Portability and Reliability versus Spray and Pray

Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by Rebailey, Mar 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ltlabner

    Ltlabner Member

    Mar 25, 2008
    I'd say that anyone who carries a revolver they have only shot a few times is everybit as dangerous as the fool who unloads 15 rounds hoping to hit something.

    Revolvers have advantages. Autos have advantages. But equipment is nowhere near as important as the skill of the operator, tactics employed and practice, practice, practice.
  2. Rebailey

    Rebailey Member

    May 17, 2007
    Portability and Reliability vs ''Spray and Pray''

    I have read all of the posts relating to my original post on the differences between revolvers and semi-automatics. I would like to add a little background to my expertise on these matters. I have been a shooter, hand-loader, big-game hunter, lover of guns, supporter of the NRA, advisor to novice shooters, gun safety instructor etc. for over 50 years. I also owned a gun shop for 15 years. I saw many customers who wanted a gun for protection only who said they would never shoot it unless they had to. I would test fire it for them in my tube, sell them ten rounds of ammo and send them on their way. They had neither the time or inclination to join a shooting range. I ALWAYS sold them a revolver because all they had to do was pull the trigger and it would go bang. I even had one little grandmother who only bought one cartridge. So I know of what I speak. I started this discussion with the idea of educating some of the novice readers on this forum. It makes me sick to read some of the answers here that attack my knowledge of guns. I dare say I know as much or more on the subject as ANYONE on this forum. Why can't we have a forum where we try to educate the uninformed without attacking the posters personally? I want to thank the kind gentlemen who have come to my defense, especially Lonestar49. Thanks, fellows.
  3. MrBorland

    MrBorland Moderator Staff Member

    Apr 13, 2007
    Rebailey - I appreciate your effort, but replies can only hope to be as good as the question, and to be honest, your "question" is very vague. I still don't understand what you're asking, nor am I sure you're really even asking a question. You started off saying you wanted to address capacity, but then "addressed" reliability (and very vaguely, btw). You then asked for opinions, which was an open-ended invite for the revolver-semi-auto debate you got.

    Posed with a real question, I've found the good folks here on THR are very helpful. If one simply wants to vent & start an argument, though, there are plenty who will oblige you.
  4. Ltlabner

    Ltlabner Member

    Mar 25, 2008
    Helps if you actually ask a question instead of tossing out a flame bait. Even in your most recient reply there is no discernable question or position you are taking. Mostly it was a defense of your experience, that nobody had really questioned (or frankly, cares about).

    Your original post was chock full of misinformation (one shot out of a revolver means its reliable) and name calling (implying that if you own an auto you are a member of the spray & pray club). It shouldn't really be a shock to you that people have not responded however it is you wanted them to.

    Then again, it's a shock to me as to why I keep coming back to this obvious troll attempt.
  5. loop

    loop Member

    Nov 27, 2007
    NW Arizona
    I'm really sorry to say this, but I have to agree with mrborland here.

    If you're just trying to start an argument it probably won't work very well here. There are simply too many knowledgeable people.

    But, going back to your original post - I shoot about 600 rounds out of autos every week. I shoot revolvers every so often. My last three failures were a S&W 1917 (mainspring screw backed out), an 1895 Nagant (cases were too long and cylinder failed to turn) and Para Ord (needed a new recoil spring). That's two revolver failures to one auto failure. And, I shoot a lot of auto and only take out revolvers when someone shows a special interest.

    I think novices can learn enough without taunting longtime shooters.

    I'd also say giving customers 10 rounds of ammo and leaving them with the impression they could "put it in a drawer" was a disservice.

    If you are going to take the words posted here personally, you should not start a thread. There are simply too many knowledgeable firearms people in the forum. Any argument will be attacked.

    I write for a living. I get attacked every time I write. Your skin has to be a little thicker when you write. If words were bullets I'd have killed a million people. Believe me, they're (words are) nothing. Heck, I even get pot shots taken at me because I didn't write what someone wanted.

    BTW, I've been shooting 50 years, founded two gun clubs, been an officer in an uncountable more and even at my ripe old age still tend to win more matches than come in second.

    Last thing I have to say is if you "know as much or more on the subject as ANYONE on this forum," why would you have posted the question in the first place? If you know as much as I do you know you've fired about 7,000 practice rounds this year. If you know as much as I do you average 300 rounds a month in competition (and I don't travel well...).

    I've got to say it - I've grown very weary of self-proclaimed experts who take up untenable positions.

    I have to go trash all my autos. They're unreliable. I was told that is so by someone who has "as much or more" knowledge than I'll ever have.
  6. Viking6

    Viking6 Member

    Dec 30, 2002
    This was all very pleasant. I assume that there are a more than a few people in this forum (and the TFL before) with more knowledge than me. Before these threads become heated, there are still some points of interest (opinion?) worth contemplating. I appreciate that people take time to share their opinions, experiences and occasionally knowledge. Finally, all of our credentials are relatively suspect as any other blog on the web.
  7. Feanaro

    Feanaro Member

    Mar 29, 2003
    Leeds, AL.
    If I had to use a pistol without ever testing it, it would be a revolver.

