quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

What are your credentials to determine that this is "ramboesque"?

The ability to read the following sentence.


For me, I would want a weapon available at a moments notice, under any possible circumstance

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As I said... if it proves dependable...and only then... I don't see anyone testing or evaluating the technology. Unless I am mistaken this is not the only technology developed for this purpose.

Tell me luvmuffin... If there were dependable easily used technology in the future that would limit the operation to only the owner would you approve of it? And if you did would you be in favor of a law requiring all new civilian weapons to be equipped with the device?

If not why?

Butch

Pretty much what Bama said. As dependable as the technology might get it can still fail. There are already enough things that can fail on even the best quality firearms such as ammo or a rough spot on the feed ramp or a faulty magazine. I have a Glock Model 23. When I shot it for the first time I kept getting stove pipes (empty case hanging up in the ejection port). It happened way too many times for 100 rounds (2 different ammo types). I called up Glock and they suggested I was shooting with a limp wrist. I said bull shit and sent it to them under warranty. They sent it back to me and told me nothing wrong. Again I take it to the range and 150 rounds later its still hanging up at least once or twice on every magazine full. It did it with my friend shooting it too. I sent it back again with the 2 magazines I was using and this time it came back with a new recoil assembly. A couple of thousand rounds later and I haven't had any problems. The Glock is an ultra reliable handgun. A friend had a Sig Sauer .380, another quality handgun that started hanging up. We finally figured it out after several trips to the target range. The problem was lint in the crevice around the extractor pin spring.

And your own choice of handgun proves this isn't about reliability so stop making up excuses. If you really cared about reliability you would have bought a good quality revolver.

And you and a friend made several trips to the range without fully cleaning a weapon that was hanging up? No wonder your guns stop working.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

And your own choice of handgun proves this isn't about reliability so stop making up excuses. If you really cared about reliability you would have bought a good quality revolver.

The common belief among a few diehard revolver fanatics is that because the revolver does not have to feed or eject cartridges in the same manner that automatic pistols do, or because the revolver is somehow "simpler" than the automatic, it is better than the auto. Their idea of "better" is, of course, esoteric.

Revolvers remain mechanical objects, and are subject to problems arising from manufacturing defects, parts failures, ammunition failures, improper maintenance, and user abuse -- just like pistols. While the casual observer might believe that because the revolver does not appear to have as many moving parts as the automatic, inferring from this that the revolver is therefore more reliable, the revolver is in fact a fairly intricate design, the proper function of which is based on a number of small, moving parts...

I would urge anyone who still believes, in the 21st century, that revolvers are superior to automatics as defensive or fighting handguns to strongly consider the facts about revolvers and the state of automatic pistols today. Also, you’re insane. ~Source

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

It is not uncommon for hunchback imbeciles to be easily impressed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

And your own choice of handgun proves this isn't about reliability so stop making up excuses. If you really cared about reliability you would have bought a good quality revolver.

The common belief among a few diehard revolver fanatics is that because the revolver does not have to feed or eject cartridges in the same manner that automatic pistols do, or because the revolver is somehow "simpler" than the automatic, it is better than the auto. Their idea of "better" is, of course, esoteric.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As I said... if it proves dependable...and only then... I don't see anyone testing or evaluating the technology. Unless I am mistaken this is not the only technology developed for this purpose.

Tell me luvmuffin... If there were dependable easily used technology in the future that would limit the operation to only the owner would you approve of it? And if you did would you be in favor of a law requiring all new civilian weapons to be equipped with the device?

If not why?

Butch

Pretty much what Bama said. As dependable as the technology might get it can still fail. There are already enough things that can fail on even the best quality firearms such as ammo or a rough spot on the feed ramp or a faulty magazine. I have a Glock Model 23. When I shot it for the first time I kept getting stove pipes (empty case hanging up in the ejection port). It happened way too many times for 100 rounds (2 different ammo types). I called up Glock and they suggested I was shooting with a limp wrist. I said bull shit and sent it to them under warranty. They sent it back to me and told me nothing wrong. Again I take it to the range and 150 rounds later its still hanging up at least once or twice on every magazine full. It did it with my friend shooting it too. I sent it back again with the 2 magazines I was using and this time it came back with a new recoil assembly. A couple of thousand rounds later and I haven't had any problems. The Glock is an ultra reliable handgun. A friend had a Sig Sauer .380, another quality handgun that started hanging up. We finally figured it out after several trips to the target range. The problem was lint in the crevice around the extractor pin spring.

And your own choice of handgun proves this isn't about reliability so stop making up excuses. If you really cared about reliability you would have bought a good quality revolver.

And you and a friend made several trips to the range without fully cleaning a weapon that was hanging up? No wonder your guns stop working.

My choice of handgun proves absolutely nothing.

The lint was trapped in a tiny crevice we just couldn't see until we used a magnifyer. He had to work it out with a dental pick. The he flushed with break free. You mean no wonder you know little of what you're talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Six rounds should be enough for almost any situation.

Probably so, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

K.

quote:

That would mean that you would, if you were married, need two shotguns

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

That would mean that you would, if you were married, need two shotguns

Would you not think that a device that would save thousands of lives would be worth the cost of an extra shotgun?

Now Bama let me ask again... If the devices were proved practical ...safe... and effective at a reasonable price would you be for a law requiring all new weapons to have this technology?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You're worried about problems arising from problems inherent to automatics so you should get a decent revolver. It doesn't have a feed ramp or a magazine.

Also of course you are supposed to look over a malfunctioning gun with a glass. You need to find the small defect that is causing the problem. If the defect was large and easily visible the failure would be far worse than a hang up. Just another indication that you really have no business handling firearms.

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Read the post I responded to dumbass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
Pretty much what Bama said. As dependable as the technology might get it can still fail. There are already enough things that can fail on even the best quality firearms such as ammo or a rough spot on the feed ramp or a faulty magazine. I have a Glock Model 23. When I shot it for the first time I kept getting stove pipes (empty case hanging up in the ejection port).


That is not a "stovepipe". That is a failure to eject.

Well duh, that's what a stovepipe is, but if the case doesn't make it up to and get caught up sideways between the rear of the port and the breach then it wouldn't be a stovepipe. If you really want to continue with semantical bullshit then you might even say a stovepipe causes a failure to feed.


It happened way too many times for 100 rounds (2 different ammo types). I called up Glock and they suggested I was shooting with a limp wrist. I said bull shit and sent it to them under warranty. They sent it back to me and told me nothing wrong. Again I take it to the range and 150 rounds later its still hanging up at least once or twice on every magazine full. It did it with my friend shooting it too. I sent it back again with the 2 magazines I was using and this time it came back with a new recoil assembly. A couple of thousand rounds later and I haven't had any problems.

At about .40 cents a round...sure you did.

The Glock is an ultra reliable handgun. A friend had a Sig Sauer .380, another quality handgun that started hanging up. We finally figured it out after several trips to the target range. The problem was lint in the crevice around the extractor pin spring.

From a practical standpoint, when I get a new or used handgun that I may want to depend on, I'll put at least 4 or 5 hundred rounds through it,

At .40 cents a round

Whatever, Mr. Argue Over Trivial Shit. In the early 90's when I bought the freakin Glock, even premium ammo was closer to .25 in boxes of 20 or 50. Back then I was buying surplus and some premium ammo, in a variety of calibers, by the case (1,000 rounds) and it was even way less than that. Of course this was over 20 years ago so I can't remember the exact price. I don't shoot as much as I used to these days but I'm well stocked up on ammo. I guess that makes me paranoid and Ramboesque.

with the magazines and ammo I intend to use if it's an automatic, to make certain its accurate and reliable. If I buy extra magazines for an automatic, I'll try them out before I rely on them. I never buy junk.

You bought a glock that failed to eject properly and you bought it from a company that said you had a "limpwrist" and tried to stonewall you on your warranty

Yes, is there a point or a question on that ?


In no way shape or form, no matter how reliable it's been proven to be, would I ever want some electronic smart junk crap on my handgun, rifle or shotgun.

So no red dot lazer sights for you ehh?

No, but even if I had those I would want to retain the use of my iron sights as back up. On 2 of my defensive hand guns I do have glow in the dark 3 dot sights.

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to thompsonx)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You're worried about problems arising from problems inherent to automatics so you should get a decent revolver. It doesn't have a feed ramp or a magazine.

Also of course you are supposed to look over a malfunctioning gun with a glass. You need to find the small defect that is causing the problem. If the defect was large and easily visible the failure would be far worse than a hang up. Just another indication that you really have no business handling firearms.

You talk like I'm obsessed about problems arising from problems inherent to automatics. I was simply illustrating to another poster, who asked me a question, a type of thing that can cause a malfunction. I've had many years of practical experience with a variety of firearms so pardon me if I think you're full of shit and I don't take your advise. And fuck your smart gun bullshit too.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Read the post I responded to dumbass.

Over and above all the stupid shit you've ever said about firearms on this forum, calling Kirata a dumbass is by far the stupidest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

That would mean that you would, if you were married, need two shotguns

Would you not think that a device that would save thousands of lives would be worth the cost of an extra shotgun?

Now Bama let me ask again... If the devices were proved practical ...safe... and effective at a reasonable price would you be for a law requiring all new weapons to have this technology?

Butch

Even though your description is in the realm of fantasy the answer is still no.
Among the fantasies is the idea that it would save thousands of lives, it would not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

That would mean that you would, if you were married, need two shotguns

Would you not think that a device that would save thousands of lives would be worth the cost of an extra shotgun?

Now Bama let me ask again... If the devices were proved practical ...safe... and effective at a reasonable price would you be for a law requiring all new weapons to have this technology?

Butch

Even though your description is in the realm of fantasy the answer is still no.
Among the fantasies is the idea that it would save thousands of lives, it would not.

definitely thousands.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/guns-120-kids-newtown-article-1.1391208

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

It is not uncommon for hunchback imbeciles to be easily impressed.

I didn't say it was a GOOD impression.

Neither did I.

It's really kind of sad that anyone thinks the ability to read at a grade school level actually gives them "credentials" to comment on much of anything.

That was your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion not mine.


Oh well. It's your right. If you think your ability to read grade school level sentences makes you some kind of authority, then more power to ya.

Once again that was your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion not mine.


I'll give whatever you say all the credence it deserves.

Only those with a three digit iq have that ability.

(in reply to igor2003)