One way people form preferences about guns/caliber...
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
- Status
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
You're right, my bad. Your chastising was not a attempt to belittle the choices folks make, but actually just an attempt to belittle how folks make those choices. Big difference. I apologize.
Yep, of course you're correct....it's stupid to buy a weapon based on an embellished war story. Or because of what your hero used on Saturday morning westerns. Or because grandpa said it's was the greatest gun John Moses Browning ever invented. Don't buy any gun just because you like the way it looks and how it fits into your hands, or because it's cool. Only buy a gun that has a practical purpose and after you fully research it's history. We all know that only then, will you end up with the gun that is perfect, for you. If Grandpa embellished his time in war and the weapons he used....shame on him and shame on you for believing it. How can we all be so stupid, eh?
Sorry, ain't trying to be a jerk, but I see the same bravado inferring that how you make your choices, are better than how others do. My point is and always was...... why? What difference does it make, other than trying to impress us all with your superior knowledge. I could care less if a guy chooses to buy a Mare's Leg because he watched "Dead or Alive" when he was a kid. If my buddy hunts with a ought-six because his dad did, who cares if I think a 6.5 is better? I know it ain't worth the time to start a thread on it. Most every time a thread like this gets locked it's because folks are butting heads about what choice is the best. The best choice for you is the choice you make. How you make it is your business. Now if you make a choice that is a safety issue or a legal issue, than I will have an issue with it, but as far as platform choice and caliber, use it in a safe and responsible way and I care less. That's how we all should be. We don't want the government telling us what we can and should buy, but in the next breath, we think we need to take that stand. I just don't get it.
"Frequent" being a relative term, could mean almost anything.Kinda like "raining cats and dogs".
JFrame
Member
Back in the day (we're talkin' WAY back in the day...
), a buddy and I were interested in acquiring Colt 1911s -- but we had heard so much about the shoulder-ripping qualities of the .45 ACP, we were daunted. So we went to a gun store (this was before store rentals were a big thing) and asked if there was a 1911 we could test fire.The clerk we spoke to just happened to have a beaten-up 1911 riding his hip. So he took us to the outdoor range at the back of the store and let us pop through a box of 230 gr ammo.
We promptly went back into the store and each bought a 1911...
.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Back in the day (we're talkin' WAY back in the day...
.
My Dad was Marine in WWII. He was in a "Special Forces" unit of the 4th Marine Division and made 3 Beach landings......one of them was at Iwo. He was a forward spotter/radioman and because of the 90# radio he carried on his back, he was originally issued a 1911 as his weapon. Later it was replaced by the M1 Carbine. Dad didn't talk much about the war, what he did tell me, was that everytime he hit the beach, the first thing he looked for was a Garand next to a fallen comrade, because he had little or no respect for either the 1911 or the carbine for stopping the enemy. Having a good job in High School, back when M1 Carbines were $89 your choice from a 55 gallon drum of them at Montgomery Wards, I still couldn't talk my dad into signing for one before I was 18. He hated them that much. Same came when I bought my first 1911 while he was still alive. Just shook his head, but did not condescend me for my choice.. I now have several 1911s and a M1 Carbine even tho all I was told as a young man was negative hype. Sometimes you just gotta go with what trips your trigger.
Last edited:
If you go to a current Macy's, it is a clothing store primarily. When I was a kid in Brooklyn, they had a sporting goods section in the basement with barrels of surplus all kinds of WWII rifles. Could have had a service rifle of the primary types - except I was 8 years old.
JFrame
Member
I can relate... My dad was a WWII veteran also, and he had no use for those weapons after the war.
.
The post wasn't about belittling anyone, but I suppose if you must view it that way, it might be accurate to say that it belittles the people who make up and/or spread false stories. The people who are taken in and believe lies they are told, often by respected persons, aren't to blame.
I am not saying, nor have I said, nor do I believe that people who are taken in by false stories told (or retold), often by respected persons (such as the author in this story who is responsible for verifying facts before writing an article) who know better or should know better, are to blame. That's very clear. If you want to continue arguing that I am blaming them for being victims, that's up to you, but you're not arguing against me because that's not my position. That's simply you making stuff up.
I didn't say it was stupid, I said it was not an ideal way to choose a gun.
This is being ridiculous. It's fine to buy a gun because you saw it in the movies and liked it. It's fine to buy a gun because you just like the way it looks. It's fine to buy guns that aren't practical. It's fine to buy a gun without knowing anything about its history. I think I've done all of those things at one time or another. I haven't ever bought a gun based on made up war stories, but that's probably more to do with good fortune on my part when I was first getting into guns, before I started really learning about them.
Anyway, in ALL of the cases I listed, you are getting what you want, you are getting what you think you are getting (a gun you like, the gun you saw in the movies/on TV, a gun that looks good to you). What I'm talking about is buying a gun when you think you are getting one thing (e.g. a gun that was frequently used against the Moros in the Philippine Insurrection) and are actually getting another thing (a gun that was not used in the Philippine Insurrection at all and that almost certainly wasn't ever used against a Moro). Buying a gun based on thinking a made up story is fact, certainly isn't ideal--and people shouldn't make up stories or propagate them to mislead people in forming their preferences or in making their gun purchases.
The word is "implying" and no, that's not the point at all. I'm saying that it's not ideal for people to make up stories about guns and it's unfortunate when other people are taken in and form preferences/make purchasing decisions based on that fiction instead of on fact.
I'm NOT saying people have to make the choices I have.
I'm NOT saying people have to make choices the ways I have. I'm just saying that we should be careful not to convince people to make choices based on misinformation.
I'm saying that we should not create misinformation, we should not propagate misinformation, and when we see/hear misinformation, we should try to prevent it from spreading. Again, not in the context of popping someone's bubble when they're showing you their favorite gun or a new acquisition, but in the general context of busting myths-an activity ideally suited for online forums.
I already answered this and I don't think my answer was at all unclear.
"...providing actual information to “bust some myths” as it were , is useful. NOT in the context of popping someone’s balloon when they are showing off or enjoying a firearm, but rather in the interest of exchanging useful and interesting factual information about firearms—which is what this forum is all about, after all."
You are trying very hard to make this about me and about the unfortunate people who are taken in by those who make up stories about guns. That's not what it's about at all. Reread the OP and you will see that the only person put into a negative light was the author who was propagating incorrect information even though he is responsible for insuring that what he presents for publication is factual and even though he could have easily checked his facts.
Same here, and I agree.
This is unmitigated BS. I'm absolutely not telling anyone what they should and shouldn't choose. That was clear from my initial post and I've stated it explicitly since then.
This is a pretty ironic assertion on your part. What I'm trying to do is help insure that people get to make their own choices instead of being misled into making purchases based on made up stories or myths. I'm not trying to restrict people's choices, I actually want people to make their own choices instead of being pushed in one direction or another by made up stories and myths.
Sorry, no. It couldn't for example, mean that it likely never happened. It also couldn't mean that it might have happened once but no one can prove it. It would be a tremendous stretch for it to mean that it might have happened a couple of times in the last few days of fighting that lasted about a decade and a half.
And no, it's about as far as a phrase like "Raining cats and dogs." as it can be. Idioms (like "Raining cats and dogs") are specifically about meanings that can't be deduced solely from looking at the definitions of the words involved while the non-idiomatic use of words is specifically about the meaning conveyed by their definitions.
bdickens
Member
Surely, you CAN'T be suggesting that people make informed choices! Forfend!
Yeah, I know. Crazy, isn't it.
Actually, I'm even ok with uninformed choices as long as the person gets what they think they're getting. I think it's fine for a person to buy a gun that they know nothing about simply because they like how it looks or because they saw it in a movie. At least they're getting what they want as opposed to buying something because of some lies someone told them.
Now, I'm not saying I would recommend that people make self-defense choices that way, or that they buy a gun for a very specific application (such as bullseye shooting) using that sort of buying criteria, but that's a different topic.
Actually, I'm even ok with uninformed choices as long as the person gets what they think they're getting. I think it's fine for a person to buy a gun that they know nothing about simply because they like how it looks or because they saw it in a movie. At least they're getting what they want as opposed to buying something because of some lies someone told them.
Now, I'm not saying I would recommend that people make self-defense choices that way, or that they buy a gun for a very specific application (such as bullseye shooting) using that sort of buying criteria, but that's a different topic.
I doubt you're the only one. I got interested in the H&K USP as the result of seeing one in a movie. I later bought one. I'll admit that I did some more research other than just seeing it in the movie, but I would have likely never made the purchase if it hadn't been for seeing Ahhnold crashing through the brush and shooting bad guys with one. And I still want a Desert Eagle just because I think they look very cool.
