Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
"No, that would probably be Rohm RGs. Zinc frame and barrel with a steel barrel sleeve and cylinder. Now if you said "as cost efficient as possible", you would be closer to accurate."
Well said, and obviously my intent. Thanks.
"According to that reasoning, Holland & Holland shotgun would be better than M870 for the sole reason that the price is marked higher. However, that completely disregards the intended role or purpose. What kind of idiot would carry a H&H double barrel over an M870 into combat?"
I never mentioned a pump shotgun, thus it is not by any sense of "reasoning" (which is a logical argument stemming from a proposition). The fault lies with your own error in rational thoght: You made an erroneous jump in your reply to the proposition. I listed a pair of manufacturers of high quality double barrel upland game shotguns, and put them side by side. You made an illogical jump to a pump action shotgun with obviously different attributes. Apples and Apples, please. Revolvers to Revolvers, side by side shotguns to side by side shotguns, as it were.
"According to your reasoning, Rolex is a better watch than an atomic radio digital clock becuse Rolex is much more expensive. But, for time keeping an atomic radio digital clock is factually better than a mechanical Rolex. This is an indisputable fact."
No. That's according to YOUR (flawed) reasoning, not mine. Logic and rhetoric weren't your strong subjects, were they? Start here and enjoy an hour, and then rejoin the discussion fully armed with new knowlage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Now then:
Again,let's compare apples against other apples, not apples and applesauce please.
To the point, I've done offshore celestial navigation using Hamilton Model 21 mechanical ships chronometers to shoot the sun (three of them, actually so as to be able to detect one that's gone off-rate). That rated time was logged against my Rolex's rate and then the Rolex was used on deck with the sextant. We also checked the Hamilton Chronos against WWV on 10,000 KHZ, and kept a log of all of the 4 mechanical watches rates (3 chronos and my watch). So, with that said, would you say that a shortwave radio is better than a Rolex as a practical portable timekeeping instrument? (BTW, your "atomic alarm clock" uses that same WWV signal for it's syncronization to standard time. All it does is to reset a cheap quartz clock periodically. Without external signal it's just a cheap clock. Without elextricpower it's just a cheap piece of plastic sitting unusable).
On a segue to this, I spent two years in Antarctica. Care to guess how many super-accurate quartz wristwatches were sitting in guys seabags with dead batteries and unusable and unfixable after a while? Many of the guys ordered Rolex and Seiko's out of the Exchange Catalog and had them mailed to them after their junk-watches failed. The Seiko's and Rolex's were still keeping time when we came off-ice at the end of the expedition. 30 years has now passed from then. I'm still wearing the same Rolex Sea Dweller I wore then. Want to guess how many of the Seikos are still being worn daily? Uhh... none. "Great" has a measure of "quality over time", see more on "greatness" below.
Again, it's comparing apples to applesauce, and grapes to grapefruit. Compare Wristwatches to Wristwatches, if you would be so kind.
"Great" also has another extremely important point to it's own definition: It does not mean "best quality". It means "widely regarded by a variety of observers as holding the positive vitrues of being of high quality, and further, as compared to it's peers, is regarded as highly influential and significant".
"Greatest", as a result, would indicate "significance of a level higher than ANY other example of a similar product. The standard by which other ALL significant competators are compared". Saying that the Ruger GP-100 = "greatest" is a laughable proposal.
Let's pick the below for dissection:
"Great", as in "Greatness": : The S&W Military & Police series is without debate the most significant and influential and longest serving and is probably as a result the greatest revolver design ever produced.
But is it the "best"? No way.....
"Best": This speaks to quality, which is another subject completely. To say that the GP-100 is "best quality" is laughable on it's face to anyone who's ever handled a Korth, or a Python, or even a nice Smith. Now I agree that one of the many aspects of quality is reliability, and the reliabiloty of the Ruger is excellent. So is it's strength. Finish... meh. Fitting... meh. Quality is good. Not best.
In any event, "Great"and "Best" are two completely different proposals. The GP-100 is neither.
Ruger makes an excellent general purpose revolver at a price point that makes it accessable to the average consumer. It's hardly the "greatest" revolver ever made, is not the "best" (highest quality) one available, and can't hold a candle to many others that have preceeded it from the stanpoint of either "Greatness" or "Best quality"
If Ruger fans wanted to make a case for "Greatness", it would be smart to argue for the Mark-1 .22 pistol, and the 10-22.
1: Both of those are "Great".
2: Neither is "Best".
Willie
.
Well said, and obviously my intent. Thanks.
"According to that reasoning, Holland & Holland shotgun would be better than M870 for the sole reason that the price is marked higher. However, that completely disregards the intended role or purpose. What kind of idiot would carry a H&H double barrel over an M870 into combat?"
I never mentioned a pump shotgun, thus it is not by any sense of "reasoning" (which is a logical argument stemming from a proposition). The fault lies with your own error in rational thoght: You made an erroneous jump in your reply to the proposition. I listed a pair of manufacturers of high quality double barrel upland game shotguns, and put them side by side. You made an illogical jump to a pump action shotgun with obviously different attributes. Apples and Apples, please. Revolvers to Revolvers, side by side shotguns to side by side shotguns, as it were.
"According to your reasoning, Rolex is a better watch than an atomic radio digital clock becuse Rolex is much more expensive. But, for time keeping an atomic radio digital clock is factually better than a mechanical Rolex. This is an indisputable fact."
No. That's according to YOUR (flawed) reasoning, not mine. Logic and rhetoric weren't your strong subjects, were they? Start here and enjoy an hour, and then rejoin the discussion fully armed with new knowlage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Now then:
Again,let's compare apples against other apples, not apples and applesauce please.
To the point, I've done offshore celestial navigation using Hamilton Model 21 mechanical ships chronometers to shoot the sun (three of them, actually so as to be able to detect one that's gone off-rate). That rated time was logged against my Rolex's rate and then the Rolex was used on deck with the sextant. We also checked the Hamilton Chronos against WWV on 10,000 KHZ, and kept a log of all of the 4 mechanical watches rates (3 chronos and my watch). So, with that said, would you say that a shortwave radio is better than a Rolex as a practical portable timekeeping instrument? (BTW, your "atomic alarm clock" uses that same WWV signal for it's syncronization to standard time. All it does is to reset a cheap quartz clock periodically. Without external signal it's just a cheap clock. Without elextricpower it's just a cheap piece of plastic sitting unusable).
On a segue to this, I spent two years in Antarctica. Care to guess how many super-accurate quartz wristwatches were sitting in guys seabags with dead batteries and unusable and unfixable after a while? Many of the guys ordered Rolex and Seiko's out of the Exchange Catalog and had them mailed to them after their junk-watches failed. The Seiko's and Rolex's were still keeping time when we came off-ice at the end of the expedition. 30 years has now passed from then. I'm still wearing the same Rolex Sea Dweller I wore then. Want to guess how many of the Seikos are still being worn daily? Uhh... none. "Great" has a measure of "quality over time", see more on "greatness" below.
Again, it's comparing apples to applesauce, and grapes to grapefruit. Compare Wristwatches to Wristwatches, if you would be so kind.
"Great" also has another extremely important point to it's own definition: It does not mean "best quality". It means "widely regarded by a variety of observers as holding the positive vitrues of being of high quality, and further, as compared to it's peers, is regarded as highly influential and significant".
"Greatest", as a result, would indicate "significance of a level higher than ANY other example of a similar product. The standard by which other ALL significant competators are compared". Saying that the Ruger GP-100 = "greatest" is a laughable proposal.
Let's pick the below for dissection:
"Great", as in "Greatness": : The S&W Military & Police series is without debate the most significant and influential and longest serving and is probably as a result the greatest revolver design ever produced.
But is it the "best"? No way.....
"Best": This speaks to quality, which is another subject completely. To say that the GP-100 is "best quality" is laughable on it's face to anyone who's ever handled a Korth, or a Python, or even a nice Smith. Now I agree that one of the many aspects of quality is reliability, and the reliabiloty of the Ruger is excellent. So is it's strength. Finish... meh. Fitting... meh. Quality is good. Not best.
In any event, "Great"and "Best" are two completely different proposals. The GP-100 is neither.
Ruger makes an excellent general purpose revolver at a price point that makes it accessable to the average consumer. It's hardly the "greatest" revolver ever made, is not the "best" (highest quality) one available, and can't hold a candle to many others that have preceeded it from the stanpoint of either "Greatness" or "Best quality"
If Ruger fans wanted to make a case for "Greatness", it would be smart to argue for the Mark-1 .22 pistol, and the 10-22.
1: Both of those are "Great".
2: Neither is "Best".
Willie
.
Last edited: