flmason
July 18, 2009, 04:20 AM
xxxx
'58 Remi Fine Points?
If you enjoyed reading about "'58 Remi Fine Points?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
madcratebuilder
July 18, 2009, 07:54 AM
Q1 I used to use half cock for swapping cylinders but quickly learned it was much faster to just pull the hammer back enough to clear the cylinder. Then the cylinder well fall out either side.
Q2 Yup, all mine are that way, you get used to it.
RE rear sight. Keep an eye on those two windage screws. They well come loose and if you drop one they are hard to find. I used some gun-tite on mine when I got it sighted in.
Q2 Yup, all mine are that way, you get used to it.
RE rear sight. Keep an eye on those two windage screws. They well come loose and if you drop one they are hard to find. I used some gun-tite on mine when I got it sighted in.
Das Jaeger
July 18, 2009, 08:11 AM
Well done ! .........:D
Obviously you have picked up on the 1858 time period quwirkyness of these Armys design , hee hee hee .
It will get much smoother the more you fondle it , don't worry about that . I would avoid making any huge stoning or file adjustments just yet .
First thing I would do , and you didn't ask me I know this :D , but this is what I would do , complete disaseembly, pollish all parts with metal pollish inside , piece by piece by hand . Re-assemble with good grease, real light grease , work that action a few hundred times , disassemble again if that smoothed it up a bit and it will , then moly lube it and work that action agian a few hundred more times . It will be very smooth by this time .
Or you can just hone the surfaces smooth now manually and moly and your done , your choice :D Don't moly anything till it seats well or you have it honed first , or it will never hone or seat well .
Now let me get this straight ? Your $220 Remington Reproduction Target Army 1858 Pietta isn't as good as a $800 Smith and Wesson in fit and finish or function ? Oh come on , shouldn't it be , its a gun by golly :D:neener:
Good luck , sounds like you got a good base model to work on making nicer at least . At least your timing is good on it , without that the rest is pointless anyway . :D
Best wishes, Das Jaeger :D:cool:
Obviously you have picked up on the 1858 time period quwirkyness of these Armys design , hee hee hee .
It will get much smoother the more you fondle it , don't worry about that . I would avoid making any huge stoning or file adjustments just yet .
First thing I would do , and you didn't ask me I know this :D , but this is what I would do , complete disaseembly, pollish all parts with metal pollish inside , piece by piece by hand . Re-assemble with good grease, real light grease , work that action a few hundred times , disassemble again if that smoothed it up a bit and it will , then moly lube it and work that action agian a few hundred more times . It will be very smooth by this time .
Or you can just hone the surfaces smooth now manually and moly and your done , your choice :D Don't moly anything till it seats well or you have it honed first , or it will never hone or seat well .
Now let me get this straight ? Your $220 Remington Reproduction Target Army 1858 Pietta isn't as good as a $800 Smith and Wesson in fit and finish or function ? Oh come on , shouldn't it be , its a gun by golly :D:neener:
Good luck , sounds like you got a good base model to work on making nicer at least . At least your timing is good on it , without that the rest is pointless anyway . :D
Best wishes, Das Jaeger :D:cool:
flmason
July 18, 2009, 09:44 AM
xxxx
flmason
July 18, 2009, 09:50 AM
xxxx
kwhi43@kc.rr.com
July 18, 2009, 11:03 AM
I had the same problem with my rear sight not being wide enough. I just took
a dremeral tool with a cutting wheel and widened it up so I could see light
on both sides of front sight. You will notice the windage adjustment is kind
of "Mickey Mouse" but it works. Keep a eye on the little windage screws, they
will come loose.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127/prizzel/ThisOne.jpg
a dremeral tool with a cutting wheel and widened it up so I could see light
on both sides of front sight. You will notice the windage adjustment is kind
of "Mickey Mouse" but it works. Keep a eye on the little windage screws, they
will come loose.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127/prizzel/ThisOne.jpg
flmason
July 18, 2009, 11:23 AM
xxxx
Mike OTDP
July 18, 2009, 02:50 PM
A tip...hold the gun with your small finger under the grip. This should help with grip length issues.
Das Jaeger
July 19, 2009, 08:54 AM
Its the debate club strikes again, tha'd be you , President and Owner of the club , and only member , LOL :D
I think the old Walkers were first cast iron cylindered anyway, hence the problem of blowing up on rare occasions ? Correct me if I am wrong ?
If so , then it wouldn't be a fair comparison anyway :D And that would make me technically RIGHT , as useual , which I always am , remember that and you can stop debating me :neener:
Does a grade "A" Egg have issues too , please tell em about them ?
How about a water molecule , issues too ?
Hey , if your a good gunsmith or pistol grip maker, you could easilly extend the grips on that gun :D I am sure the ONLY Colt that fits you is the 1860 anyway then . But am sure it has issues too , right ? :D
The only issues these guns , any guns , have is the one holding them :neener: Actaulyl these guns are perfect in every way shape and form , pure poetry in motion or sitting still , it is Us that have the issue , not the gun .
Guns are not just for Killin anymore, either, remember that and you'll be less critical on them , and be much happier for it, and I will be much happier too :D
Das Jaeger
I think the old Walkers were first cast iron cylindered anyway, hence the problem of blowing up on rare occasions ? Correct me if I am wrong ?
If so , then it wouldn't be a fair comparison anyway :D And that would make me technically RIGHT , as useual , which I always am , remember that and you can stop debating me :neener:
Does a grade "A" Egg have issues too , please tell em about them ?
How about a water molecule , issues too ?
Hey , if your a good gunsmith or pistol grip maker, you could easilly extend the grips on that gun :D I am sure the ONLY Colt that fits you is the 1860 anyway then . But am sure it has issues too , right ? :D
The only issues these guns , any guns , have is the one holding them :neener: Actaulyl these guns are perfect in every way shape and form , pure poetry in motion or sitting still , it is Us that have the issue , not the gun .
Guns are not just for Killin anymore, either, remember that and you'll be less critical on them , and be much happier for it, and I will be much happier too :D
Das Jaeger
flmason
July 19, 2009, 09:04 AM
xxxx
JamesKelly
July 19, 2009, 10:45 AM
Mr. Jaeger, the Walkers, and all Colt revolvers, used steel cylinders. The terminology of the 19th Century is confusinga to modern types. What you would call plain carbon steel, maybe AISI 1040, maybe AISI 1095, they called "Cast Steel". Through the mid-20th Century we called it "Crucible Steel". What the "cast" part means is that they actually melted steel, which was "blister steel" and CAST it into an ingot. Then the ingot was forged & rolled to bar, much as it is today.
Chemistry control may not have been what it is today, and/or they may not have been all that clear on just how much carbon was needed, who knows. Anyway the metallurgy of the Walker cylinders, along with the potential for a 60 grain load, had a lot to do with them blowing up.
Reducing the powder charge about 10 grains in the Dragoon helped, I don't know if the metallurgy was any better.
For the 1860 Army, Sam claimed he had a much better grade of cast steel, which he called "Silver Steel".
Metallurgically I've not a clue what the silver did, those of us metallurgists who don't like to admit we might not know everything just say, well, all the effort necessary to get a tiny bit of silver into that steel also happened to make it better steel.
Anyway it was indeed better, for whatever reason, which permitted the 1860 Army to be lighter in construction. Some of the early fluted cylinder 1860's also had burst cylinders, due to the walls being too thin at the base of the chamber. That was corrected in replacement cylinders.
Chemistry control may not have been what it is today, and/or they may not have been all that clear on just how much carbon was needed, who knows. Anyway the metallurgy of the Walker cylinders, along with the potential for a 60 grain load, had a lot to do with them blowing up.
Reducing the powder charge about 10 grains in the Dragoon helped, I don't know if the metallurgy was any better.
For the 1860 Army, Sam claimed he had a much better grade of cast steel, which he called "Silver Steel".
Metallurgically I've not a clue what the silver did, those of us metallurgists who don't like to admit we might not know everything just say, well, all the effort necessary to get a tiny bit of silver into that steel also happened to make it better steel.
Anyway it was indeed better, for whatever reason, which permitted the 1860 Army to be lighter in construction. Some of the early fluted cylinder 1860's also had burst cylinders, due to the walls being too thin at the base of the chamber. That was corrected in replacement cylinders.
mykeal
July 19, 2009, 01:33 PM
flmason - I infer from Das Jaeger's comment that the modern replica percussion revolvers are designed, built and intended for sport use - target shooting for the most part. You responded with:
Guns with names like "New Model Army" were quite assuredly designed for killing. And that's what the majority of guns are for. Even those that aren't specifically for killing with few exceptions direct deadly force.
We are left to conclude from your statement that the only reason to have a gun is to kill, since that's what it's original design was for; is that really what you intended to convey?
Guns with names like "New Model Army" were quite assuredly designed for killing. And that's what the majority of guns are for. Even those that aren't specifically for killing with few exceptions direct deadly force.
We are left to conclude from your statement that the only reason to have a gun is to kill, since that's what it's original design was for; is that really what you intended to convey?
rcflint
July 19, 2009, 06:03 PM
When Colt bought the steel for the 1860 Colt, he bought the best, which in those days was not made in the USA, he bought the steel from Sheffield in England. The American made steel in 1860 wasnt strong enough for the small cylinder of the 1860 Army.
flmason
July 19, 2009, 11:51 PM
xxxx
Ratdog68
July 20, 2009, 12:19 AM
@mykeal - The subtext as I understand it from this end with Das Jaeger is he thinks my attitude about gun quality is laughable. My point is, even 1800's technology guns had a very serious purpose.
Other posters have suggested that because they are repros of an older technology they should get a pass on some of the quality of build issues (that I don't think even the originals would've got out of the factory with, like mis-timing).
So I'm trying to point out that any cap and ball revolver of any year manufacture should be held to a quality standard consistent with their original intent. And beyond that, since metals, etc. have improved, they should be held to an even safer standard today. (Hence the comment at one point about, "Should then, repro Walkers blow up like the originals" if quality is not a concern. Only reasonable answer is "NO!".)
As for me, the intent of the purchase of this firearm was in fact, not for toying around at the range, but for use in hunting and (hopefully never happens) for use in self defense if necessary. Ideally, this gun, after load development and sighting in, may never get used again but for an occasional checkup. But should I call on it, the intent is that it will do it's job.
Since it's not as strong nor as long term reliable as a Ruger, can't really see using it as a "play pretty". Spring breakage and faster wear rates being the limiting factors. When and if the economy turns around and I can rebuild my collection with higher grade arms, no doubt I'll end up with one or two for just the joy or marksmanship, or who knows, maybe even the CASS or SASS stuff?
I'm am aghast at the cavalier attitude I'm seeing with regard to acceptable quality in devices that involve lethal force here.
No personal attacks intended if the above seems stern, but guns *are* serious.
