Pistol Choices II

[Gryffydd]

The OP appears to be unaware of the evolution of both the 1911 and of modern revolvers. For a fella who claims to be an experienced gunny he shows a Grand Canyon of not knowingness.

+1
Here's a little nugget of wisdom regarding how long it takes to reload a revolver...

It would be much much faster and simpler to drop the empty mag, put in a new one, and rack the slide (2 seconds to change mags compared to 15 seconds to reload a cylinder).

 

[MM60]

Tipoc and Gryffydd,
I am well aware of the differences between older and newer versions of both the 1911 and revolvers. All you did here is you took a quote from a post that I wrote on a different thread and re-posted it out of context. Here is the entire paragraph:

I would definitely not encourage your sister to buy a revolver. A revolver may be marginally simpler to use for the first five or six shots, but if she is ineffective with those - there is probably no chance of her reloading. It would be much much faster and simpler to drop the empty mag, put in a new one, and rack the slide (2 seconds to change mags compared to 15 seconds to reload a cylinder). And if she would carry a revolver with a speed loader, she might as well just carry any compact semi-auto and carry the same number of rounds in one magazine - it would take up the same amount of space and there'd be no reloading involved. Either the Sig P239 or HK USP Compact would be ideal for SD carry in a purse. I personally can't think of any SD situation where a revolver would be better than a semi-auto; large-caliber revolvers are useful against some animals, but small-caliber/small-frame revolvers are outdated and impractical for all purposes as far as I'm concerned.

I was not suggesting that it necessarily must take 15 seconds to reload the cylinder of any revolver. I was suggesting that it would take about 15 seconds to reload the cylinder without the use of a speedloader, especially in a life-or-death SD situation in which the woman attempting to reload the revolver would likely be extremely stressed and nervous. How fast can you empty your spent casings, insert 6 new cartridges one-by-one, close the cylinder, and have your sights back on target? I imagine that it would take you longer than it would to eject an empty mag, insert a full mag, rack the slide, and be back on target. But go ahead and keep telling me that I don't what I'm talking about.

To see my entire post, it is #31 at this link:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489640&highlight=sister

 

[Gryffydd]

Your problem is that you're assuming it must take that long because it would be impractical to carry a speedloader or speedstrip. Which is silly. You're presenting a false dilemma between a 2 second reload--a near best case scenario for a non-shootist--and the worst possible way to reload a revolver. You framed the scenario to be heavily weighted towards your prejudices.

I am well aware of the differences between older and newer versions of both the 1911 and revolvers.

So then what's all this talk about tool take-down 1911s?

 

[MM60]

I also stated that, if anybody is going to carry a 5 to 7-shot revolver and a speedloader, they might as well either carry a 7 to 8-shot single-stack semi-auto and a thin spare magazine, or even a 12-shot double-stack semi-auto and no spare magazine - both of which would take up about the same amount of space as a small revolver and a speedloader. No matter how you look at it - the revolver will be slower after the first 5 to 7 shots, and it will always be less convenient to carry.

 

[katokahn99]

I went with Springfield. Specifically the Loaded UC .45 stainless. Still on the wishlist. I had a series 70 and a series 80 Colt Commander that I gave up years ago (I kick myself daily for having done that!!!) but I think the updates the newer 1911s have will make up for it...once I get the new one and get it working reliably.

If I was not able to buy another handgun ever again, I'd be more than happy with my XDc Tactical in 45 acp.

If the question was which gun for all around utility, I would have said S&W 686.

Side note: I've noticed an awful lot of personnal attacks on just this thread...is that really how we do business on THR??? Kinda doesn't live up to what the name implies, does it?

 

[Gryffydd]

the revolver will be slower after the first 5 to 7 shots, and it will always be less convenient to carry.

They both have the advantages and disadvantages. Neither one is ALWAYS the right answer.

 

[tipoc]

I also stated that, if anybody is going to carry a 5 to 7-shot revolver and a speedloader, they might as well either carry a 7 to 8-shot single-stack semi-auto and a thin spare magazine, or even a 12-shot double-stack semi-auto and no spare magazine - both of which would take up about the same amount of space as a small revolver and a speedloader. No matter how you look at it - the revolver will be slower after the first 5 to 7 shots, and it will always be less convenient to carry.

Here you make a choice to either purposely deflect the issue or you legitimately do not understand the question being discussed.

In an earlier post in this thread you state that revolvers are outdated and that those who choose them for personal defense are "lacking in common sense" in their choice. You state unequivocally that revolvers are not viable choices for personal defense. That is the question in front of us.

Wheelgunners don't lack common sense (well some do but that's got nothing to do with the gun they choose). They have made some decisions based on their needs and abilities. For some it's a matter of balancing size and power in a package that they shoot well and handle well. For some it's the sense of having "6 for sure" rather than 7 or 8 that may jam, they have confidence in the revolver. For some it's caliber choice. For others...they just like wheelguns and handle them well. There are other reasons as well.

Revolver users know that their sidearm of choice does not carry as many rounds as a pistol does and may be slower to reload (for most anyway). A new shooter such as yourself is not showing them anything here. They've made an informed choice. DA revolvers have been around for over a century their materials and construction have been much improved on in that time. As a tool for CCW, home defense and personal self defense they are time tested and a viable option for many. From .38 Spl./.357 to 44 pl./.44 Mag and .45 Colt they are welcome friends in lonely mountainous places, and some dark alleys too. They are also fun.

Are revolvers outdated for self defense? Nope and only the uninformed would say so. Are they an old design? Sure, updated in many guns to be sure but still basically old.

Keep in mind that all semi automatics sold today are largely based on 100 year old designs. Either blow back or recoil operated. A few gas operated ones and rotating barrels tossed in. Some changes made to the triggers and all, alloys and plastics added to the frames, etc. But all in all George Lugar, Paul Mauser, John Browning, the Walther Bros. could sit at a table with a XD, a Glock, a Berretta and say "How far our little guns have come and still they are ours" and they'd be right.

tipoc

 

[MM60]

They both have the advantages and disadvantages. Neither one is ALWAYS the right answer.

That's true. Revolvers and semi-autos are both well suited for certain purposes.

Revolvers are capable of being made to fire more powerful cartridges than semi-autos. Revolvers are also more easily equipped with longer barrels for increased power, and the longer barrels will provide longer sight-radius's than are normally found on semi-autos. These characteristics - power and range - make revolvers well suited for hunting and defense against medium to large sized animals. I frequently carry a Ruger GP-100 in the mountains; where I am more concerned about a dangerous animal encounter than a dangerous human encounter.

Semi-automatics are capable of being made to contain more cartridges than revolvers. Semi-automatics are easier and faster to reload than revolvers (with or without a speedloader). I frequently carry a Sig P226, Sig P239, or Ruger LCP around town; where I am more concerned about a dangerous human encounter than a dangerous animal encounter.

No matter how you look at things, a semi-automatic is always more convenient/comfortable to carry than a revolver. Whenever you carry a revolver, you will be able to take only 5 to 7 shots (for most models) prior to having to reload. If you carry no spare cartridges, you only get 5 to 7 shots total. If you carry spare cartridges, you have to either carry them loose or in a speed loader. Loose cartridges will probably need to be carried in some sort of case, and will require one-at-a-time reloading into the revolver. A revolver and a case of cartridges will take up the same amount of space as a semi-auto and a magazine, but (probably) still provide fewer shots, and definitely would be slower to reload. A speedloader full of spare cartridges would also probably be best carried in some sort of case, but it could be carried loose. A revolver and a speedloader will take up at least as much space as a semi-auto and a magazine, but (probably) provide fewer shots, and would be slightly slower to reload. A speed loader also presents the problem of an odd/bulky/somewhat-delicate object constantly being carried on oneself. Regardless of these shortcomings in reloading speed, more-powerful revolvers (I'd say .357 magnum and up) are well suited for use against creatures that will not be shooting back at you. When considering creatures that may shoot back - especially groups of them - it would be wise to carry as much ammunition as possible, and have a fast method of reloading. I would suggest that less-powerful revolvers (.38 special and down) have no advantages over quality semi-autos or more powerful revolvers using decent ammunition. Less-powerful revolvers will either be out-gunned by the capacity and quick reloadability of semi-autos or by the power and range of more-powerful revolvers. Small-caliber/small-frame revolvers basically combine the worst of both worlds.

Tipoc writes to me:

A new shooter such as yourself is not showing them anything here.

This also cracks me up - "A new shooter". Right. See posts #50 and #53 here:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489836http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489836
If you think I'm a new shooter, then when would you consider somebody to no longer be a new shooter?

 

[tipoc]

If you think I'm a new shooter, then when would you consider somebody to no longer be a new shooter?

When they cease acting like one. Usually comes through experience rather than class room training or reading. Your opinions show all the hallmarks of the latter.

In the post above you continue to sidestep the question. You stated that revolvers are such an old design that only those lacking common sense would use them for personal defense.

You disregarded the personal skill levels of the individual who chooses a revolver, moon clips, speed loaders, speed strips, upgrades in revolver design and strength, available calibers, 7 and 8 shot wheelguns, etc. Your opinion weighs to the technology (hardware) rather than the shooter (the software). It is most often the latter in the workaday world that are the determining factor in surviving a shootout. Jerry Miculek with a revolver or Paris Hilton with a Glock. Experienced folks know the difference and would place their bets accordingly.

You have backed off of that some now by stating that they can be useful in the wild places for 4 legged threats. Many thousands of wheelgunners will be grateful to you.

Continuing to repeat the well known advantages of semis (speed of reload and capacity) sidesteps the question you raised (old design, lack of common sense, etc.). You also up the ante some by stating that if a fella faces multiple armed attackers (4,5,7 or more) that they would be better armed with a semi than a revolver. I hope running away real fast is also an option. To artificially reinforce your point you must leave the everyday world of a fella going to work in the morning and stopping by the store after work then home and enter the realm of the statistically rare pitched gun battle with armed multiple foes.

Problem is you did not ask what battlefield combat sidearm folks would choose, instead you asked what handgun they would carry for personal defense. Two different questions. In the real world a revolver is a viable option for many, old as they are.

Sigs, HKs, etc are upgrades of a 100 year old design as well.

tipoc

 

[Gryffydd]

MM60, I think your problem is that your opinions, and especially the way your choose to communicate your opinions are absolutely indistinguishable from your typical mall ninja. Some of your posts sound like they were ghostwritten by Gecko 45. Claiming to be an Ex-SEAL hurts your case more than it helps.

I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just telling you why basically no one here agrees with you, and why everyone is so ready to discount your opinion. You may actually be an Ex-SEAL, but it doesn't change the fact that you sound like someone who learned 95% of what they know about guns from video games and movies. Someone with a large airsoft collection, for example. Someone in search of a trauma plate to duct tape on their back that's capable of stopping a .338 Lapua

Once again, I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just telling you what I see in my head as I read your posts.

 

[bigred0383]

As faultless as my Beretta 92FS has been, I said Ruger, for the GP100. Tough as nails, versatile, safe, and with a little love...smoooooth.

.38 Special +P for Defense, .357 Magnum for hunting, .38 Shotshell for critters.

I would have a tough time choosing between a 3" with fixed sights, or a 4" with target sights.

Now if you said one gun only, period (handgun, rifle, shotgun), it would be a 12ga, no question.

 

[MM60]

Tipoc:

Problem is you did not ask what battlefield combat sidearm folks would choose, instead you asked what handgun they would carry for personal defense. Two different questions.

That is not at all what happened. You and Gryffydd carried one of my posts from a different thread (post #31 here: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489640&highlight=sister) over to this one and quoted one line from it out of context, and now you are stating that I asked a question about it here when I never did any such thing.

Also, I also didn't write that revolvers are too old of a design to use for personal defense. I stated many legitimate reasons why revolvers are less practical than semi-autos for personal defense against other armed humans.

Gryffydd,
I was under the impression that the term "mall ninja" refers to the private security guards that work at shopping centers, and I am not familiar with how they might portray themselves in an online forum. I also don't know who Gecko 45 is.

I actually am a former SEAL, and I'm not going to post any information about myself that's more personal than the documents that I already posted. I am typically logical and practical, simply by default, about everything I do. I have no airsoft guns nor do I desire to own any. I choose all of my firearms for specific purposes for which I find they are best suited - not because of appearances or history behind the guns. I don't have any problem with recommending to others firearms that I don't personally own, but I do have a problem with people automatically recommending a 1911, or a BHP, or a .38 revolver to everybody who asks for help making a choice. Certain guns are best for certain tasks. I would never say that the three I just mentioned are the worst choice for any task, but I would say that they are certainly not the best for any task I can think of.

I have provided lots of factual and accurate information in my previous posts to support my positions. I would love to see other members of THR base their statements on fact and logic; being objective, rather than on sentiment and opinion - which are entirely subjective. You simply cannot make any valid argument based solely upon your feelings, and you shouldn't take people's statements out of context - those are things that the anti-gunners and other liberals do. Let's leave that to them.

 

[wesessiah]

how often is more than about 6 shots needed in a personal defense scenario? most females (pertaining to the discussion above) aren't in many gang wars with 20+ shots needing to be easily accessible. the simplicity of a revolver is a big plus for a lot of people, and unlike magazine/ramp related feeding problems, possible stovepiping, fte, or whatever that would take time to clear, about all that would be encountered with a revolver is ftf (fire) in which you just pull the trigger again.

 

[MM60]

Wesessiah,
A revolver would probably be fine to use in a single-aggressor attack, or even in some multiple-aggressor attacks, but I would think it best to be prepared for the worst, and to me that means having the ability to quickly fire as many shots in succession as possbile - as well as having the ability to place them all accurately. Anybody who has a good working knowledge of their firearm (which should be everyone who has a firearm) shouldn't be overly concerned about what to do in the case of a FTF.

 

[CombatArmsUSAF]

MM60- Here is one reason that most of us could care less about what certificates you post and whatever job you say you've held in the past.

I know alot of SF guys, a few SEALS thrown in to, and you know what they all have in common? I've not met one guy that even talks about what he does for a living, or did for a living in the past. Let alone advertising it on some internet forum trying to prove themsleves some kind of authority.

Plain and simple-Your statements have demonstrated your level of knowledge and experience with firearms, and to be honest if you are indeed a SEAL, They just lost a couple of points in my book when it comes to their firearms knowledge.

 

[MM60]

Why should I not talk about it? I haven't provided any identifying information, or any sensitive information, or discussed or shown anything distasteful or inappropriate. All I did was provide my graduation certificates and some genuine and unclassified documents (with all dates and names blacked out) to prove that I actually do have an extensive background in firearms - because apparently on THR you're considered to be a "new shooter" until you worship the 1911 (which I actually have owned, shot, and carried, and sold because it was impractical for the several reasons I mentioned in previous posts). I'm not trying to wave my SpecWar status in your face - I just thought it might show that I really may have a clue about the points I've been making - but obviously nothing of the sort matters to a bunch of old men who are stuck in their ways.

 

[doc2rn]

Colt Mustang in .380

 

[wesessiah]

A revolver would probably be fine to use in a single-aggressor attack, or even in some multiple-aggressor attacks, but I would think it best to be prepared for the worst, and to me that means having the ability to quickly fire as many shots in succession as possbile - as well as having the ability to place them all accurately. Anybody who has a good working knowledge of their firearm (which should be everyone who has a firearm) shouldn't be overly concerned about what to do in the case of a FTF.

i really don't disagree with this post, and you're reasoning is why i carry 14 rounds of 9mm jhp, instead of substantially less in say a .40... if i carried a full sized gun it would be a different story... though i still say that in most scenarios for any given woman/inexperienced person, 6 shots of 38+p (or something of the like) out of a short barreled wheel gun should be sufficient

 

[IdahoLT1]

I have provided lots of factual and accurate information in my previous posts to support my positions. I would love to see other members of THR base their statements on fact and logic; being objective, rather than on sentiment and opinion - which are entirely subjective. You simply cannot make any valid argument based solely upon your feelings, and you shouldn't take people's statements out of context - those are things that the anti-gunners and other liberals do. Let's leave that to them.

This is from your first post on your other thread:

Kahr was the most popular after Glock, 1911's, and the LCP? I had not even heard of Kahr until I joined THR. I looked at the Kahr website, and the company seems to be similar to Kel-Tec; they began as a CNC machine shop and produced other goods long before they made firearms. I do not doubt their quality, but it seems that Kahr pistols all use single-stack mags with somewhat low capacity compared to other single-stack semi-autos. They sell in the intermediate price range ($450 to $700), which doesn't seem that great since most other mid-quality semi-autos from more established manufacturers sell for the same price. Also, I know Kahr's are made in USA, but I would not want to carry a gun that sounds like it comes from Iran.

I find it funny because youre now ranting and raving about how people shouldnt be basing their arguements on their feelings, yet thats all you have done for the last 2 threads. Youve bashed numerous gun manufacturers throughout your 2 threads with little to no relevant facts on why they arent superior. So lets disect the quote from above. You dont think Kahrs are good because:

1)you think they are similar to Kel-tec in that they werent originally a firearms manufacturer.
2)the capacity of their firearms is low compared to other single stack pistols.
3)they are mid-range priced, but isnt a deal since more established manufacturers sell pistols in the same range.
4)the name sounds like its from Iran

In response to:

1)So what if they werent originally a firearms manufacturer. One of the most prolofic/recognizable "modern" machine guns was made by General Electric. Kahr arms uses modern, high quality equipment. As good as John Browning was, the shop he designed the BAR, 1911, Auto-5 and BMG was the size of an average living room. Whats next? Youre gonna start discrediting Dan Wesson firearms too? Youre statement might be a "fact" but its irrelevant in modern firearm manufacturing.

2)This is a fact, but youre purposely neglecting to mention the size of the firearms themselves. The Sig 220 has a standard 8+1 capacity and is 5.5" tall. The Kahr CW45 has a standard 6+1 capacity and is 4.8" tall. Do you see your failed "logic"? Of course the shorter gun will carry less ammo than the taller gun. Kahr makes conceal carry semi auto pistols and that is it. They started manufacturing firearms at the beginning of the '94 AWB and marketed towards people wanting a concealable firearm because the capactiy was limited to 10 rounds.

3)This statement is nothing but opinion. No fact whatsoever.

4)This is also just your opinion.

In the four links provided, I did not find CZ's to be in use by any U.S. police force, government agency, or military unit. They are listed as in use by police forces in Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia. If you read through all four of CZ Forum's lists, you will see that Glock's, H&K's, and Sig's are in widespread government use around the world. The Beretta 92 and various S&W models are also fairly common, but as I stated previously - I find these two to be lesser companies than the aforementioned three. CZ may produce quality firearms, but I see nothing particularly special about them, and there are better choices. Also, according to CZ Forum's lists, 1911's are about as common as CZ's in military and law enforcement anymore, and after 100 years - there are obviously better choices.

You even bash Beretta in your first thread. You seem to forget that Beretta has been making high quality firearms for almost 500 years. Some of their shotguns and rifles are more expensive than most engineers make in a year. You discredit the Beretta M9 even though it beat out the SIG 226 and the H&K P9S and VP70 in the XM trials in the 80's proving on multiple occassions to be the same quality, just w/out the hefty price tag.

 

[weisse52]

This also cracks me up - "A new shooter". Right. See posts #50 and #53 here:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489836http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489836
If you think I'm a new shooter, then when would you consider somebody to no longer be a new shooter?

Show me your DD214, and prove it is yours, (the long version of course) and then I may believe. You do have a DD214, don't you? And just what rate where you anyway?

Your documents mean nothing posted on the Internet. I can prove I was the Chief Master Petty Office of the Navy if you want me to. Or at least I can in the same way you have...

I knew some Vietnam era Seals, You do not sound or act like any Seal I have every met. You may be one, but your posts show do not support your words.

 

[wesessiah]

idaho, something else to add; sig originally made horse drawn carts or something to that effect

 

[MM60]

IdahoLT1,
In your post #119 you made all of my statements about Kahr firearms out to be malicious attacks upon the company, whereas in reality - I was just stating the facts.

The last line in my paragraph that you quoted actually is my own opinion, and I clearly stated that "I know Kahr's are made in USA, but I would not want to carry a gun that sounds like it comes from Iran." It turns out that I was wrong here; I should have said Korea - and now I will attack the company...

Here is some more information about the Kahr company (as found on Wikipedia) that you all may not have known:
Kahr Arms:
Kahr Arms is an American small arms manufacturer founded by Kook Jin "Justin" Moon (son of Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon), who currently serves as CEO and President. It is owned by the Saeilo Corporation (pronounced say-low), a subsidiary of the Unification Church International holding company.

Sun Myung Moon:
Sun Myung Moon (born January 6, 1920) is the Korean founder and leader of the worldwide Unification Church. He is also the founder of many other organizations and projects involved in political, cultural, artistic, mass-media, educational, public service, and other activities. One of the best-known of these is the conservative Washington Times newspaper. He is famous for holding blessing ceremonies, often referred to as "mass weddings".
Moon has said, and it is believed by Unification Church members, that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission. He has been among the most controversial modern religious leaders, both for his religious beliefs and for his social and political activism.
In 2004, at a March 23 ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in Washington D.C. Moon crowned himself with what was called the "Crown of Peace." United States Representative Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) carried a pillow holding the ornate crown which Moon "snatched up". Other law makers who attended included Senator Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) , as well as former Representative Walter Fauntroy (D-D.C.). Key organizers of the event included George Stallings, controversial former Roman Catholic priest who had been married by Moon, and Michael Jenkins, the president of the American Unification Church at that time.

Moon delivered a long speech in which he stated that he was:
"sent to Earth . . . to save the world's six billion people.... Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."
On June 27, 2004 the New York Times editorial board criticized the ceremony and the participation of congressional members. The Associated Press reported that "Many of the congressional members in attendance have said they felt misled into making an appearance that later was used to promote Moon's Unification Church." Some stated that they didn't expect a coronation but thought the awards dinner was only to honor activists from their home states as Ambassadors for Peace.

Critics contrast Moon's "opulent" personal lifestyle with that of church members who are asked to sacrifice both in their careers and in donating most of what little they have. The Moon family situation is described as one of "luxury and privilege" and as "lavish".
Home for the True Family was a guarded 18-acre (73,000 m2) mini-castle in Irvington, New York, a tiny suburb located along a sweep of the Hudson River. Named East Garden, after Eden, the estate included two smaller houses and a three-story brick mansion with 12 bedrooms, seven baths, a bowling alley, and a dining room equipped with a waterfall and pond. There were other castles and mansions too — in South Korea, Germany, Scotland, England — and few expenses were spared. The children had tutors from Japan, purebred horses, motorbikes, sports cars, and first-class vacations with blank-check spending. "The kids got whatever they wanted," says Donna Collins, who grew up in the church. "At one point, the Moon kids were each getting $40,000 or $50,000 a month for allowance. They had wads of cash. I remember once in London where [one of Justin’s sisters] spent like $2,000 a day; I saw a drawer filled with Rolexes and diamonds."
Moon owns or sponsors major business enterprises, including The Washington Times, the United Press International, and Pyeonghwa Motors. A small sampling of other operations include computers and religious icons in Japan, seafood in Alaska, weapons and ginseng in Korea, huge tracts of land in South America, a recording studio and travel agency in Manhattan, a horse farm in Texas and a golf course in California.
In a 1992 letter to The New York Times, author Richard Quebedeaux, who had taken part in several Unification Church projects, criticized Moon's financial judgement by saying, "Mr. Moon may well be a good religious leader with high ideals, but he has also shown himself to be a poor businessman."

Here's a link to a video that shows the coronation ceremony in Washington D.C.
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/news/watch/v6528297a9ppTgRm

So, if you're a Christian and/or an American Patriot, or simply an ethics-minded person, perhaps you will reconsider supporting the Kahr company with your business now that you see what kind of people are running the show there. No company is perfect, but after doing some research - Kahr represents to me something far more sinister and disturbing than the low-cap magazines and relatively high prices of their pistols.

On a different topic, I'm not posting my DD-214 on the internet. I might as well just give you my name, address, social security number, and all the rest of my personal information and let you all do a full background check on me or stop by my house to visit in person. Or I could black out all personal information on my DD-214 and post it that way, but you would just say I made that up like all my other authentic documents. Also, I don't know what you're referring to when you say "the long version". My DD-214 is one page long, unless it came with other papers that are not the actual form itself - which I didn't keep with it. I do have a box with a stack of BUPERS orders 4 to 5 inches thick, but I'm not posting those online either. I can tell you I got issued a green military ID when most bases were issuing the new white ones with the chip imbedded in them. I can tell you that I've swam from Little Creek NAB to the beach west of the Lesner Bridge and back. I've also swam from the Coronado amphib. base to Imperial Beach. I shot the Mk-43(M-60) in the mountains at Camp Pendleton during rifle training in BUD/S Phase III. I've successfully navigated a long series of obstacles and points on closed-circut at night in Virginia using an Attack Board and making calculations in time, distance, and bearing along the way. You can go ahead and say I'm making it up, but I'm really not. There are about 2,000 SEALs in active duty at any given time, and about ten times that many who have been discharged and are still living. Is it really that hard for you to believe that one of them is writing on THR? We're rare, but not that rare.

 

[wesessiah]

^ so maybe family guy was right about jesus and moses using guns to conquer the romans... God forgive me, just a joke.

 

[tipoc]

MM60,

Actually when I quoted you it was from post #50 of this thread. I have quoted you only from this thread.

The only reason that folks here have mentioned your credentials is because you raised them. In another thread when folks debated your statement of your opinions (rather the manner you stated them in) you raised your background to buttress your opinions. You've done it again in this thread. You said in effect that doubting or debating you was tantamount to doubting the SEALS and other organizations and training. You used them as a shield.

Polls, even when they don't make alot of sense are often fun. You made this poll about you and your opinions. Personally I don't want to appear to be bashing you. I don't disagree with all you say. I do disagree with how you say it. At one time or another we are all inexperienced and new to something or the other.

When I fella says: "Personally I think there are better choices for self defense than a revolver a 1911 or a BHP" I'll listen and discuss. When a fella says: "The 1911 and the revolver are old antiquated designs unsuitable for personal defense and those that use them lack common sense" (all things you said) I think the speaker does not know what they are talking about.

On Kahr:
In the thread you have referenced you state that till you joined THR you had never heard of Kahr firearms. This means you had never personally shot or handled one or read a single report on any of their guns that you recalled. Yet you had strong opinions of their guns and the quality of them. This is a mark of someone lacking in experience and judgement. The experienced person would say; "Tell me about Kahr firearms. I'm ignorant of them."

I knew years back about Justin Moon's daddy (who, by the way, considers himself and his church to be Christian). John Browning was a Morman. The Catholic Church and some Baptists don't consider Mormans Christian so I understand it. I don't care about that when it comes to guns. I did not buy Justin Moon or his daddy. I did buy a Kahr to try one out for myself. I also shot several others over the years. That's another thread.

tipoc

 

[Loyalist Dave]

IF the choice is one and only one, and the starting premis was all the accessories, but didn't mention maintenance..., so I am going with little to no maintenance available...,

I'd choose a S&W Model 13 in a 3" barrel, but a 4" barrel would also be fine. Very little to break. Holds six shots of a very potent round, the premis would allow me speed loaders, and for CCW I prefer a 3" to the 4" but I could make do. NOT my favorite, but I would be far from naked.

LD