    However, I don't think we should be encouraging that mindset. If all grannie has to do is flash her pistol, she'll be fine. But the hit percentages for police officers is less than 50% and they have to practice at least once a year in most places. If she has to shoot someone, what will her "score" be? Will she hit the badguy... or the neighbor across the street? Handguns are the hardest firearms to master.

    I have another problem with this and that's putting your faith in a revolver that's had less than ten rounds through it. It's a false trust. It's less likely to fail, sure, but even Ruger and S&W put out revolvers that just plain don't work. One round isn't enough to diagnose all, or even most, of these lemons.

    If someone can't find time to practice and test their weapon or won't, you've probably got the right idea. But this person isn't a novice shooter. They aren't an anything shooter. They have a gun. A novice shooter... shoots. Once you start shooting, you've got facts to work with, not theoretical reliability.

    Lonestar: my grandfather on my mother's side was getting stinking drunk and wasting money into his 80's. Reliable accounts suggest he was like this in his 20's. Unless the AARP is offering an "automatic maturity" service now, actions speak louder than age.

    The title of this thread is eye catching. The sort of eye catching that causes flame wars. Internet forums are devoid of inflection and facial expression. If reasoned discourse is desired, it's best not to put the opposite camp into the dunce seat with the first words they will read, even if only to catch views.
  8. Lonestar49

    Lonestar49 Member

    Feb 17, 2007
    So. Calif.
    The Pile ON, I agree, affect by experts..

    Quote: Lonestar: 1. my grandfather on my mother's side was getting stinking drunk and wasting money into his 80's. Reliable accounts suggest he was like this in his 20's. Unless the AARP is offering an "automatic maturity" service now, actions speak louder than age.

    2. The title of this thread is eye catching. The sort of eye catching that causes flame wars. Internet forums are devoid of inflection and facial expression. If reasoned discourse is desired, it's best not to put the opposite camp into the dunce seat with the first words they will read, even if only to catch views.

    1. I don't get it? You some kind of Mind-reading Doctor who knows what the OP said, and why, because of implied drinking? Sorry, but a statement like that, and "implied" at, and towards, the OP is nothing more than your own personal problem, not his, not mine, not this post-thread.

    2. Geez, you seem like a candidate for road rage, as such a little thing, as in a title-thread, twisted by your mind, et. al., makes you that unhappy?

    The fog of war, ever ongoing.. for many

    There's a lot of good information one can garner from this thread, if one has eyes to read, and ears to listen with, and be able to separate the wheat from the chaff..

    Those with problems, keep on pounding away and shouting to the roof tops, as an old saying that goes, "He that shouts the loudest, the longest, usually is the most ignorant and wrong.."

  9. Hawk

    Hawk Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Jeff Cooper wisely cautioned us to be mindful of the distinction between "expert" and "professional". Deriving income from commerce in firearms makes one a "professional"; it does not make one an "expert" in any sense of the word. They may well be, but such things are generally determined over somewhat longer and more detailed interaction.

    Please take this in the constructive spirit it's intended:

    We can't see you standing in front of your press or behind the counter or counseling customers. All we can see is what you type. If you type a thread title that's provacative and reminds many readers of previous troll posts, one shouldn't express shock and dismay over the results - they were predictable. I daresay you could have predicted them.

    I'd like to think we can, particularly on this forum. But, human nature being what it is, it's generally better to do so in response to a request for information as opposed to pontificating on the matter, IMHO. This is particularly so if the serman starts off controversial.

    While there are no doubt some uninformed on this board I'd speculate there's many with your qualifications or better that won't agree with the particular gospel you're preaching. Again, results predictable.

    It's the internet, we can't see body language or smiles.
    I'll offer up a couple in the spirit of kumbaya and possibly having a realistic conversation on the merits: :) :D ;)

    MrBorland put it better and more concise than I did but I hate doing "+1" :)
  10. XavierBreath

    XavierBreath Member

    Jan 6, 2003
    Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, post hoc ergo propter hoc


    When I posted in this thread a few days ago, I had hopes of a common fallacy being discussed in a logical manner.

    I guess I should have known better, as a man who will propose a fallacy as the basis of debate will often fall victim to other varieties of fallacies as well.

    Need to defend a Monte Carlo fallacy? Just use an appeal to probability. Let's sprinkle on some base rate neglect for taste, a couple of package deals for generality, a true Scotsman for mediation, and goalposts being shoved everywhere by a masked man. Now we have reached the point where appeals to authority, thought terminating cliche's, appeals to belief, Texas sharpshooting, and ad hominems are taking us into territory that leads to forced reductions in membership. That is an undesirable result.

    In the end, if A, then B.
    A is a fallacious argument.
    Therefore, B is false

    In other words, an argument from fallacy is a fallacy in and of itself. So we are back where we started from. Any given firearm is only as reliable as it's last shot. The argument is circular. And with that, I'm closing this thread. It is closed not because of the validity or failure of the argument, not to end the argument, much less to win the argument. This thread is closed because if an answer can be achieved at all, the participants have demonstrated an incapacity of arriving at the desired destination, assuming it was desired in the first place.

    Review The High Road code of conduct. Specifically, item #4.
    Go in peace, and when challenged, use logic, not fallacy.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice