# Lws-25 lws-32



## FITZSTT (Apr 22, 2018)

I've attached a couple pages about my journey to owning a Seecamp, and my experience with the LWS-25 and LWS-32


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

If you've joined us and other forums just to denigrate a particular pistol or a company, I'm not sure how credible or ethical that is. However, if this is just your first post of many and plan to stick around, welcome to our home. Lots of good people here. Make yourself comfortable.


----------



## FITZSTT (Apr 22, 2018)

Craigh said:


> If you've joined us and other forums just to denigrate a particular pistol or a company, I'm not sure how credible or ethical that is. However, if this is just your first post of many and plan to stick around, welcome to our home. Lots of good people here. Make yourself comfortable.


Hello Craig,
Nope, it's just my first contribution. I am planning to start writing reviews on all my handguns. It's not my intention to denigrate Seecamp, as stated in my conclusion. I'm just sharing my particular experience (backed-up with photos). In fact, I carried my Seecamp today because I'm confident in the gun (it just wasn't a great initial experience). I did neglect to mention in the article (not on purpose) that Seecamp provided a holster and mag finger extension at no additional charge.
I also wouldn't attach my photo or real first name to the post if I were trolling. 
I look forward to posting additional content here as time allows. Thank you for your welcome to the forum. Take care! -Tom


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

FITZSTT said:


> I look forward to posting additional content here as time allows. Thank you for your welcome to the forum. Take care! -Tom


Thanks Tom. I hope to see more. That type of thing is always welcome to me, and I appreciate your gracious reply. Just curious, but what does FITZSTT mean?

Oh, and the main reason I never considered Seecamp was the lack of any sight on the ones I looked at briefly. Some say you don't need a sight on what is essentially a belly gun, but I want usable sights on any gun I buy. Just my feelings on it.


----------



## FITZSTT (Apr 22, 2018)

Sorry for the delayed response, just finished-up a lot of travel. fitzstt is just a login name i've gotten used to over the years (less to remember). 
I agree that no sights, coupled with a small frame, makes it more difficult to shoot accurately. However, it's small enough to 'always have' and shoots well enough for the close defensive purposes it was designed for.
I'm pleased to report that after carrying for about a month in the front pocket (lint, keys, coins, dirt), it functioned flawlessly at the follow-up range test. No hickups. 
Despite the rough intro to Seecamp, this one's a keeper.


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

I don't like when a company fails to consider sights as important. I understand what it was designed for. Nonetheless, it should be able to be pressed into extended duty when needed. My original LCP had almost useless sights, but with the newer LCP II I bought, Ruger finally understood a little better and the sights, though still not great, are much much better. I think this has been an ongoing issue over many years. My old military Colt 1911 has almost no sights to speak of. The Army considered there was not much need as it was designed for very close and personal deployment. Much of the practice was holding the pistol at the hip, forearm level with the ground. We all know better today. The cost to have somewhat decent sights is not very much, and Seecamp needs to adjust their thinking. There is just no reason not to. You can still have properly designed sights which do not snag, and in some scenarios, could make a real difference in a gun fight.


----------