Ok, we get it already. You've apparently got some elitist standards of what YOU think EVERY BP gun should measure up to. You continually attempt to get everyone else to jump on your band wagon and beg for the cost of these guns to go up, just so that everything on the shelves meets YOUR ideal of YOUR perceived quality level.
So... go buy yourself a $200 BP gun... take it to your favorite gunsmith and cut the guy a check for $3,000+ so you can have your elitist version of these guns... and be happy in being able to look down your nose on the rest of us for having these $200-$400 guns.
You're NOT "converting" anyone to start parroting YOUR views. We get it, you don't like 'em the way they are... so, go do something about it for yourself and give it a rest already, would you?
Other posters have suggested that because they are repros of an older technology they should get a pass on some of the quality of build issues (that I don't think even the originals would've got out of the factory with, like mis-timing).
So I'm trying to point out that any cap and ball revolver of any year manufacture should be held to a quality standard consistent with their original intent. And beyond that, since metals, etc. have improved, they should be held to an even safer standard today. (Hence the comment at one point about, "Should then, repro Walkers blow up like the originals" if quality is not a concern. Only reasonable answer is "NO!".)
As for me, the intent of the purchase of this firearm was in fact, not for toying around at the range, but for use in hunting and (hopefully never happens) for use in self defense if necessary. Ideally, this gun, after load development and sighting in, may never get used again but for an occasional checkup. But should I call on it, the intent is that it will do it's job.
Since it's not as strong nor as long term reliable as a Ruger, can't really see using it as a "play pretty". Spring breakage and faster wear rates being the limiting factors. When and if the economy turns around and I can rebuild my collection with higher grade arms, no doubt I'll end up with one or two for just the joy or marksmanship, or who knows, maybe even the CASS or SASS stuff?
I'm am aghast at the cavalier attitude I'm seeing with regard to acceptable quality in devices that involve lethal force here.
No personal attacks intended if the above seems stern, but guns *are* serious.
Ok, we get it already. You've apparently got some elitist standards of what YOU think EVERY BP gun should measure up to. You continually attempt to get everyone else to jump on your band wagon and beg for the cost of these guns to go up, just so that everything on the shelves meets YOUR ideal of YOUR perceived quality level.
So... go buy yourself a $200 BP gun... take it to your favorite gunsmith and cut the guy a check for $3,000+ so you can have your elitist version of these guns... and be happy in being able to look down your nose on the rest of us for having these $200-$400 guns.
You're NOT "converting" anyone to start parroting YOUR views. We get it, you don't like 'em the way they are... so, go do something about it for yourself and give it a rest already, would you?
arcticap
July 20, 2009, 12:23 AM
Many of us recommend that folks buy from sources that have a liberal return policy like Cabela's or Midway.
But the truth is that some folks opt to repair their new guns by doing their own gunsmithing.
There are many similar complaints about defects with the less expensive centerfire guns too of which there many brands.
And there's also a percentage of complaints about defects with the most expensive guns of all types too. I've heard about or experienced plenty of them over the years.
The reality is that a significant percentage of any and all new guns have defects which require factory warranty work or a trip to the gunsmith paid for out of pocket.
If we started to name all of the manufacturers who have been known to produce defective guns there would be a long list of names.
In the end, no one needs to keep a defective C&B pistol if they are not satisfied as long as they buy it from an outfit with a no questions asked return policy. And even if it's not returned, there are still warranties from certain manufacturers and distributors. Those instances of repair have been reported here on a regular basis right along with all of the defects that we hear about. :)
But the truth is that some folks opt to repair their new guns by doing their own gunsmithing.
There are many similar complaints about defects with the less expensive centerfire guns too of which there many brands.
And there's also a percentage of complaints about defects with the most expensive guns of all types too. I've heard about or experienced plenty of them over the years.
The reality is that a significant percentage of any and all new guns have defects which require factory warranty work or a trip to the gunsmith paid for out of pocket.
If we started to name all of the manufacturers who have been known to produce defective guns there would be a long list of names.
In the end, no one needs to keep a defective C&B pistol if they are not satisfied as long as they buy it from an outfit with a no questions asked return policy. And even if it's not returned, there are still warranties from certain manufacturers and distributors. Those instances of repair have been reported here on a regular basis right along with all of the defects that we hear about. :)
flmason
July 20, 2009, 12:28 AM
xxxx
Ratdog68
July 20, 2009, 12:32 AM
@ratdog68 - Geezus, no wonder liberals want to take everyone's guns away.
You're reachin' now buddy. Talk about apples/oranges here.
You're reachin' now buddy. Talk about apples/oranges here.
Das Jaeger
July 20, 2009, 12:34 AM
Why is everyone so serious around here ?
Well , no , not everyone , Lordy Lordy , I thought we were supposed to have fun here too ?
Guns are not for killing only , thats the only point I am trying to make, personally ?
The other point if any , I find it humrous to see someone elses veiws of what guns should be and not be , too . Humorous as in your views that is :D . And it realy does look like yours are all by yourself on this one too from a concensus aspect at least .
I do find your views interesting flmason , yup , I do . I do think they are far fetched and very unrealistic , but thats just my opinion of course . More power to ya if you find them the way you find them to be , for you . I got no issue with that at all .
I won't sit here and say your a pain in my arse , because I realy don't care that much about any of this actually . I know what they are , I know how they work , and I can accept there quality or lack of quality , just fine ,
especaily for the price . I would stake my life on the design and the quality of the repros right out of the box . If I die doing that , so what :D
Das Jaeger ;)
Well , no , not everyone , Lordy Lordy , I thought we were supposed to have fun here too ?
Guns are not for killing only , thats the only point I am trying to make, personally ?
The other point if any , I find it humrous to see someone elses veiws of what guns should be and not be , too . Humorous as in your views that is :D . And it realy does look like yours are all by yourself on this one too from a concensus aspect at least .
I do find your views interesting flmason , yup , I do . I do think they are far fetched and very unrealistic , but thats just my opinion of course . More power to ya if you find them the way you find them to be , for you . I got no issue with that at all .
I won't sit here and say your a pain in my arse , because I realy don't care that much about any of this actually . I know what they are , I know how they work , and I can accept there quality or lack of quality , just fine ,
especaily for the price . I would stake my life on the design and the quality of the repros right out of the box . If I die doing that , so what :D
Das Jaeger ;)
flmason
July 20, 2009, 12:36 AM
@ratdog68 - No stretch at all. Given a sufficient screw up that they can capitalize on... they'll come for your antique arms as well.
Das Jaeger
July 20, 2009, 12:38 AM
look it up . :neener:
You'lll need a relaible gun , better buy a Smith and Wesson flmason .
Beloved Jaeger ? Nobody loves me here, whats you be talkin a bout mason :D
Jaeger
You'lll need a relaible gun , better buy a Smith and Wesson flmason .
Beloved Jaeger ? Nobody loves me here, whats you be talkin a bout mason :D
Jaeger
BCRider
July 20, 2009, 12:39 AM
Sadly the repro guns are likely not built with quite the same attention as the originals. This is because if they were then a far smaller number would pay the price for them and the shops that make them would price themselves out of the market.
And let's be honest here. The repro's of today are NOT intended as serious hunting or self defense arms. They are primarily used as fun range toys for personal use or shooting in fun events. As such they DO need to be safe but if they lack a little in smoothness or accuracy or reliability no one's life would be on the line if they are used for the purpose intended by the makers.
To say that they don't measure up to the reliability standards of guns intended to be able to serve in the personal defense role isn't really all THAT fair a comparison. On the one hand we all are grateful for the low cost. But then on the other to expect this low cost to come with an iron clad performance guarantee that is shared with more modern firearms isn't really fair. Can you say for sure that the originals performed with better reliability than the modern reproductions do? Do we have accounts of the originals performing for year after year without issue much like modern firearms manage to do or were they in fact subject to the same or perhaps even more frequent failures then our modern reproductions? Only the gunsmiths of the late 1800's could answer that.
In the old days if you got a gun that didn't lock up on each cylinder you'd take it back to the smith that sold it to you and he'd fiddle with it a little to make it right. Seems like if you have a concern it's time to do the modern equivalent and send it in for a look see and some tuning if needed.
Grips not fitting? A minor issue that comes with any gun. Modify, add new or adapt yourself to the existing. A small issue that is what it is. And one that is shared by guns old and new.
And let's be honest here. The repro's of today are NOT intended as serious hunting or self defense arms. They are primarily used as fun range toys for personal use or shooting in fun events. As such they DO need to be safe but if they lack a little in smoothness or accuracy or reliability no one's life would be on the line if they are used for the purpose intended by the makers.
To say that they don't measure up to the reliability standards of guns intended to be able to serve in the personal defense role isn't really all THAT fair a comparison. On the one hand we all are grateful for the low cost. But then on the other to expect this low cost to come with an iron clad performance guarantee that is shared with more modern firearms isn't really fair. Can you say for sure that the originals performed with better reliability than the modern reproductions do? Do we have accounts of the originals performing for year after year without issue much like modern firearms manage to do or were they in fact subject to the same or perhaps even more frequent failures then our modern reproductions? Only the gunsmiths of the late 1800's could answer that.
In the old days if you got a gun that didn't lock up on each cylinder you'd take it back to the smith that sold it to you and he'd fiddle with it a little to make it right. Seems like if you have a concern it's time to do the modern equivalent and send it in for a look see and some tuning if needed.
Grips not fitting? A minor issue that comes with any gun. Modify, add new or adapt yourself to the existing. A small issue that is what it is. And one that is shared by guns old and new.
flmason
July 20, 2009, 12:39 AM
xxxx
Das Jaeger
July 20, 2009, 12:41 AM
I only have to grow old, not grow up :neener:
Jaeger
Jaeger
Hawkeye748
July 20, 2009, 12:46 AM
FLMason
What you are seeing is the typical problems with the low priced Italian Repros. Their principal market is not the shooter, but the re-enactor that likely will never fire a live round. Ergo, they cut corners on the quality. The problems you list are quite typical of the cheaper grades of Italian guns. There are others as well, but you get the idea from what you have seen. The good thing is that if you are patient person, the issues you mention can be resolved and the gun can be made to shoot reliably.
If you have to hire the jobs out, you are better off getting the shooters model where most of the work has been done for the most part. One thing I encourage you to do is order Kasnit and and harden the parts after you get them performing as you like. The metal is just not hard enough to hold up long term without treatment.
The original guns I didn't have this problem. The 44 Armys were a little awkward but as you get used to it, it works fine. I too, drop my little finger below the butt. I love the original Navy Remingtons. They fit me like a glove. It is just like I am pointing my finger. Unfortunately, the repro Navy's are built on the 44 frame. When I can acquire a Navy 61 Remington in good enought shape to shoot, I intend to shoot it with the N-SSA.
What you are seeing is the typical problems with the low priced Italian Repros. Their principal market is not the shooter, but the re-enactor that likely will never fire a live round. Ergo, they cut corners on the quality. The problems you list are quite typical of the cheaper grades of Italian guns. There are others as well, but you get the idea from what you have seen. The good thing is that if you are patient person, the issues you mention can be resolved and the gun can be made to shoot reliably.
If you have to hire the jobs out, you are better off getting the shooters model where most of the work has been done for the most part. One thing I encourage you to do is order Kasnit and and harden the parts after you get them performing as you like. The metal is just not hard enough to hold up long term without treatment.
The original guns I didn't have this problem. The 44 Armys were a little awkward but as you get used to it, it works fine. I too, drop my little finger below the butt. I love the original Navy Remingtons. They fit me like a glove. It is just like I am pointing my finger. Unfortunately, the repro Navy's are built on the 44 frame. When I can acquire a Navy 61 Remington in good enought shape to shoot, I intend to shoot it with the N-SSA.
flmason
July 20, 2009, 12:52 AM
xxxx
Ratdog68
July 20, 2009, 01:14 AM
Though have to admit, I don't get why Das Jaeger and now Somethingorother68 are on this name calling binge.
Where I grew up and learned about shooting, guns were 100% serious. (Lots of ex military in the family and many back woods Pa. hunters and the like.) Have to admit, have never seen the aforementioned attitude before. Ah well, I learn something about people all the time. :)
Excuse me? What "name calling" have I done towards you? I described your behavior and expectations to appear to be "elitist"... but, that's a far cry from calling YOU names.
You have no knowledge of me, or of my background. Who are YOU to make a judgement of MY mindset of firearms and their usage? Your repeated condescending attitude is what draws out the remarks from others which you don't care for.
Where I grew up and learned about shooting, guns were 100% serious. (Lots of ex military in the family and many back woods Pa. hunters and the like.) Have to admit, have never seen the aforementioned attitude before. Ah well, I learn something about people all the time. :)
Excuse me? What "name calling" have I done towards you? I described your behavior and expectations to appear to be "elitist"... but, that's a far cry from calling YOU names.
You have no knowledge of me, or of my background. Who are YOU to make a judgement of MY mindset of firearms and their usage? Your repeated condescending attitude is what draws out the remarks from others which you don't care for.
flmason
July 20, 2009, 01:31 AM
xxxx
Ratdog68
July 20, 2009, 02:17 AM
@Ratdog68 - Generally speaking "elitist" is used as a derogatory term, no? And then telling someone things along the lines of "quit trying to convert people" etc. come across as an attack in print. (One of the problems with online forums, for sure. You can't read someone's expression at times. I've seen it cause lots of problems in business communications done in written form over the years.)
In any event, I'll have to look up "condescending"...
I found these:
****************
showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority
Synonyms:
patronizing, disdainful, supercilious.
*************
If you inferred #1, I apologize. Superiority wasn't my intent.
However, synonym #2 definitely. I'm 100% disdainful of the idea that quality in the construction of guns isn't a top priority, and that believing is should be is somehow, what did Jaeger call it... "paranoid", LOL! I won't backdown from that view, no matter how much Jaeger wants to chide. At this point it's more than clear he's just needling.
Who am I to make a judgement? About the same as you and/or Jaeger. Just someone reading someone else's comments in the spirit of free speech. Certainly no one of authority. Point in fact, I once held off on going to Law School because I felt I was no one special enough to judge. However, after enough years in Corp. USA. I could see * was no *worse* than anyone else, either. LOL! (Humor intended.)
Making judgement is part of survival, if not life itself. It's basically how we separate what's good for us and bad for us. Poor judgement can be fatal, LOL! (Humor intended.)
P.S. Sorry I couldn't recall your handle when writing the prior comment.
My use of the term "elitist" was descriptive of how I took your behavior towards (not only) these weapons, but of the rest of us who do not share your opinion of manufactoring standards. There's a difference between relating a description of behavior and applying a name to a person. Do I need to go into detailing for you how to structure a personal attack against a person (which I never did)? I simply told you how your soap box was being taken by me.
Yes, I was telling you that your continual rant appears as though you perceive yourself and your standards as being superior to the rest of us and that I was asking you to give it a rest.
I know the difference between being descriptive in relating myself and what constitutes a personal attack. If I were to resort to a personal attack against you, there'd be NO question as to whether I was doing so. I choose to NOT behave in that manner... sort of goes hand in hand with that "Golden Rule" directive we're taught in our formative years.
As a final point... I do not take responsibility for exchanges you have with another member. My banter with you is the only thing I will speak for. Your exchanges with anyone else is your problem (with them).
In any event, I'll have to look up "condescending"...
I found these:
****************
showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority
Synonyms:
patronizing, disdainful, supercilious.
*************
If you inferred #1, I apologize. Superiority wasn't my intent.
However, synonym #2 definitely. I'm 100% disdainful of the idea that quality in the construction of guns isn't a top priority, and that believing is should be is somehow, what did Jaeger call it... "paranoid", LOL! I won't backdown from that view, no matter how much Jaeger wants to chide. At this point it's more than clear he's just needling.
Who am I to make a judgement? About the same as you and/or Jaeger. Just someone reading someone else's comments in the spirit of free speech. Certainly no one of authority. Point in fact, I once held off on going to Law School because I felt I was no one special enough to judge. However, after enough years in Corp. USA. I could see * was no *worse* than anyone else, either. LOL! (Humor intended.)
Making judgement is part of survival, if not life itself. It's basically how we separate what's good for us and bad for us. Poor judgement can be fatal, LOL! (Humor intended.)
P.S. Sorry I couldn't recall your handle when writing the prior comment.
My use of the term "elitist" was descriptive of how I took your behavior towards (not only) these weapons, but of the rest of us who do not share your opinion of manufactoring standards. There's a difference between relating a description of behavior and applying a name to a person. Do I need to go into detailing for you how to structure a personal attack against a person (which I never did)? I simply told you how your soap box was being taken by me.
Yes, I was telling you that your continual rant appears as though you perceive yourself and your standards as being superior to the rest of us and that I was asking you to give it a rest.
I know the difference between being descriptive in relating myself and what constitutes a personal attack. If I were to resort to a personal attack against you, there'd be NO question as to whether I was doing so. I choose to NOT behave in that manner... sort of goes hand in hand with that "Golden Rule" directive we're taught in our formative years.
As a final point... I do not take responsibility for exchanges you have with another member. My banter with you is the only thing I will speak for. Your exchanges with anyone else is your problem (with them).
flmason
July 20, 2009, 02:38 AM
@ratdog68 - OK, now to question you. Who are *YOU* to tell anyone to give it a rest? That in itself is elitist and arrogant. The very things you are accusing me of.
I'm sorry, but *no* firearm should get out of a factory with function problems. It that's elitiest, so be it. Fine, guilty as charged.
Who am I to make that charge? Someone who's worked in plenty of factories (including military jet factories) and been through all the quality problems therein. When they paid me they expected 6 sigma. When I'm writing the check, I expect the same. Kinda goes with that Golden Rule thing, right? Maybe you have the time and money to screw with substandard crap slipping out the factory door, I might or might not. But I know I don't *want* to and shouldn't have to in an age of CNC machining.
Now I suspect Jaeger is laughing at all this. The classic, "Let's you and him fight" to use an old book's explanation of it.
I didn't start any of this. Other parties jumped on me for expecting quality in a firearm. God fordbid!
Bottom, line is, I'm done apologizing, I'm not wrong, and I'm not going to back down on that issue, and I really don't care what anyone thinks about it. It's about safety, if nothing else. If that's "elitist", "arrogant", "paranoid" or other derogatory term you and others care to use. OK fine. But don't expect me not to respond when I feel it neccessary.
I'm sorry, but *no* firearm should get out of a factory with function problems. It that's elitiest, so be it. Fine, guilty as charged.
Who am I to make that charge? Someone who's worked in plenty of factories (including military jet factories) and been through all the quality problems therein. When they paid me they expected 6 sigma. When I'm writing the check, I expect the same. Kinda goes with that Golden Rule thing, right? Maybe you have the time and money to screw with substandard crap slipping out the factory door, I might or might not. But I know I don't *want* to and shouldn't have to in an age of CNC machining.
Now I suspect Jaeger is laughing at all this. The classic, "Let's you and him fight" to use an old book's explanation of it.
I didn't start any of this. Other parties jumped on me for expecting quality in a firearm. God fordbid!
Bottom, line is, I'm done apologizing, I'm not wrong, and I'm not going to back down on that issue, and I really don't care what anyone thinks about it. It's about safety, if nothing else. If that's "elitist", "arrogant", "paranoid" or other derogatory term you and others care to use. OK fine. But don't expect me not to respond when I feel it neccessary.
BCRider
July 20, 2009, 03:20 AM
This thread seems to be by far the most contentious thread I've seen ever in the BP forum. Let's all take a step back and try to remember that we're all on the same side.
If it's a safety issue then I'd have to agree with you fl'. But from what I've read of the shortcomings in the first post it sure doesn't seem like it's so much a safety issue as it is a reliability issue. And then there's the option of just sending it back and asking for one that doesn't have those issues. That's what I'd do with any gun that failed to position lock the cylinder be it a $1000 S&W or a $250 Pietta. But other than some QC issues coming from a company with lower priced product I don't see what the issue is here.
Ratdog, you sent back the long barrel for a fault that wasn't even reliability related and were somewhat pissed that the gun passed QC for that little "feature". Can you expect any less of flmason for asking that his gun lock the cylinder in position for each shot?
Let's step back and all take a big breath and agree to buy each other a beer. We just aren't all that different when it comes down to it. It's just that sometimes we have different ways of expressing it.
If it's a safety issue then I'd have to agree with you fl'. But from what I've read of the shortcomings in the first post it sure doesn't seem like it's so much a safety issue as it is a reliability issue. And then there's the option of just sending it back and asking for one that doesn't have those issues. That's what I'd do with any gun that failed to position lock the cylinder be it a $1000 S&W or a $250 Pietta. But other than some QC issues coming from a company with lower priced product I don't see what the issue is here.
Ratdog, you sent back the long barrel for a fault that wasn't even reliability related and were somewhat pissed that the gun passed QC for that little "feature". Can you expect any less of flmason for asking that his gun lock the cylinder in position for each shot?
Let's step back and all take a big breath and agree to buy each other a beer. We just aren't all that different when it comes down to it. It's just that sometimes we have different ways of expressing it.
flmason
July 20, 2009, 04:05 AM
@BCRider - Reliability (IMHO, not being arrogant) is related to safety, if not one and the same in some respects.
A SA gun needs to reliably engage the sear without any playing around in a situation where you actually need that shot. If it drops to half cock, that could be fatal to you... if it drops all the way... could be fatal to someone else.
