Anyone else find inarticulated opinions frustrating? (aka "beware the old guy lurking at the LGS")

[MistWolf]

I have certain prejudices for reasons I cannot (actually, should not) articulate. For example, I cannot stand the Beretta 92 family of pistols. Why? Because of a certain dart gun when I was a kid. No, I'm not going into it.

I love the 1911 and the 45 ACP. Because, Dad.

I have a real dislike for Russian arms. I blame communism.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the "thutty-thutty" party.

Thanks, Grampajack. I find delicious irony in this thread

 

[Danoobie]

Was it Rudyard Kipling who stated "The power of the rational mind is it can find a justification for anything."?
IMO, many of the statements you hear are just folks rationalizing their personal opinion. The 9mm has been
repeatedly shown to be devastating. 45ACP is a good caliber, devised by John Browning to perform a specific task, but take it outside it's highest performance
spectrum, and it's pretty much dead weight.
There have been some circumstances where AR15s were unreliable, but that's not a set rule. One could go right
down the OP's list, which contains many kernels of truth, and factoids, which people are using to support their
own beliefs. Many are quips, which have no real factual value "If 7 rounds of 45 ACP won't get it done, you're screwed
anyways"-but sound good, and have been repeated enough for folks to want to embrace them as more than they
really are.

We should consider ourselves lucky, to have enough knowledge to know these
statements are dubious.

WHAT? You HATE plastic guns? OKAY, that's it, I'm selling all my plastic guns, right now...

 

[grampajack]

Part of this comes from the fact that I build uppers on the side. I fully realize that there are guns to have simply to have them, because you like them. Believe you me, I have a fair number of those myself. They are for decoration and/or fun at the range. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

However, that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about guns that are, at least ostensibly, intended for practical applications, whether it be self defense, hunting, competition, etc.

When people come to me to have an upper built, it's generally for some specific purpose, usually killing critters, and more often than not they will ask for advice. They generally have a pretty tight budget they want to stick to. Now I will try to guide them in practical directions, but alas the customer is always right. So if they want a 15'' tacticool rail on a varmint rifle, that's what they get.

Then you have people who are hung up on some really strange stuff. For example, let's say someone comes to me wanting an AR upper for home defense. They want it in 5.45x39, so I'm of course going to tell them that those mags don't have the best rep for reliable feeding and they may want to consider just going with .223. Well of course they have it in their mind that 5.45 is the poison bullet, and .223 is the poodle shooter, and no explanation of ballistics is ever going to change their mind.

When it comes down to it, 90% of people care only what the gun looks like, or what their emotional perception of it is, and they will dump all their money into getting a certain look at the expense of functionality and quality. Which would be fine if they just came right out and said they wanted a cool range toy, but that's never happened.

I don't think people who, for example, build computers really experience the same thing. Or even people who build custom cars (I'm talking about ones with a purpose, like racing or off road; I realize there are "art" cars). I think the only other area where you get this kind of mentality is in custom design work, like an artist or interior designer. You don't have to justify liking a certain color or pattern if the end goal is aesthetics. Or take architecture as another example. If the building is aimed at aesthetics then you don't have to justify something if it looks good. Falling Water is literally falling apart because it's impractical, but no one cares because it's art more than house. However, if an architect were to be employed to build something that needed to be functional, he would of course expect to sideline less practical concerns, and might wonder about his client's sanity if he asked for design changes to a tornado shelter that would weaken the structure.

There's just this strange mentality when it comes to the gun culture. You would think being utilitarian objects there would be a certain pragmatism and objectivity. It's these emotional connections to certain calibers and appearances that I don't get. What truly boggles me more than anything is that most of these people think their choice of gun says something about their character, like it's part of their personality. Like they know in their hearts they're rugged manly men, and that means they inherently know which guns and calibers are best (always the bigger, shinier one), facts be damned.

To me it's like looking at a computer on the shelf and saying, "That one looks faster," and buying it without even reading the spec sheet, then going out and telling everyone it's the bestest fastest computer ever made, without having any clue as to the nuts and bolts of it.

ETA: I remember this old movie (I think it had Cary Grant Rock Hudson) about this guy who was the world's foremost expert on fly fishing, had literally written the book on it, yet he had never been fishing a day in his life. He simply looked the part and people trusted his advice. The story goes that he started working at Abercrombie and Fitch out of college, and despite knowing nothing about fishing he just made it up as he went along and became their top salesman.

I feel like that movie should have been made about a guy working at an LGS who then becomes a gun writer, despite never having shot a gun before.

 

[Danoobie]

It's more of a general mindset that you see. I once got pulled into a conversation
with someone who wanted to argue that only 4WD will work well in wet and
slippery road conditions. After a few minutes of discussion, in which I pointed
out that my 4WD option FWD vehicle generally ran much better in FWD,
she testily stated "Look, I just WANT an SUV, ok?" To which I replied
"Well, why didn't you say so, in the first place?"

Out on the shooting range, I was somewhat surprised to find that 45ACP,
actually has very poor penetration characteristics. But folks who want to believe
the legend aren't going to let a few pesky facts get in the way.

 

[entropy]

MistWolf brought up an interesting point. Prejudices based on irrational reasons. I'm not fond of the Beretta 92 myself, but that is based on experience with the in the military, both as soldier and Armorer. OTOH, I appreciate that it is a good gun, and I wouldn't feel shortchanged if that's what I found in my hands when I needed a gun. Not liking Russian arms? I don't think communism has much to do with it. Logically, the Mosin Nagant M91 would be fine then, as would the M1895 Nagant revolver, as it was issued to the Czarist army when V. I. Ulyanov was 21 years old, and was just starting to dabble in Marxism. Plus it was based on the previous Russian service rifle designed by an American, Hiram Berdan. Liking or disliking the governmental system of a country where a gun is designed seems illogical to me. Under the Nazis, many excellent firearms were designed. Many WWII vets derided the Arisaka rifles, while admiring the Mausers.
Again with the .30-30, there is a certain, and in my mind, irrational, denigration of it, the word "Elmer Fudd" often is bandied around. In fact it is a very versatile caliber, particularly for handloaders. Lever guns are not the only option there, either. I've shot bolt action, single shot, and even pistol (T/C) .30-30's.
This is not an attack on you, MistWolf, nor and I trying to change your opinion. I am merely trying to illustrate that the reasons can be based on many different experiences.

As for 4WD, I've noticed it gives some owners a false sense of security. I've had many 4WD owners pass me on the highway at 65 in a heavy snowstorm, while I am going 45. Sometimes they end up in the ditch a few miles down the road. This happens enough that I just smile and say "see you in the ditch" as they pass. Usually women and young men. I'd love to hear them stammering to the tow truck driver, "But, but, but...it's 4 wheel drive!"

 

[MistWolf]

MistWolf brought up an interesting point. Prejudices based on irrational reasons. This is not an attack on you, MistWolf, nor and I trying to change your opinion. I am merely trying to illustrate that the reasons can be based on many different experiences.

No worries, because I can see you understand what I'm talking about. My list of prejudices is honest and real. They make no sense. I know that and I don't care. But I don't use my irrational reasoning to argue for my prejudices. In fact, some of my irrational reasons are down right embarrassing. But there you have it. I'll shoot anything you put in my hands and will enjoy it. But I don't buy anything I don't like

As for 4WD, I've noticed it gives some owners a false sense of security. I've had many 4WD owners pass me on the highway at 65 in a heavy snowstorm, while I am going 45. Sometimes they end up in the ditch a few miles down the road. This happens enough that I just smile and say "see you in the ditch" as they pass. Usually women and young men. I'd love to hear them stammering to the tow truck driver, "But, but, but...it's 4 wheel drive!"

After years of experience driving in all types of weather, road conditions and terrain, I find nothing beats four wheel drive. Not all wheel drive, not front wheel drive, not rear wheel drive. It isn't that 4WD gives the driver a false sense of security, it's that the drivers lack the experience to know when they are getting in over their heads. How do drivers get experience? By getting in over their heads

 

[herrwalther]

Whenever I am in a gun store, I listen to the conversations around me. I do pretty much anywhere but especially in a gun store, out of common interest. I pick up these little nuggets of wisdom all the time. From people who obviously do not know what they are talking about. And very obviously do not seek out reliable sources of firearm information...like THR. 99.9% of the time, I can hold my tongue and not say anything. Because I am "the young guy" who to these old codgers doesn't know any better. But here are some stories I have.

I was in a big box gun store just looking at what they had, not in a buyer mood. An older lady in her 40s was looking at the rifles next to me. A clerk asked what she needed. Lady responded that her husband sent her to the store to get their 12 year old daughter a 30-06 for her first deer rifle. After I do a few internal face palms I felt sorry for her, lady probably could not pick out a 30-06 round standing next to some .22s. So I talked to her for about 10 minutes. Learned what her daughter's shooting experience was and made some recommendations in 243, 30-30, or 7mm-08.

Another instance I was in a local gun store in late April. Old fellow in his 60s or 70s walks in looking anxious and agitated. Goes to the Glock counter, looks for about 3 or 4 minutes. Even more irritated he shuffles up to the clerk and demands, rather loudly, that he get out the "Glock 1911" he read about online. "They finally made one! I want it! Don't care how much it costs." Between the clerk, myself, and my cell phone we were able to mostly convince the guy that he had fallen for an April Fools joke. Although I am pretty sure when he left, he was just heading down to the next gun store with the same question.

My wife's favorite story is from a shady gun store we used to go to. They have a dedicated knife counter that sells all sorts of tacticool knives and machetes. On one day we had gone in to price a firearm for her, we saw a guy at the knife counter being asked a gun question "I am sorry ma'am, I am just here to sell knives. I don't know anything about guns, talk to those guys." My wife and I came in on the following payday, that same knife guy clerk was at the gun counter telling a story how Glocks are stored in salt water for 2 years before being sold.

 

[mstreddy]

and .223 is the poodle shooter,

Grampa, I understand you. In fact, I like the poodle shooter comment so much that to differentiate my 3 SBR uppers I printed out labels for each. One is 300BLK, one is ARSKIE for 7.62x39, and of course PS for poodle shooter .223/5.56.
A running joke with a group of friends at the range is "Glocks are crap!" We say this as I'm shooting one of Glocks, yep, they're crap, won't hit anything, POS.
Bang, see, it shot, it put 2 in one hole, but they're crap! - want to try it? As a matter of fact, I own several of them. And, yes, wood and steel as well.

When I hear someone spout one of these gems, I just smile, if at the range, I just shoot what I brought -- usually my crappy Glock.
One friend is the type that spouts some of this nonsense from time to time. I just look at him and ask him "where did you get that from?" Show me the info.

But, people are people, and there's irrational types in all flavors.

 

[Sam1911]

Guns are no different. Perhaps a cycling analogy is in order. Just imagine if you're on a cross country ride and your buddy shows up with a mountain bike. "I'm confident in it," he says. Well, he can be confident all he wants, but he's going to slow everyone down, and that's a fact. Tools would be an even better analogy. Imagine watching someone trying to cut wood with a concrete saw, only to be informed his confidence in the saw is all that matters when you try to tell him he's doing it wrong.

Other hobbies, people also accept that some things are just outdated. For example, a person might collect old computers, but they're sure as heck not going to try to run a modern program on one. Or someone may collect vintage single speeds, but they're not going to try to take one on a cross country ride. And in other hobbies, I never hear people arbitrarily discount new things. If something gives them better performance they're on board.

There's something really important in this like of discussion right here.

Guns almost NEVER get used in what we would think of as a true trial or in-depth test. Now if you go on the 'tubes you'll see all sorts of torture tests and such. And the military has trials which go on for hundreds of thousands of rounds, wringing all kinds of variously "important" information out of the guns they choose (...which few users ever really want for themselves) -- but that's not my point.

How many of us ever go into combat with our chosen, personal weapon? About ... (hmm...carry the one...that sums to...) zero.
How many of us face repeated self-defense style gun battles with a variety of carry pistols? About five times as many...which is still zero.

Put two cars on a drag strip and you can find out which is the faster car. Even checking reaction times and sorting out who is the better driver, in the end the sum total of EVERYTHING you need to know about that endeavor is on the tape at the timing booth.

But how do you compare sidearms that way? Shoot them for accuracy on a square range? Fine. That tells you 10% of what might be important. Shoot them in competition? Well, that'll tell you 40% more. Take them through defensive classes/training? Maybe another 15% that you didn't have before. There's still no way to know how YOU will do with that gun, vs. some other gun, when you're scared, bleeding, half blind in the dark, knocked down, fighting for your life. Is that THE BEST gun, for you, for anyone else, for that last ditch, do-or-die use?

ESPECIALLY when you consider that the results, in the very best gun tests, are not perfectly conclusive. The point of the exercise in drag racing is to shave 100ths of a second off your time. If you do, then you win. Period.

The point of a sidearm is to survive. But if you survive a gunfight, or if you don't, it really only tells you a little about whether the gun was good or bad, and what it does say is usually oblique and subjective.

And most people never end up going through that "test" even once. So they go on whatever lots of other people said. And those other people are totally winging it.

Hunting is a sort of stand-in for combat in some ways, and is a test of it's own right. But even so, it really isn't at all definitive. Bambi's pretty easy to kill. There's about three hundred cartridges that will do it, in probably just as many firearms. This one might give you a bit more margin for error at some distance, but that one might be more suitable for smaller shooters or poking through brush. This gun is a little easier to carry, that one is a little more stable in one position or another. Everybody over-emphasizes whatever detail sounds good to them and gives short shrift to any nagging little deficiencies. There is NO way to pick a "best" cartridge or rifle, and there's not even a good way of approximating such an answer.


In the absence of any way to prove a "winner" we all get the sheer, delicious, irresistible, luxury of rooting for our personal favorite. There's nothing quite so fulfilling as being a sold out enthusiast and proponent of something you can't see, hear, or prove.

 

[444]

There are two things that annoy me along the lines of what you are talking about:

A) Most of the time they express themselves in this way, their opinion wasn't asked. In fact, a lot of the time it isn't even related to the conversation. The real asses express these opinions as you are shooting one of the things they say is a piece of junk, directly insulting you.

B) It is one thing to state an opinion. But these people express themselves as if this is a statement of fact and they are the authority on the subject. This is usually my first indication that they know nothing about whatever they are saying: it isn't WHAT they are saying that tells me this, it is the way they are saying it.

 

[jmorris]

The gun world seems to be rather unique in this regard.

I don't see it that way, it's Ford/Chevy, Coke/Pepsi, shorts/pants, shaved/facial hair, dog/cat, dinner out/cook at home. People are just different and most value their own opinion more than others. In today's world many don't even recognize that someone could hold a differing opinion or why.

 

[.308 Norma]

Bambi's pretty easy to kill. There's about three hundred cartridges that will do it, in probably just as many firearms.

Ha! Yeppers, and there were plenty of "Bambis" killed before anyone ever heard of a cartridge firing firearm. I once killed a "Bambi" myself with a .50 caliber Hawken. And I know a few folks who refuse to hunt anything with one of those "new fangled, high powered rifles." As far as I'm concerned, that's those folk's way of, as you said Sam, "rooting" for their personal favorite(s).

 

[Sam1911]

There is NO way to pick a "best" cartridge or rifle, and there's not even a good way of approximating such an answer.

"I'm confident in it."

And the second point of my reply is that in the world of self-defense, combat, or hunting firearms, confidence really DOES have a lot to do with it.

What's the most important part of defending yourself? Is it accuracy that beats the accuracy of other guns by a measurable margin? No. Is it the size or weight of the bullet? Clearly not, at least not in the big fat center of the range of common defensive cartridges. Is it any other mechanical function of the gun? Not really (though many are important at a basic level). It's whether or not you a) recognize when you must shoot, and b) can hit what you aim at, quickly.

If you can draw that gun and hit what you're aiming at, on command, when needed, without question, then that could be described as "confidence" in the gun.