Want a silly reason. I bought a NAA mini revolver in 22S. It is a very tiny gun and you have to be within almost contact distance to hit anything. While 22S can KEAL (shout out to Doug M.), it isn't a powerhouse. I bought it because it was cute. There are known proportions that make babies and puppies look cute and evoke nurturing responses. Product designers have shown it works for inanimate objects. The 22S looked like that - so I bought it. Silly - yes.
Interesting thread. To be honest my dad wasn't a handgun guy & I didn't know any WW 11 or Korean war vets (If I did they didn't talk about it). I did know some people that served in 'Nam (I was a kid when it was going on). Dad wasn't a hunter either. My first rifle was a Marlin .30-.30 I bought because my sisters boyfriend wanted to sell it to me when I was young (I wound up selling that one a little later when I was in a bind & needed cash). The second deer rifle I bought I got after working at a print shop for several years. I bought a .30-06 because it was what all the old men there used. I've never felt the need for a different deer rifle or caliber. When I started buying hand guns my choices were often based on price, availability & sometimes whim. My first pistol was a Star chambered for 9x18. My second handgun was Dan Wesson .357 I picked up for $100 out of a pawn shop. Since then I have gotten pickier. Now I research different platforms & calibers & what their capabilities are, etc. But to start with I just wanted something for a specific purpose & would got into a shop looking & go by what was available & how much it cost. FWIW while I wasn't a gun guy I did know .357 was a good cartridge but there again I based it on the fact that it was what all the Georgia State Troopers carried when they came into the dealership my dad worked at to get their cars serviced.
JFrame
Member
I realize I didn't actually respond to the point of the OP.
Want another stupid reason for getting a firearm? Back in the 1980s, there was a silly but entertaining series of action novels written by Jerry Ahern called "The Survivalist" (of which I might have read a few... ). The main character, John Rourke, had an entire armory in his Bat-Cave, but the series prominently featured a pair of Detonics .45 Combat Masters in double Alessi shoulder holsters.
Understand that the whole notion of "chopped semiautos" of service caliber was a relatively embryonic thought at this point. So I just HADDA get a Detonics. By the time I was ready to take the plunge, I went for the Mark VI Combat Professional (basically the firearm Rourke had, but with an adjustable rear sight). No -- I wasn't going to buy TWO of them...
Detonics, the company, famously went through "growing pains" at that time, and my Mark VI was no different. My slide stop was poorly milled, and wouldn't hold back the slide. Had to get Detonics to mail me a new slide stop. I also found, at the range, that my recoil spring assembly was spontaneously disassembling during shooting. A bit of fingernail polish in the assembly screw thread fixed that problem.
Stupidity of reason aside, I still have that Detonics, and am still happy with it. It has been somewhat relegated to being a safe queen, but in its time, is still in that handful of semiautos I've owned that has never experienced a FTF (and we're talking even with some incredibly crappy gun store reload ammo which was the only stuff I could afford to shoot at the time... ).
Technology may have passed it by in some ways, but it'll still deliver the goods with the best of them (I think)...
Want another stupid reason for getting a firearm? Back in the 1980s, there was a silly but entertaining series of action novels written by Jerry Ahern called "The Survivalist" (of which I might have read a few...
). The main character, John Rourke, had an entire armory in his Bat-Cave, but the series prominently featured a pair of Detonics .45 Combat Masters in double Alessi shoulder holsters.Understand that the whole notion of "chopped semiautos" of service caliber was a relatively embryonic thought at this point. So I just HADDA get a Detonics. By the time I was ready to take the plunge, I went for the Mark VI Combat Professional (basically the firearm Rourke had, but with an adjustable rear sight). No -- I wasn't going to buy TWO of them...
Detonics, the company, famously went through "growing pains" at that time, and my Mark VI was no different. My slide stop was poorly milled, and wouldn't hold back the slide. Had to get Detonics to mail me a new slide stop. I also found, at the range, that my recoil spring assembly was spontaneously disassembling during shooting. A bit of fingernail polish in the assembly screw thread fixed that problem.
Stupidity of reason aside, I still have that Detonics, and am still happy with it. It has been somewhat relegated to being a safe queen, but in its time, is still in that handful of semiautos I've owned that has never experienced a FTF (and we're talking even with some incredibly crappy gun store reload ammo which was the only stuff I could afford to shoot at the time...
).Technology may have passed it by in some ways, but it'll still deliver the goods with the best of them (I think)...
Last edited:
You could make a case the .40 S&W was a return to the roots of the .40/10mm concept. The .40 G&A Jeff Cooper was involved with predates the 10mm.
Pudge
Member
I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't think reason is the basis for a Desert Eagle regardless of the caliber.
Why someone would choose a certain platform is debatable but I don't think Browning's idea of matching the caliber to the platform is a bad idea.
george29
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,670
Now that I think about it, I've never met a WWII/Korean vet that really cared or knew much about handguns. My dad for example kept a Colt 1903 near his bed (he found the gun whilst doing maintenance and the lady of the house wanted it out) but he always craved an M1 Carbine as a home defense gun (never got around to buying one). I knew a bunch of veterans and though I never thought much about it until this thread, not one veteran that was either combat support or combat cared much about handguns. I'm sure there were a few extraordinary men like Tunnel Rats that had a stronger opinion but I've read long ago there was no consensus that the .45 was superior to the .38 or vice versa. Pilots were another group that were trained to rely on a handgun and once again the two choices were really .38 or .45 and I suppose from archive pictures they were what they were issued and not what they preferred. MP's in conflict zones may or may not have had a sidearm but they at least had the M1 Carbine towards the latter part of WWII.
General George Patton's "Killing Machine" was a .357 though he usually wore IIRC a pair of Colt 45's. The only thing those handguns killed was Patton's big belly but he was about leadership and putting on a show for the troops was important for morale.
Fast forward to today's combat world, the comfort of carrying a pistol was reflected in a book that I read long ago about a company of men that had an illegal .45 which got periodically stolen by each member from his friend and how they were able to convince themselves that they needed it more than their friend. IIRC, no one needed it in the end (but my memory is foggy).
I think really that more than back then, today's Law Enforcement really needs a handgun proven by The Newhall Massacre, Security Guards, Police, Civilians really have different needs than the military so I don't put much stock in military needs other than their reliability and torture tests. At 7 yards, a 32 is almost a 38 which is almost a 9 which is almost a 40 which is almost....
BTW, the younger me was very impressionable and I was a .45 or nothing guy even when my Department issued me a .38 and later a 9mm.
I like the joke about why the old Texan Ranger carried a 45 and his reply was "because they didn't make a 46."
The damn military should stop concentrating on reinventing the wheel every few decades and concentrate more on IED protection, Drone surveillance and advanced communication. If they have spare money, instead of putting together a new Lego style 9mm they should invest in creating a more nutritious and delicious field ration.
You have to actually be a moron to think the military really needs another handgun. Other than Special Forces who can buy their own, today's soldier will do best to just bring their own handgun if they qualify with it (without going into it, I know of at least one military that allows it's soldiers from E-5 to carry any personal 9mm they qualify with).
General George Patton's "Killing Machine" was a .357 though he usually wore IIRC a pair of Colt 45's. The only thing those handguns killed was Patton's big belly but he was about leadership and putting on a show for the troops was important for morale.
Fast forward to today's combat world, the comfort of carrying a pistol was reflected in a book that I read long ago about a company of men that had an illegal .45 which got periodically stolen by each member from his friend and how they were able to convince themselves that they needed it more than their friend. IIRC, no one needed it in the end (but my memory is foggy).
I think really that more than back then, today's Law Enforcement really needs a handgun proven by The Newhall Massacre, Security Guards, Police, Civilians really have different needs than the military so I don't put much stock in military needs other than their reliability and torture tests. At 7 yards, a 32 is almost a 38 which is almost a 9 which is almost a 40 which is almost....
BTW, the younger me was very impressionable and I was a .45 or nothing guy even when my Department issued me a .38 and later a 9mm.
I like the joke about why the old Texan Ranger carried a 45 and his reply was "because they didn't make a 46."
The damn military should stop concentrating on reinventing the wheel every few decades and concentrate more on IED protection, Drone surveillance and advanced communication. If they have spare money, instead of putting together a new Lego style 9mm they should invest in creating a more nutritious and delicious field ration.
You have to actually be a moron to think the military really needs another handgun. Other than Special Forces who can buy their own, today's soldier will do best to just bring their own handgun if they qualify with it (without going into it, I know of at least one military that allows it's soldiers from E-5 to carry any personal 9mm they qualify with).
Last edited:
Speedo66
Member
I wonder how many small Beretta's and Walther PPK's, between the books and the movies, Ian Fleming's James Bond sold?
I have to admit buying a W. German PPK/S based on the books.
- Status