In any event, this particular example will engage the sear on all 6, but 2 you really have to be sure of it. In all cases pressure on the hammer won't cause it to fall. So I'll keep it. I suspect it'll actually work in. Need to get some decent hollow ground screw drivers and open it up though. Worst case, notch in hammer needs to be pushed back very slightly. Otherwise, nice clockwork-like action. Will serve for my intended purpose, which was to be able to deliver a large diameter ball to the target on demand. I'm not gunfighting nor action shooting, so no worries.
Actual intent for this gun is survival. (Note my focus on sealing the cylinder for long term, etc...) It'll fit in a pack easier than a bow. Strange choice to be sure, but fit the budget and when I ordered it, thought I was going to be moving to a less restrictive state for a new job, but wasn't sure. Didn't happen, so eventually this arm will be superceded for said purpose. Or perhaps upgraded to R&D cylinder.
Anyway, that's probably a different purpose than the majority here, which I suspect is 1st: recreational shooting or 2nd: primitive arms season hunting or lastly Action shooting.
In any event, I agree with the idea "you get what you pay for" (and typically a little less... hence profit, LOL!) I think the disagreement is over whether a low price ever justifies a piece that doesn't function correctly to leave the factory. I say not. Others seem to disagree. *That's* what has me baffled.
Crappy bluing, creepy, draggy triggers, crummy wood, all acceptable at low prices too me. I say "fine, just put the money in the critical places of the gun, and shortchange the cosmetic fluff".
Heck most of the Ruger Blackhawks I've owned (especially "New Models") have had long, draggy triggers. But they've always functioned 100%. S&W generally somewhat better. Never owned a Colt revolver. Garands, Mini-14, 1911A1's etc. I've had, all were in some way not perfect, but always were functionally correct. Granted pricier. However I've owned both a Series 70 1911A1 (Colt) and "GI Model" (Springfield Armory) at the same time. Price of the GI was *way* less than the 70... trigger pull must've been 11 pounds... but it wasn't defective by any stretch. The Colt on the other hand, was much better. But both were consistently reliable.
That's all I'm sayin'. Guns, by nature of what they do, I think should come up to some minimum standard, and whatever the price to market of *that* level of quality, should be the minimum price on the market. Otherwise folks get hurt. And trust me, bein' shot does hurt (and from experience... takes a long time to heal, especially nerve damage. Sometimes it never gets back to right.).
A SA gun needs to reliably engage the sear without any playing around in a situation where you actually need that shot. If it drops to half cock, that could be fatal to you... if it drops all the way... could be fatal to someone else.
In any event, this particular example will engage the sear on all 6, but 2 you really have to be sure of it. In all cases pressure on the hammer won't cause it to fall. So I'll keep it. I suspect it'll actually work in. Need to get some decent hollow ground screw drivers and open it up though. Worst case, notch in hammer needs to be pushed back very slightly. Otherwise, nice clockwork-like action. Will serve for my intended purpose, which was to be able to deliver a large diameter ball to the target on demand. I'm not gunfighting nor action shooting, so no worries.
Actual intent for this gun is survival. (Note my focus on sealing the cylinder for long term, etc...) It'll fit in a pack easier than a bow. Strange choice to be sure, but fit the budget and when I ordered it, thought I was going to be moving to a less restrictive state for a new job, but wasn't sure. Didn't happen, so eventually this arm will be superceded for said purpose. Or perhaps upgraded to R&D cylinder.
Anyway, that's probably a different purpose than the majority here, which I suspect is 1st: recreational shooting or 2nd: primitive arms season hunting or lastly Action shooting.
In any event, I agree with the idea "you get what you pay for" (and typically a little less... hence profit, LOL!) I think the disagreement is over whether a low price ever justifies a piece that doesn't function correctly to leave the factory. I say not. Others seem to disagree. *That's* what has me baffled.
Crappy bluing, creepy, draggy triggers, crummy wood, all acceptable at low prices too me. I say "fine, just put the money in the critical places of the gun, and shortchange the cosmetic fluff".
Heck most of the Ruger Blackhawks I've owned (especially "New Models") have had long, draggy triggers. But they've always functioned 100%. S&W generally somewhat better. Never owned a Colt revolver. Garands, Mini-14, 1911A1's etc. I've had, all were in some way not perfect, but always were functionally correct. Granted pricier. However I've owned both a Series 70 1911A1 (Colt) and "GI Model" (Springfield Armory) at the same time. Price of the GI was *way* less than the 70... trigger pull must've been 11 pounds... but it wasn't defective by any stretch. The Colt on the other hand, was much better. But both were consistently reliable.
That's all I'm sayin'. Guns, by nature of what they do, I think should come up to some minimum standard, and whatever the price to market of *that* level of quality, should be the minimum price on the market. Otherwise folks get hurt. And trust me, bein' shot does hurt (and from experience... takes a long time to heal, especially nerve damage. Sometimes it never gets back to right.).
Das Jaeger
July 20, 2009, 06:36 AM
are as follows :
Whooooo it stinks in here !
Maybe , just maybe , after someone comes down from the LOFTY perch back down to to reality where we all live at , we can get on with bussiness here ?
I am thinkin it is going to be when http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj96/5150kelly/pigsfly2.gif
Das Jaeger , steppin back and out of the way of Elitists now :fire:
Whooooo it stinks in here !
Maybe , just maybe , after someone comes down from the LOFTY perch back down to to reality where we all live at , we can get on with bussiness here ?
I am thinkin it is going to be when http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj96/5150kelly/pigsfly2.gif
Das Jaeger , steppin back and out of the way of Elitists now :fire:
pohill
July 20, 2009, 07:09 AM
A new gun that is a danger to the shooter should not leave a factory that, supposedly, proofs and inspects it. Period. Fit and finish are one thing (OK, two - I learned to count from Joe Biden) - a ball leaving a cylinder that can't enter a barrel in a straight line is another. Toys that contain lead should not leave Chinese factories either.
mykeal
July 20, 2009, 07:17 AM
That's all I'm sayin'. Guns, by nature of what they do, I think should come up to some minimum standard, and whatever the price to market of *that* level of quality, should be the minimum price on the market. Otherwise folks get hurt.
Yep. Can't disagree with any of that.
The place where we disagree (I think) is whether 'the Italian replicas' meet that standard. I contend they do. I may be wrong but I don't believe that any of the currently (and recently, defined as since 1970) Italian replicas are inherently unsafe as a result of either design or manufacture. In my 35+ years of experience with them I've had no incidents, witnessed no incidents nor heard or read any first hand accounts of any incidents that were clearly attributable to poor quality of design or manufacture. I've seen a fair amount of abuse and just plain stupidity causing injury, however.
I have experienced 'soft' parts, poor finish, poor fit and timing problems caused by unfinished or poorly fitting parts. None of the problems I've seen would be considered safety problems by any reasonable measure.
So, I contend that the Italian replicas meet your standard of safety. They do exhibit a higher incidence of finish and fit problems, and reliability is lower. Quality is certainly lower, but so is cost, and I believe the tradeoff is acceptable. It's an opinion.
Yep. Can't disagree with any of that.
The place where we disagree (I think) is whether 'the Italian replicas' meet that standard. I contend they do. I may be wrong but I don't believe that any of the currently (and recently, defined as since 1970) Italian replicas are inherently unsafe as a result of either design or manufacture. In my 35+ years of experience with them I've had no incidents, witnessed no incidents nor heard or read any first hand accounts of any incidents that were clearly attributable to poor quality of design or manufacture. I've seen a fair amount of abuse and just plain stupidity causing injury, however.
I have experienced 'soft' parts, poor finish, poor fit and timing problems caused by unfinished or poorly fitting parts. None of the problems I've seen would be considered safety problems by any reasonable measure.
So, I contend that the Italian replicas meet your standard of safety. They do exhibit a higher incidence of finish and fit problems, and reliability is lower. Quality is certainly lower, but so is cost, and I believe the tradeoff is acceptable. It's an opinion.
Ratdog68
July 20, 2009, 10:20 AM
This thread seems to be by far the most contentious thread I've seen ever in the BP forum. Let's all take a step back and try to remember that we're all on the same side.
If it's a safety issue then I'd have to agree with you fl'. But from what I've read of the shortcomings in the first post it sure doesn't seem like it's so much a safety issue as it is a reliability issue. And then there's the option of just sending it back and asking for one that doesn't have those issues. That's what I'd do with any gun that failed to position lock the cylinder be it a $1000 S&W or a $250 Pietta. But other than some QC issues coming from a company with lower priced product I don't see what the issue is here.
Ratdog, you sent back the long barrel for a fault that wasn't even reliability related and were somewhat pissed that the gun passed QC for that little "feature". Can you expect any less of flmason for asking that his gun lock the cylinder in position for each shot?
Let's step back and all take a big breath and agree to buy each other a beer. We just aren't all that different when it comes down to it. It's just that sometimes we have different ways of expressing it.
You're absolutely right. I sent that gun back... but, I'm not going on day after day telling everyone that WE need to make it clear that ALL of these guns don't meet MY standards of what is quality... and that WE should ALL be happy to pay a higher price for one of these guns. There's a big difference between grumbling for a couple of days about getting a fouled up piece, sending it back AND MOVING ON..... and what I finally responded to with "ok, we get it... give it a rest". I mean, it's not even like there have been no replies... folks have expressed that they don't see eye to eye on the concept as a whole. Instead of agreeing to disagree and acknowledging that we're all entitled to having and expressing an opinion on a topic... a dead horse is getting beat continually.
Now, I'd've been perfectly happy to leave it at that and let the dust settle (I still am)... but then I'm accused of calling him names. Apparently, he doesn't know the difference between having someone describe for him how his behavior is being perceived by another (so he can UNDERSTAND how he's coming across to others), and having someone attack him with name calling.
By now... I'm sure I've made my intentions clear. I don't dislike a person just because I don't agree with them... and I certainly have not resorted to name calling. And... I'm not at all interested in engaging in a drug out pissing contest. So, I'm going to show by example... and give it a rest.
If it's a safety issue then I'd have to agree with you fl'. But from what I've read of the shortcomings in the first post it sure doesn't seem like it's so much a safety issue as it is a reliability issue. And then there's the option of just sending it back and asking for one that doesn't have those issues. That's what I'd do with any gun that failed to position lock the cylinder be it a $1000 S&W or a $250 Pietta. But other than some QC issues coming from a company with lower priced product I don't see what the issue is here.
Ratdog, you sent back the long barrel for a fault that wasn't even reliability related and were somewhat pissed that the gun passed QC for that little "feature". Can you expect any less of flmason for asking that his gun lock the cylinder in position for each shot?
Let's step back and all take a big breath and agree to buy each other a beer. We just aren't all that different when it comes down to it. It's just that sometimes we have different ways of expressing it.
You're absolutely right. I sent that gun back... but, I'm not going on day after day telling everyone that WE need to make it clear that ALL of these guns don't meet MY standards of what is quality... and that WE should ALL be happy to pay a higher price for one of these guns. There's a big difference between grumbling for a couple of days about getting a fouled up piece, sending it back AND MOVING ON..... and what I finally responded to with "ok, we get it... give it a rest". I mean, it's not even like there have been no replies... folks have expressed that they don't see eye to eye on the concept as a whole. Instead of agreeing to disagree and acknowledging that we're all entitled to having and expressing an opinion on a topic... a dead horse is getting beat continually.
Now, I'd've been perfectly happy to leave it at that and let the dust settle (I still am)... but then I'm accused of calling him names. Apparently, he doesn't know the difference between having someone describe for him how his behavior is being perceived by another (so he can UNDERSTAND how he's coming across to others), and having someone attack him with name calling.
By now... I'm sure I've made my intentions clear. I don't dislike a person just because I don't agree with them... and I certainly have not resorted to name calling. And... I'm not at all interested in engaging in a drug out pissing contest. So, I'm going to show by example... and give it a rest.
flmason
July 26, 2009, 04:57 AM
Das Jaeger - YOU are the one who started the name calling. And now YOU are trying to sit on the lofty perch as though blameless.
As I think on it, it's folks like you that perpetuate most of the ongoing conflicts on this planet.
If I didn't know better I'd have to say there are some replica dealears around here who don't like the idea that quality issues are being discussed. No proof of that but it certainly feels that way.
@Ratboy68 - You certainly have the option of not opening threads I start. I was never "yelling" at anyone about standards.
I'm sorry folks, but I refuse to apologize for the idea that bad guns shouldn't get out of the factory.
If they are really intended for re-enactment people, as one poster suggested, then put that on the box.
Why are people (apprently vehemntly) defending this sort of thing? (Serious and honest question.) In 46 years of dealing with guns and serious gun people I've *never* seen this attitude ever before.
(And seriously, aren't these sort of issues one of the things that sunk the U.S. car industry, if not U.S. manufacturing as a whole? As I look around this town, I seem way more Japanese and German vehicles than U.S. ones. )
As I think on it, it's folks like you that perpetuate most of the ongoing conflicts on this planet.
If I didn't know better I'd have to say there are some replica dealears around here who don't like the idea that quality issues are being discussed. No proof of that but it certainly feels that way.
@Ratboy68 - You certainly have the option of not opening threads I start. I was never "yelling" at anyone about standards.
I'm sorry folks, but I refuse to apologize for the idea that bad guns shouldn't get out of the factory.
If they are really intended for re-enactment people, as one poster suggested, then put that on the box.
Why are people (apprently vehemntly) defending this sort of thing? (Serious and honest question.) In 46 years of dealing with guns and serious gun people I've *never* seen this attitude ever before.
(And seriously, aren't these sort of issues one of the things that sunk the U.S. car industry, if not U.S. manufacturing as a whole? As I look around this town, I seem way more Japanese and German vehicles than U.S. ones. )
Olmontanaboy
July 26, 2009, 07:37 AM
Actual intent for this gun is survival. (Note my focus on sealing the cylinder for long term, etc...) It'll fit in a pack easier than a bow. Strange choice to be sure, but fit the budget and when I ordered it, thought I was going to be moving to a less restrictive state for a new job, but wasn't sure. Didn't happen, so eventually this arm will be superceded for said purpose. Or perhaps upgraded to R&D cylinder.
Hi flmason, don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean it as criticization, and I don't totaly disagree with you on some points. I think most of the people here buy these repros for different purposes than survival. Their fun to plink with, target shoot, reenactment and so on. I know some use them (cap & ball pistols) for hunting. For the price they sell for I think their a pretty good buy, and I know some leave the factory less than perfect and thats why I always try and inspect in person before purchasing and buy from a seller that has a good refund policy. If I was going to purchase a gun for survival purposes to fit in a backpack I would do whatever it takes to secure a more modern firearm. I dont know what type of survival your talking about, wilderness, urban, or? For survival in an urban setting that can be consealed, a modern pistol might be my choice, In a wilderness setting if I could have only one firearm with me I would choose a Remmington 870 with a folding stock and a veriety of shells from birdshot to slugs.
Survival is a serious thing and requires a serious weapon. If you have the time to prepare, get the best firearm you can attain and if it means skipping some meals or selling some other less critical items to obtain, it's a sacrifice well worth taking. Well at least in my opinion for whatever it's worth to you.
Hi flmason, don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean it as criticization, and I don't totaly disagree with you on some points. I think most of the people here buy these repros for different purposes than survival. Their fun to plink with, target shoot, reenactment and so on. I know some use them (cap & ball pistols) for hunting. For the price they sell for I think their a pretty good buy, and I know some leave the factory less than perfect and thats why I always try and inspect in person before purchasing and buy from a seller that has a good refund policy. If I was going to purchase a gun for survival purposes to fit in a backpack I would do whatever it takes to secure a more modern firearm. I dont know what type of survival your talking about, wilderness, urban, or? For survival in an urban setting that can be consealed, a modern pistol might be my choice, In a wilderness setting if I could have only one firearm with me I would choose a Remmington 870 with a folding stock and a veriety of shells from birdshot to slugs.
Survival is a serious thing and requires a serious weapon. If you have the time to prepare, get the best firearm you can attain and if it means skipping some meals or selling some other less critical items to obtain, it's a sacrifice well worth taking. Well at least in my opinion for whatever it's worth to you.
Voodoochile
July 26, 2009, 08:56 AM
Hi flmason, don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean it as criticization, and I don't totaly disagree with you on some points. I think most of the people here buy these repros for different purposes than survival. Their fun to plink with, target shoot, reenactment and so on. I know some use them (cap & ball pistols) for hunting. For the price they sell for I think their a pretty good buy, and I know some leave the factory less than perfect and thats why I always try and inspect in person before purchasing and buy from a seller that has a good refund policy. If I was going to purchase a gun for survival purposes to fit in a backpack I would do whatever it takes to secure a more modern firearm. I dont know what type of survival your talking about, wilderness, urban, or? For survival in an urban setting that can be consealed, a modern pistol might be my choice, In a wilderness setting if I could have only one firearm with me I would choose a Remmington 870 with a folding stock and a veriety of shells from birdshot to slugs.
Survival is a serious thing and requires a serious weapon. If you have the time to prepare, get the best firearm you can attain and if it means skipping some meals or selling some other less critical items to obtain, it's a sacrifice well worth taking. Well at least in my opinion for whatever it's worth to you.
With everything you said I agree 100%
I'm one person that is known to keep a C&B Revolver loaded on a normal basis & I do take the time to seal the chambers from the elements so that if I decided to carry that firearm that day to the club & I got caught in the rain I know that if I did need to use it I would have 5 rounds available to me but like you said for a more serious survival weapon I would prefer my M1911A1 Colt .45ACP over any of my C&B Revolvers, it's just that my C&B is more fun on stump shooting & what not.
One thing I will point to the OP though that many here in these & other forums have mentioned before about these replica C&B Revolvers.
I my self & many others know all to well that when we get one of these revolvers once we determine that it's basic function is good "IE timing of the rotation of the cylinder in relation to the pulling of the hammer & the function of the pawl to the lock up of both the bolt & the trigger to the sear of the hammer" but slightly flawed as in a little stiff, gritty, a little creep is to be expected & as long as the function is sound then basic tuning is in order for nearly all of these revolvers "with some having to be returned for repair because of misalignment or other issues that basic tuning will not alleviate."
Now granted if the revolver has a problem that needs sent into the factory it is not the end of the world, I know that every manufacturer out there be it Pietta or even Ruger & many others gets their share of comebacks because of a function or QC issue it is part of the life of a large manufacturer to expect them from time to time because they may miss one out of 100+ going through the lines, again not the end of the world because most manufacturers will make it right because it is good business to do so, just remember you are not alone in having a defective firearm even ones like the military recieves get an occasional defect.
As far as the part I said of tuning.
Well that involves what many of us call stoning the interior & interior parts to improve the function & feel of the working firearm & to make it more reliable for the long haul, many here & abroad will attest that we expect to do this function to the revolvers because they are not 100% perfect & just need a little final hand working to get them the way we want them to be.
Survival is a serious thing and requires a serious weapon. If you have the time to prepare, get the best firearm you can attain and if it means skipping some meals or selling some other less critical items to obtain, it's a sacrifice well worth taking. Well at least in my opinion for whatever it's worth to you.
With everything you said I agree 100%
I'm one person that is known to keep a C&B Revolver loaded on a normal basis & I do take the time to seal the chambers from the elements so that if I decided to carry that firearm that day to the club & I got caught in the rain I know that if I did need to use it I would have 5 rounds available to me but like you said for a more serious survival weapon I would prefer my M1911A1 Colt .45ACP over any of my C&B Revolvers, it's just that my C&B is more fun on stump shooting & what not.
One thing I will point to the OP though that many here in these & other forums have mentioned before about these replica C&B Revolvers.
I my self & many others know all to well that when we get one of these revolvers once we determine that it's basic function is good "IE timing of the rotation of the cylinder in relation to the pulling of the hammer & the function of the pawl to the lock up of both the bolt & the trigger to the sear of the hammer" but slightly flawed as in a little stiff, gritty, a little creep is to be expected & as long as the function is sound then basic tuning is in order for nearly all of these revolvers "with some having to be returned for repair because of misalignment or other issues that basic tuning will not alleviate."
Now granted if the revolver has a problem that needs sent into the factory it is not the end of the world, I know that every manufacturer out there be it Pietta or even Ruger & many others gets their share of comebacks because of a function or QC issue it is part of the life of a large manufacturer to expect them from time to time because they may miss one out of 100+ going through the lines, again not the end of the world because most manufacturers will make it right because it is good business to do so, just remember you are not alone in having a defective firearm even ones like the military recieves get an occasional defect.
As far as the part I said of tuning.
Well that involves what many of us call stoning the interior & interior parts to improve the function & feel of the working firearm & to make it more reliable for the long haul, many here & abroad will attest that we expect to do this function to the revolvers because they are not 100% perfect & just need a little final hand working to get them the way we want them to be.
mykeal
July 26, 2009, 09:07 AM
I refuse to apologize for the idea that bad guns shouldn't get out of the factory.
Nobody asked you to apologize for that idea. What you might CONSIDER apologizing for is what comes across as an arrogant attitude towards a large portion of your fellow black powder gun enthusiasts. If you don't mean it that way just say so, and allow others to have their opinions without suggesting they are not serious about their participation in the sport:
In 46 years of dealing with guns and serious gun people I've *never* seen this attitude ever before.
Notice I did not say you were arrogant - I said that your attitude comes across as arrogant. Maybe you don't intend that, but it's what some of us see in your language, and we react to that perception of arrogance.
(And seriously, aren't these sort of issues one of the things that sunk the U.S. car industry, if not U.S. manufacturing as a whole? As I look around this town, I seem way more Japanese and German vehicles than U.S. ones. )
flmason is offline Report Post Quick reply to this message
Nope. What sunk the US manufacturers was the cost of labor and the legacy entitlement programs they bought into. And get some real numbers. What you seem to see is not the case across the country.
Nobody asked you to apologize for that idea. What you might CONSIDER apologizing for is what comes across as an arrogant attitude towards a large portion of your fellow black powder gun enthusiasts. If you don't mean it that way just say so, and allow others to have their opinions without suggesting they are not serious about their participation in the sport:
In 46 years of dealing with guns and serious gun people I've *never* seen this attitude ever before.
Notice I did not say you were arrogant - I said that your attitude comes across as arrogant. Maybe you don't intend that, but it's what some of us see in your language, and we react to that perception of arrogance.
(And seriously, aren't these sort of issues one of the things that sunk the U.S. car industry, if not U.S. manufacturing as a whole? As I look around this town, I seem way more Japanese and German vehicles than U.S. ones. )
flmason is offline Report Post Quick reply to this message
Nope. What sunk the US manufacturers was the cost of labor and the legacy entitlement programs they bought into. And get some real numbers. What you seem to see is not the case across the country.
flmason
July 26, 2009, 09:29 AM
@Olemontanaboy - Nah, don't worry, not taking it the wrong way. I agree with a number of your points. Realize I've, in the past owned 20+ maybe 30 guns at once that ran from junk like Ravens and Jennings J22's to M1's and Mini-14's.
My ideal survival setup (2 legged varmits aside, LOL!) Would be (1) .22, (1) .30 caliber rifle of some sort, (1) 12 guage of some sort. My personal choices would probably be a Winchester 62, Remingtion 760 and some side-by-by side double with modified and full chokes.
For two legged problems. Probably go with Mini-14 or AK variant and a double action revolver or 1911A1. Have owned both a Colt 70 and Springfield Armory GI type. Either would be fine. Prefer the solid bushings though. But for lack of feeding problems I lean toward S&W revolvers.
Yeah, a C&B for survival. Odd choice, agreed. But it fit the budget, I've already owned one or two some 15 or so years ago. So I understood the tradeoffs. Wanted to have *something* around should I need it. And CA rules are a pain, so selection in local shops sux. Didn't want to take the 30 question test... order a gun... be in some other state when it finally arrives.
So yes, I agree. Under ideal economic situations I'd pick something else entirely and am familiar enough with those arms to review and purchase them. Ideally, things will turn around and I won't have to scrap to survive. 'till then, guess I won't know.
That said...
My points here are several:
1) Everything everyone says are typical defects in the repro C&B guns are *defects*. I can't see defending that on any level. Any defense of it really is excuse making for the manufacturer, true? (Don't mean that to sound arrogant, just strikes me as true. Having worked under military types in factories... I also grew up with the attitude that when weapons fail, our guys die.)
Soft parts, mistiming, springs that fail, etc. All defects. Now they are repros of 1800's designs. So to the extent that 1800's designs did this, OK fine. No doubt flat springs break more than coil etc. But truly defective parts shouldn't get out. (Again, yes, because they are *guns*.)
2) Das Jaeger and Ratboy68 were the one's who started in on me as having an "elitist" attitude or in Jaeger's case suggesting I was mentally defective (e.g. "paranoid"). With Ratboy68 essentially saying I should shut up, especially that about the idea that prices should go up if quality can't be done at posted prices. Well, since guns direct lethal force, I can't really defend any other viewpoint. They started the ongoing altercation on that point, not me. I stated a view about product quality that seems rational (yes, because they are guns, LOL!).
THEY started the personal attacks.
For grins I've asked a number of my gun buds from over my life if they thought I was nuts for this view. Every one said not. (And trust me, we've had some shouting matches over the years. These aren't my fan club by any extreme, LOL!) As one of them put it... "Hello... we're talking about guns here!"
3) I've never encountered such dogged defense of what are product defects among gun owners I've met ever before. On this point I'm truly baffled.
Anyway, never meant to upset anyone. But I felt some personal attacks were made and went on to answer them. Of course it became clear Das Jaeger just likes to needle. So at this point I'll just ignore him. When someone who plays with as many gun as he does says, "I don't have to grow up, just old"... Uh huh, and this guy has *lots* of guns? LOL!
But I'll support that on principle. 2nd ammendment did say "the people". :)
Well, I'm outta here for a bit.
This discussion was never intended when I started this thread.
My ideal survival setup (2 legged varmits aside, LOL!) Would be (1) .22, (1) .30 caliber rifle of some sort, (1) 12 guage of some sort. My personal choices would probably be a Winchester 62, Remingtion 760 and some side-by-by side double with modified and full chokes.
For two legged problems. Probably go with Mini-14 or AK variant and a double action revolver or 1911A1. Have owned both a Colt 70 and Springfield Armory GI type. Either would be fine. Prefer the solid bushings though. But for lack of feeding problems I lean toward S&W revolvers.
Yeah, a C&B for survival. Odd choice, agreed. But it fit the budget, I've already owned one or two some 15 or so years ago. So I understood the tradeoffs. Wanted to have *something* around should I need it. And CA rules are a pain, so selection in local shops sux. Didn't want to take the 30 question test... order a gun... be in some other state when it finally arrives.
So yes, I agree. Under ideal economic situations I'd pick something else entirely and am familiar enough with those arms to review and purchase them. Ideally, things will turn around and I won't have to scrap to survive. 'till then, guess I won't know.
That said...
My points here are several:
1) Everything everyone says are typical defects in the repro C&B guns are *defects*. I can't see defending that on any level. Any defense of it really is excuse making for the manufacturer, true? (Don't mean that to sound arrogant, just strikes me as true. Having worked under military types in factories... I also grew up with the attitude that when weapons fail, our guys die.)
Soft parts, mistiming, springs that fail, etc. All defects. Now they are repros of 1800's designs. So to the extent that 1800's designs did this, OK fine. No doubt flat springs break more than coil etc. But truly defective parts shouldn't get out. (Again, yes, because they are *guns*.)
2) Das Jaeger and Ratboy68 were the one's who started in on me as having an "elitist" attitude or in Jaeger's case suggesting I was mentally defective (e.g. "paranoid"). With Ratboy68 essentially saying I should shut up, especially that about the idea that prices should go up if quality can't be done at posted prices. Well, since guns direct lethal force, I can't really defend any other viewpoint. They started the ongoing altercation on that point, not me. I stated a view about product quality that seems rational (yes, because they are guns, LOL!).
THEY started the personal attacks.
For grins I've asked a number of my gun buds from over my life if they thought I was nuts for this view. Every one said not. (And trust me, we've had some shouting matches over the years. These aren't my fan club by any extreme, LOL!) As one of them put it... "Hello... we're talking about guns here!"
3) I've never encountered such dogged defense of what are product defects among gun owners I've met ever before. On this point I'm truly baffled.
Anyway, never meant to upset anyone. But I felt some personal attacks were made and went on to answer them. Of course it became clear Das Jaeger just likes to needle. So at this point I'll just ignore him. When someone who plays with as many gun as he does says, "I don't have to grow up, just old"... Uh huh, and this guy has *lots* of guns? LOL!
But I'll support that on principle. 2nd ammendment did say "the people". :)
Well, I'm outta here for a bit.
This discussion was never intended when I started this thread.
flmason
July 26, 2009, 09:30 AM
Jaeger, you do realize the only elitist in here stinking the place up is you, right?
flmason
July 26, 2009, 09:50 AM
@Mykeal - I never did intend to come across as arrogant. Must be something about my choice of written words.
Yes, no doubt the labor situation didn't help GM et. al. But while we're on the people and money issues neither did upper managment or Wall Street. People want to attack the entitlements the unions *negotiated* but at the same time defend the one's the upper echelon *negotiated*. Seems a little one sided to me. As does the whole bailout thing.
"Entitlement" is a funny word. When the other guy wants it, it's and "Entitlement". When we want it for ourselves... it's a "right", LOL!
When individuals were getting nailed by the drop in property values, no one cared... Oh... when those loses were going to hit the big boy's books... "Crisis! Bailout!".
That aside, C'mon, we all know U.S. cars have been viewed as second quality for a long, long time. (And that's coming from a guy who's first car was a '56 Bel Air. Still have one Pontiac, but generally drive Jap. I've had less trouble per mile with them. Much as I hate to admit it, because I've always been a muscle car fan.)
Time was when "Made in USA" meant quality and "Made in Japan" meant junk. Somewhere along the line that changed. Seems an engineer named Deming couldn't sell the idea of quality in the U.S. and went over to Japan. The rest, as they say, is history.
As an aside, I tend to feel some of the quality problems at GM came from these places:
1) Lowest cost bidder approach to buying outsourced parts - I've read that if a cheaper water pump would save them $0.10 a unit, that's the way they'd go.
2) Labor/Management relations - If the demographics of the factories are similar to Detroit, and the Wall Street attitude I saw in companies like Citicorp pervades... I have no doubt the folks actually on the production lines didn't car about the quality of what was built. Too much Us v. Them for any other outcome.
What does baffle me, is that they saw the foreign guys starting to win. Why changes to the products took so long to happen, I don't quite understand.
Seems clear to me the reigning car design stencil is the BMW 3, 5, and 7 series. Every car on the road is styled like them these days at the very least. So seems the Euro Sports Sedan concept was the winner for the market (SUV market aside for the moment) and yet they were still churning out they typical Buick "clunkers", LOL! (Humor intended, you know what I mean.)
So perhaps some of the financial problems (heck if not all, not familiar with the numbers) may be entitlement programs for the workers, but what of the entitlements for the management? What of the games played by Wall Street? What were these supposed financial geniuses from Harvard MBA school doing exactly? How did the "dumb dumbs" of labor beat up on the MBA's holding the purse strings? Why should workers always get the shaft? I dunno. But labor wasn't the only source of the problems, that's for sure.
Yes, no doubt the labor situation didn't help GM et. al. But while we're on the people and money issues neither did upper managment or Wall Street. People want to attack the entitlements the unions *negotiated* but at the same time defend the one's the upper echelon *negotiated*. Seems a little one sided to me. As does the whole bailout thing.
"Entitlement" is a funny word. When the other guy wants it, it's and "Entitlement". When we want it for ourselves... it's a "right", LOL!
When individuals were getting nailed by the drop in property values, no one cared... Oh... when those loses were going to hit the big boy's books... "Crisis! Bailout!".
That aside, C'mon, we all know U.S. cars have been viewed as second quality for a long, long time. (And that's coming from a guy who's first car was a '56 Bel Air. Still have one Pontiac, but generally drive Jap. I've had less trouble per mile with them. Much as I hate to admit it, because I've always been a muscle car fan.)
Time was when "Made in USA" meant quality and "Made in Japan" meant junk. Somewhere along the line that changed. Seems an engineer named Deming couldn't sell the idea of quality in the U.S. and went over to Japan. The rest, as they say, is history.
As an aside, I tend to feel some of the quality problems at GM came from these places:
1) Lowest cost bidder approach to buying outsourced parts - I've read that if a cheaper water pump would save them $0.10 a unit, that's the way they'd go.
2) Labor/Management relations - If the demographics of the factories are similar to Detroit, and the Wall Street attitude I saw in companies like Citicorp pervades... I have no doubt the folks actually on the production lines didn't car about the quality of what was built. Too much Us v. Them for any other outcome.
What does baffle me, is that they saw the foreign guys starting to win. Why changes to the products took so long to happen, I don't quite understand.
Seems clear to me the reigning car design stencil is the BMW 3, 5, and 7 series. Every car on the road is styled like them these days at the very least. So seems the Euro Sports Sedan concept was the winner for the market (SUV market aside for the moment) and yet they were still churning out they typical Buick "clunkers", LOL! (Humor intended, you know what I mean.)
So perhaps some of the financial problems (heck if not all, not familiar with the numbers) may be entitlement programs for the workers, but what of the entitlements for the management? What of the games played by Wall Street? What were these supposed financial geniuses from Harvard MBA school doing exactly? How did the "dumb dumbs" of labor beat up on the MBA's holding the purse strings? Why should workers always get the shaft? I dunno. But labor wasn't the only source of the problems, that's for sure.
Ratdog68
July 26, 2009, 11:56 AM
@Mykeal - I never did intend to come across as arrogant. Must be something about my choice of written words.
Yes, no doubt the labor situation didn't help GM et. al. But while we're on the people and money issues neither did upper managment or Wall Street. People want to attack the entitlements the unions *negotiated* but at the same time defend the one's the upper echelon *negotiated*. Seems a little one sided to me. As does the whole bailout thing.
"Entitlement" is a funny word. When the other guy wants it, it's and "Entitlement". When we want it for ourselves... it's a "right", LOL!
When individuals were getting nailed by the drop in property values, no one cared... Oh... when those loses were going to hit the big boy's books... "Crisis! Bailout!".
That aside, C'mon, we all know U.S. cars have been viewed as second quality for a long, long time. (And that's coming from a guy who's first car was a '56 Bel Air. Still have one Pontiac, but generally drive Jap. I've had less trouble per mile with them. Much as I hate to admit it, because I've always been a muscle car fan.)
Time was when "Made in USA" meant quality and "Made in Japan" meant junk. Somewhere along the line that changed. Seems an engineer named Deming couldn't sell the idea of quality in the U.S. and went over to Japan. The rest, as they say, is history.
As an aside, I tend to feel some of the quality problems at GM came from these places:
1) Lowest cost bidder approach to buying outsourced parts - I've read that if a cheaper water pump would save them $0.10 a unit, that's the way they'd go.
2) Labor/Management relations - If the demographics of the factories are similar to Detroit, and the Wall Street attitude I saw in companies like Citicorp pervades... I have no doubt the folks actually on the production lines didn't car about the quality of what was built. Too much Us v. Them for any other outcome.
What does baffle me, is that they saw the foreign guys starting to win. Why changes to the products took so long to happen, I don't quite understand.
Seems clear to me the reigning car design stencil is the BMW 3, 5, and 7 series. Every car on the road is styled like them these days at the very least. So seems the Euro Sports Sedan concept was the winner for the market (SUV market aside for the moment) and yet they were still churning out they typical Buick "clunkers", LOL! (Humor intended, you know what I mean.)
So perhaps some of the financial problems (heck if not all, not familiar with the numbers) may be entitlement programs for the workers, but what of the entitlements for the management? What of the games played by Wall Street? What were these supposed financial geniuses from Harvard MBA school doing exactly? How did the "dumb dumbs" of labor beat up on the MBA's holding the purse strings? Why should workers always get the shaft? I dunno. But labor wasn't the only source of the problems, that's for sure.
Hmmmm.... am I seeing a pattern here? When SOME appear on the scene, all they want to do is to get a big ol' diatribe stirred up and keep everyone one else trying to cottle their feelings with explanations of their input while they're "shown the error" of their input? :banghead:
Ya know... (flmason)... you can "label" me in your posts in any manner you choose, and I couldn't care less. If it makes you feel better (perceived by me as feeling superior), then by all means, call me by whatever handle you choose to. I've never once resorted to "name calling".
I never once told you to "shut up". I did ask you "to give it a rest"... and when you refused to do so... implied your rants are perceived as "beating a dead horse". :banghead:
The fact of the matter is... I don't come here to listen to all your pet pieves, I don't come here to listen to you debate everyone's input to a topic. I come here to see what others are doing with their BP guns... to share with others what I may be doing with mine. I come here to learn from others who have more experience with them than I do. I come here to even see what another may be sharing about what's going on in their life which might even be a bit off topic from time to time. It's called getting to know one another and making friends... give it a try sometime... you may like it.
I would encourage you to step back (once again) and look at the number of people who are relating to you that you're coming across as arrogant/condescending/elitist. You tell others in your replies to them that you do not intend to do so... yet you continue to try and belittle by trying to give others your little pet names to address them by, appearing to imply you're superior. Hmmmm... and then you wonder why people react to you the way they do? :banghead:
And... since Das Jaeger isn't online for a while to be able to answer to your remarks about him (which I really take as offensive/condescending/arrogant/elitist in nature...) :fire::cuss: I'll say this much. I'd feel quite comfortable being around him with all of his guns. I'm offended by your implication that he's less than competant to be in possession of one/all of them. :fire::cuss: YOU (sir), claim to be pro-gun... but, by your own words, appear to be elitist in your attitude and imply that YOU can better lead US as to who should/should NOT have their guns around them ?!?!? THAT uttered attitude is what should raise the hackles of every American.
:eek::fire::banghead:
Another behavioral pattern I see with you is... when you're not enjoying the upper hand in a debate (which you insist upon keeping alive with your self-serving accusations and such)... you "gather up your toys and leave" by deleting your posts... as if what you'd thrown out at people doesn't exist. Why is it that not even YOU are willing to stand behind what you put to word? If your words are not worth leaving out there... are they even worth uttering to begin with? Think about it. You keep these little emotional exercises of yours alive by continuing to put words in other people's mouths... bringing them back into the volley of fodder. :banghead:
This whole matter died when you stomped off in a huff last week and everyone seems to have been quite capable of getting along and enjoying one another. A week later, you make your little grand entrance and resuming beating a dead horse... :banghead:
So, I'll repeat myself from before... go buy yourself a $200 BP gun and go pay some gunsmith $3,000 to make it into what YOU perceive that it NEEDS to be... and be happy. As for me... I couldn't care less whether you approve of what I own or like. From observing your behavior, your opinion holds little worth to me. :barf:
You come across as the personification of the old T-shirt I once saw... "Why hang out in the barnyard with turkeys when you can soar with eagles?"
Yes, no doubt the labor situation didn't help GM et. al. But while we're on the people and money issues neither did upper managment or Wall Street. People want to attack the entitlements the unions *negotiated* but at the same time defend the one's the upper echelon *negotiated*. Seems a little one sided to me. As does the whole bailout thing.
"Entitlement" is a funny word. When the other guy wants it, it's and "Entitlement". When we want it for ourselves... it's a "right", LOL!
When individuals were getting nailed by the drop in property values, no one cared... Oh... when those loses were going to hit the big boy's books... "Crisis! Bailout!".
That aside, C'mon, we all know U.S. cars have been viewed as second quality for a long, long time. (And that's coming from a guy who's first car was a '56 Bel Air. Still have one Pontiac, but generally drive Jap. I've had less trouble per mile with them. Much as I hate to admit it, because I've always been a muscle car fan.)
Time was when "Made in USA" meant quality and "Made in Japan" meant junk. Somewhere along the line that changed. Seems an engineer named Deming couldn't sell the idea of quality in the U.S. and went over to Japan. The rest, as they say, is history.
As an aside, I tend to feel some of the quality problems at GM came from these places:
1) Lowest cost bidder approach to buying outsourced parts - I've read that if a cheaper water pump would save them $0.10 a unit, that's the way they'd go.
2) Labor/Management relations - If the demographics of the factories are similar to Detroit, and the Wall Street attitude I saw in companies like Citicorp pervades... I have no doubt the folks actually on the production lines didn't car about the quality of what was built. Too much Us v. Them for any other outcome.
What does baffle me, is that they saw the foreign guys starting to win. Why changes to the products took so long to happen, I don't quite understand.
Seems clear to me the reigning car design stencil is the BMW 3, 5, and 7 series. Every car on the road is styled like them these days at the very least. So seems the Euro Sports Sedan concept was the winner for the market (SUV market aside for the moment) and yet they were still churning out they typical Buick "clunkers", LOL! (Humor intended, you know what I mean.)
So perhaps some of the financial problems (heck if not all, not familiar with the numbers) may be entitlement programs for the workers, but what of the entitlements for the management? What of the games played by Wall Street? What were these supposed financial geniuses from Harvard MBA school doing exactly? How did the "dumb dumbs" of labor beat up on the MBA's holding the purse strings? Why should workers always get the shaft? I dunno. But labor wasn't the only source of the problems, that's for sure.
Hmmmm.... am I seeing a pattern here? When SOME appear on the scene, all they want to do is to get a big ol' diatribe stirred up and keep everyone one else trying to cottle their feelings with explanations of their input while they're "shown the error" of their input? :banghead:
Ya know... (flmason)... you can "label" me in your posts in any manner you choose, and I couldn't care less. If it makes you feel better (perceived by me as feeling superior), then by all means, call me by whatever handle you choose to. I've never once resorted to "name calling".
I never once told you to "shut up". I did ask you "to give it a rest"... and when you refused to do so... implied your rants are perceived as "beating a dead horse". :banghead:
The fact of the matter is... I don't come here to listen to all your pet pieves, I don't come here to listen to you debate everyone's input to a topic. I come here to see what others are doing with their BP guns... to share with others what I may be doing with mine. I come here to learn from others who have more experience with them than I do. I come here to even see what another may be sharing about what's going on in their life which might even be a bit off topic from time to time. It's called getting to know one another and making friends... give it a try sometime... you may like it.
I would encourage you to step back (once again) and look at the number of people who are relating to you that you're coming across as arrogant/condescending/elitist. You tell others in your replies to them that you do not intend to do so... yet you continue to try and belittle by trying to give others your little pet names to address them by, appearing to imply you're superior. Hmmmm... and then you wonder why people react to you the way they do? :banghead:
And... since Das Jaeger isn't online for a while to be able to answer to your remarks about him (which I really take as offensive/condescending/arrogant/elitist in nature...) :fire::cuss: I'll say this much. I'd feel quite comfortable being around him with all of his guns. I'm offended by your implication that he's less than competant to be in possession of one/all of them. :fire::cuss: YOU (sir), claim to be pro-gun... but, by your own words, appear to be elitist in your attitude and imply that YOU can better lead US as to who should/should NOT have their guns around them ?!?!? THAT uttered attitude is what should raise the hackles of every American.
:eek::fire::banghead:
Another behavioral pattern I see with you is... when you're not enjoying the upper hand in a debate (which you insist upon keeping alive with your self-serving accusations and such)... you "gather up your toys and leave" by deleting your posts... as if what you'd thrown out at people doesn't exist. Why is it that not even YOU are willing to stand behind what you put to word? If your words are not worth leaving out there... are they even worth uttering to begin with? Think about it. You keep these little emotional exercises of yours alive by continuing to put words in other people's mouths... bringing them back into the volley of fodder. :banghead:
This whole matter died when you stomped off in a huff last week and everyone seems to have been quite capable of getting along and enjoying one another. A week later, you make your little grand entrance and resuming beating a dead horse... :banghead:
So, I'll repeat myself from before... go buy yourself a $200 BP gun and go pay some gunsmith $3,000 to make it into what YOU perceive that it NEEDS to be... and be happy. As for me... I couldn't care less whether you approve of what I own or like. From observing your behavior, your opinion holds little worth to me. :barf:
You come across as the personification of the old T-shirt I once saw... "Why hang out in the barnyard with turkeys when you can soar with eagles?"
Ratdog68
July 26, 2009, 11:57 AM
@Olemontanaboy - Nah, don't worry, not taking it the wrong way. I agree with a number of your points. Realize I've, in the past owned 20+ maybe 30 guns at once that ran from junk like Ravens and Jennings J22's to M1's and Mini-14's.
My ideal survival setup (2 legged varmits aside, LOL!) Would be (1) .22, (1) .30 caliber rifle of some sort, (1) 12 guage of some sort. My personal choices would probably be a Winchester 62, Remingtion 760 and some side-by-by side double with modified and full chokes.
For two legged problems. Probably go with Mini-14 or AK variant and a double action revolver or 1911A1. Have owned both a Colt 70 and Springfield Armory GI type. Either would be fine. Prefer the solid bushings though. But for lack of feeding problems I lean toward S&W revolvers.
Yeah, a C&B for survival. Odd choice, agreed. But it fit the budget, I've already owned one or two some 15 or so years ago. So I understood the tradeoffs. Wanted to have *something* around should I need it. And CA rules are a pain, so selection in local shops sux. Didn't want to take the 30 question test... order a gun... be in some other state when it finally arrives.
So yes, I agree. Under ideal economic situations I'd pick something else entirely and am familiar enough with those arms to review and purchase them. Ideally, things will turn around and I won't have to scrap to survive. 'till then, guess I won't know.
That said...
My points here are several:
1) Everything everyone says are typical defects in the repro C&B guns are *defects*. I can't see defending that on any level. Any defense of it really is excuse making for the manufacturer, true? (Don't mean that to sound arrogant, just strikes me as true. Having worked under military types in factories... I also grew up with the attitude that when weapons fail, our guys die.)
Soft parts, mistiming, springs that fail, etc. All defects. Now they are repros of 1800's designs. So to the extent that 1800's designs did this, OK fine. No doubt flat springs break more than coil etc. But truly defective parts shouldn't get out. (Again, yes, because they are *guns*.)
2) Das Jaeger and Ratboy68 were the one's who started in on me as having an "elitist" attitude or in Jaeger's case suggesting I was mentally defective (e.g. "paranoid"). With Ratboy68 essentially saying I should shut up, especially that about the idea that prices should go up if quality can't be done at posted prices. Well, since guns direct lethal force, I can't really defend any other viewpoint. They started the ongoing altercation on that point, not me. I stated a view about product quality that seems rational (yes, because they are guns, LOL!).
THEY started the personal attacks.
For grins I've asked a number of my gun buds from over my life if they thought I was nuts for this view. Every one said not. (And trust me, we've had some shouting matches over the years. These aren't my fan club by any extreme, LOL!) As one of them put it... "Hello... we're talking about guns here!"
3) I've never encountered such dogged defense of what are product defects among gun owners I've met ever before. On this point I'm truly baffled.
Anyway, never meant to upset anyone. But I felt some personal attacks were made and went on to answer them. Of course it became clear Das Jaeger just likes to needle. So at this point I'll just ignore him. When someone who plays with as many gun as he does says, "I don't have to grow up, just old"... Uh huh, and this guy has *lots* of guns? LOL!
But I'll support that on principle. 2nd ammendment did say "the people". :)
Well, I'm outta here for a bit.
This discussion was never intended when I started this thread.
Hmmm... who's on the attack here?
My ideal survival setup (2 legged varmits aside, LOL!) Would be (1) .22, (1) .30 caliber rifle of some sort, (1) 12 guage of some sort. My personal choices would probably be a Winchester 62, Remingtion 760 and some side-by-by side double with modified and full chokes.
For two legged problems. Probably go with Mini-14 or AK variant and a double action revolver or 1911A1. Have owned both a Colt 70 and Springfield Armory GI type. Either would be fine. Prefer the solid bushings though. But for lack of feeding problems I lean toward S&W revolvers.
Yeah, a C&B for survival. Odd choice, agreed. But it fit the budget, I've already owned one or two some 15 or so years ago. So I understood the tradeoffs. Wanted to have *something* around should I need it. And CA rules are a pain, so selection in local shops sux. Didn't want to take the 30 question test... order a gun... be in some other state when it finally arrives.
So yes, I agree. Under ideal economic situations I'd pick something else entirely and am familiar enough with those arms to review and purchase them. Ideally, things will turn around and I won't have to scrap to survive. 'till then, guess I won't know.
That said...
My points here are several:
1) Everything everyone says are typical defects in the repro C&B guns are *defects*. I can't see defending that on any level. Any defense of it really is excuse making for the manufacturer, true? (Don't mean that to sound arrogant, just strikes me as true. Having worked under military types in factories... I also grew up with the attitude that when weapons fail, our guys die.)
Soft parts, mistiming, springs that fail, etc. All defects. Now they are repros of 1800's designs. So to the extent that 1800's designs did this, OK fine. No doubt flat springs break more than coil etc. But truly defective parts shouldn't get out. (Again, yes, because they are *guns*.)
2) Das Jaeger and Ratboy68 were the one's who started in on me as having an "elitist" attitude or in Jaeger's case suggesting I was mentally defective (e.g. "paranoid"). With Ratboy68 essentially saying I should shut up, especially that about the idea that prices should go up if quality can't be done at posted prices. Well, since guns direct lethal force, I can't really defend any other viewpoint. They started the ongoing altercation on that point, not me. I stated a view about product quality that seems rational (yes, because they are guns, LOL!).
THEY started the personal attacks.
For grins I've asked a number of my gun buds from over my life if they thought I was nuts for this view. Every one said not. (And trust me, we've had some shouting matches over the years. These aren't my fan club by any extreme, LOL!) As one of them put it... "Hello... we're talking about guns here!"
3) I've never encountered such dogged defense of what are product defects among gun owners I've met ever before. On this point I'm truly baffled.
Anyway, never meant to upset anyone. But I felt some personal attacks were made and went on to answer them. Of course it became clear Das Jaeger just likes to needle. So at this point I'll just ignore him. When someone who plays with as many gun as he does says, "I don't have to grow up, just old"... Uh huh, and this guy has *lots* of guns? LOL!
But I'll support that on principle. 2nd ammendment did say "the people". :)
Well, I'm outta here for a bit.
This discussion was never intended when I started this thread.
Hmmm... who's on the attack here?
Ratdog68
July 26, 2009, 12:00 PM
Jaeger, you do realize the only elitist in here stinking the place up is you, right?
On the contrary flmason... I've found him to be quite opinionated as to the reality of ownership of these things (and, that's ok... and welcomed by me)... but have also found him to be quite willing to help others achieve the goals of THEIR agendas. You're the one wanting to get everyone else on board with YOUR agenda.
On the contrary flmason... I've found him to be quite opinionated as to the reality of ownership of these things (and, that's ok... and welcomed by me)... but have also found him to be quite willing to help others achieve the goals of THEIR agendas. You're the one wanting to get everyone else on board with YOUR agenda.
Ratdog68
July 26, 2009, 12:02 PM
Das Jaeger - YOU are the one who started the name calling. And now YOU are trying to sit on the lofty perch as though blameless.
As I think on it, it's folks like you that perpetuate most of the ongoing conflicts on this planet.
If I didn't know better I'd have to say there are some replica dealears around here who don't like the idea that quality issues are being discussed. No proof of that but it certainly feels that way.
@Ratboy68 - You certainly have the option of not opening threads I start. I was never "yelling" at anyone about standards.
I'm sorry folks, but I refuse to apologize for the idea that bad guns shouldn't get out of the factory.
If they are really intended for re-enactment people, as one poster suggested, then put that on the box.
Why are people (apprently vehemntly) defending this sort of thing? (Serious and honest question.) In 46 years of dealing with guns and serious gun people I've *never* seen this attitude ever before.
(And seriously, aren't these sort of issues one of the things that sunk the U.S. car industry, if not U.S. manufacturing as a whole? As I look around this town, I seem way more Japanese and German vehicles than U.S. ones. )
Hmmmm... who keeps bringing up old garbage and beating a dead horse? :banghead:
As I think on it, it's folks like you that perpetuate most of the ongoing conflicts on this planet.
If I didn't know better I'd have to say there are some replica dealears around here who don't like the idea that quality issues are being discussed. No proof of that but it certainly feels that way.
@Ratboy68 - You certainly have the option of not opening threads I start. I was never "yelling" at anyone about standards.
I'm sorry folks, but I refuse to apologize for the idea that bad guns shouldn't get out of the factory.
If they are really intended for re-enactment people, as one poster suggested, then put that on the box.
Why are people (apprently vehemntly) defending this sort of thing? (Serious and honest question.) In 46 years of dealing with guns and serious gun people I've *never* seen this attitude ever before.
(And seriously, aren't these sort of issues one of the things that sunk the U.S. car industry, if not U.S. manufacturing as a whole? As I look around this town, I seem way more Japanese and German vehicles than U.S. ones. )
Hmmmm... who keeps bringing up old garbage and beating a dead horse? :banghead:
If you enjoyed reading about "'58 Remi Fine Points?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.