much. (Yes, I'm a Sig fan boy, so I don't need no steenkin' S&W manual of arms in my life! Having shot both pistols, I found that the 1076 is a better balanced handgun than the 1006, which seemed muzzle heavy to me. I also did not like the big "ears" on the adjustable sights of my 1006, which made the elegant lines of the pistol look "off" to me. I preferred the Novaks on the 1076, which were also available on 1006s, but not on mine. Long live the 1076! Harvey |
) The frame mounted decocker is more ergonomic and intuitive IMO.