We can argue over whether we have more confidence in one or the other, but in the end that just means any we're considering have passed the threshold for reliability, accuracy, handling, capacity, etc. such that we can spend much more of our energy on making ourselves ready to deal with danger.

 

[.308 Norma]

Deleted. No reason to stir the pot.

 

[JR24]

As a rule I don't let other people's opinions bother me overmuch, especially when it comes to hobbies or sports.

Brush it off and move on I say.

 

[grampajack]

There's something really important in this like of discussion right here.

Guns almost NEVER get used in what we would think of as a true trial or in-depth test. Now if you go on the 'tubes you'll see all sorts of torture tests and such. And the military has trials which go on for hundreds of thousands of rounds, wringing all kinds of variously "important" information out of the guns they choose (...which few users ever really want for themselves) -- but that's not my point.

How many of us ever go into combat with our chosen, personal weapon? About ... (hmm...carry the one...that sums to...) zero.
How many of us face repeated self-defense style gun battles with a variety of carry pistols? About five times as many...which is still zero.

Put two cars on a drag strip and you can find out which is the faster car. Even checking reaction times and sorting out who is the better driver, in the end the sum total of EVERYTHING you need to know about that endeavor is on the tape at the timing booth.

But how do you compare sidearms that way? Shoot them for accuracy on a square range? Fine. That tells you 10% of what might be important. Shoot them in competition? Well, that'll tell you 40% more. Take them through defensive classes/training? Maybe another 15% that you didn't have before. There's still no way to know how YOU will do with that gun, vs. some other gun, when you're scared, bleeding, half blind in the dark, knocked down, fighting for your life. Is that THE BEST gun, for you, for anyone else, for that last ditch, do-or-die use?

ESPECIALLY when you consider that the results, in the very best gun tests, are not perfectly conclusive. The point of the exercise in drag racing is to shave 100ths of a second off your time. If you do, then you win. Period.

The point of a sidearm is to survive. But if you survive a gunfight, or if you don't, it really only tells you a little about whether the gun was good or bad, and what it does say is usually oblique and subjective.

And most people never end up going through that "test" even once. So they go on whatever lots of other people said. And those other people are totally winging it.

Hunting is a sort of stand-in for combat in some ways, and is a test of it's own right. But even so, it really isn't at all definitive. Bambi's pretty easy to kill. There's about three hundred cartridges that will do it, in probably just as many firearms. This one might give you a bit more margin for error at some distance, but that one might be more suitable for smaller shooters or poking through brush. This gun is a little easier to carry, that one is a little more stable in one position or another. Everybody over-emphasizes whatever detail sounds good to them and gives short shrift to any nagging little deficiencies. There is NO way to pick a "best" cartridge or rifle, and there's not even a good way of approximating such an answer.


In the absence of any way to prove a "winner" we all get the sheer, delicious, irresistible, luxury of rooting for our personal favorite. There's nothing quite so fulfilling as being a sold out enthusiast and proponent of something you can't see, hear, or prove.

I've had the exact same thought. I think someone needs to start an adventure travel company where you go to the middle east to hunt ISIS for the sole purpose of testing your equipment. Kill two birds with one stone, literally in regards to one of them!

 

[lysanderxiii]

Now, there's the internet, who needs to go to the LGS....

 

[Sniper66]

Go to a city planning meeting during 'public testimony" days or to a local school board meeting and you'll hear the same thing....mostly lame-brained comments

 

[BigBore44]

I hear (well, read) many biased opinions on here. "This is better. That's better. That's not adequate. I don't care what the results are/were." etc. And I think that's great. I enjoy two people (or 20) with opposing views articulating their points. The problem is that many times, if not almost every time, it comes down to personal preference. Do more bullets equal more hits? Does the '06 really kill more efficiently than the 308? Is Winchester better than Remington (substitute and brand for any brand)? Those questions answers are totally dependent on what one chooses to take into consideration.

I can admit that I have biased opinions. But my opinions are subjective to my experiences and I know full well what I do and do not know.

For example: I EDC full size semiautos. Both 1911 and plastic guns. I choose 45acp over 9mm.

I don't like Ruger semiauto pistols.

I hunt primarily with big bore lever action rifles and revolvers. But I own several mid/upper end bolt action and semiauto rifles that would give me MUCH more range.

I have no use for AK's. But I recognize that they are one of the most, if not the most, reliable auto/semiauto rifles ever made.

I don't bash HiPoints. But I also wouldn't own one because I don't have to.

I don't like small revolvers.

There's something about hunting with an AR that I don't like. But I own two.

I believe the minimums some of us put on hunting rounds are probably way over minimum if we choose good bullets and properly place our shots.

You'll never convince me that a custom $8k-$10k "hunting" rifle makes you a better hunter than I am with my levers. But I also don't condem someone for wanting one.

A CCW permit is unconstitutional.

I believe we can have differing opinions and still be on the same team. But we should differ with an open mind, and respect.

Anybody got change for my 2¢?

 

[grampajack]

Go to a city planning meeting during 'public testimony" days or to a local school board meeting and you'll hear the same thing....mostly lame-brained comments

Ha, I know better to stay away from those. I would be the guy being dragged out by the cops.

 

[SSN Vet]

inarticulated

no offense, but this sounds like one of GWB's made up words.

 

[Schwing]

Gun folks certainly do have their preferences and they are not always rational. On the other hand, try talking to golf players about the best brands and styles of clubs. You will be sure to get completely different answers from any 2 different people. You will even get this same kind of argument among highly trained professionals like surgeons when talking about clamps or different kinds of sutures. They all have those that they just KNOW are the best and only ones to use.

I don't let it bother me. I see a lot of guys take it almost personally when someone offends something that they hold as doctrine. For example:

I don't like Ruger semiauto pistols.

Now I could take my ball and go home over that totally wrong and misguided statement... Or we could just go get a beer

 

[Sam1911]

inarticulated

no offense, but this sounds like one of GWB's made up words.

Most of the English language is made up of "made up" words.
William Shakespeare (or whoever wrote all those plays with his name on them) made up over 1,700.

We do it all the time: nominalization, "verbing", compound constructions, and squishing things together to make a nuanced or complicated idea expressible and understandable in a simple word or phrase. It's a hallmark of a certain kind of intelligence, perhaps comparable to a musician so well-versed in his art that he knows when slipping in a note which is out of key will set off or highlight the beauty of the passage he's playing.

In this case "inarticulated" is not a common construction, but it's perfectly sensible. Unless you couldn't figure out what he meant, why quibble?

If I go edit the thread title to "UN-articulated" would that make it more comfortable for you?

 

[WrongHanded]

Emotion is a big part of how will build our memories. And in turn, our memories of experiences are what build our preferences.

If someone has had more good experiences with gun 'A' than bad ones, they subconsciously remember the good emotions attached to those good experiences, and they like gun 'A'. If they have only one experience with gun 'B', but it was a bad one, they tend to subconsciously remember that emotion and .....then might claim gun 'B' is junk with no explanation.

More thoughtful individuals may be more likely to say "I don't like Fords. But I've only ever owned one and it was a lemon, so I thought badly of them. Then I only ever paid attention to the negative experiences others have voiced about Ford, and dismissed the positive ones because they didn't fit my mental map. Maybe I don't have enough personal experience with Ford motor vehicles to form an objective opinion."

But usually, one first bad impression is all it takes to sour someone. It's human nature, but can be a very useful mental survival trait. It can also be very limiting.

Add that to a person with a sense of superiority, and you have over-confident jargon flowing less like a fountain of knowledge, and more like a backed up toilet.

Not to mention that whilst a particular cartridge or firearm design may not have been good when first developed, further R&D in later years can improve the product dramatically, after the prejudice is already formed.

ETA: It works both ways, too. If you really like a particular thing, it's easy to make little of the function issues it may have. But if you were to look back at all those issues, not as individual events, you might realize that the Subaru you had for 140,000 miles actually had a lot of costly problems. And despite the good memories you have of road trips in that vehicle, the car itself wasn't that great. [My own personal experience.]

 

[stchman]

I tend to ignore people like that. I had a guy tell me HOW to clean my gun at a Walmart when I was buying bore brushes. He started calling magazines "clips", I walked away.