Firepower!
member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 723
Magazine capacity
What is wrong with the 1911 design?
- Thread starter SuperNaut
- Start date
- Status
Michael Zeleny
member
And Rembrandt van Rijn One is defunct, except in controlled museum environments, while Jeff Koons is still going strong. We are talking Aristotle and Homer versus Michael Jackson and soap bubbles as the be-all and end-all of aesthetic preferences.
Give your fantasies a rest. We Americans are hundreds of times better than our European allies at staying out of fights. Both 9mm Luger and 7.62 Tokarev are responsible for two orders of magnitude more kills than good old .45 ACP.
Does it look like I am negotiating?
No sand pits, no mud baths, no credit for human ability.
And no shooting after drinking.
Last edited:
DougDubya
Member
Firepower! said:
STI can give you up to 25 rounds of 9mm, more than anything short of the Glock 18 Mag in any 9mm Glock.
Para Ordnance only can go as high as 18 shots plus one in the tube with their 9mm hi-cap. 17 shots for their .40 and 15 shots for their .45 too.
If you need more capacity in a 1911 platform, you should take time away from the message board and work on your reloading skills and work on your accuracy.
Lonestar49
Member
Talk about "stacking the deck"
...
MZ,
Could you not have stacked your latest post with pics one on top of the other, rather than side by side?
Geez!! I need a 34" screen to see it all at once and read..
Can't you budge an inch? lol
Ls
...
MZ,
Could you not have stacked your latest post with pics one on top of the other, rather than side by side?
Geez!! I need a 34" screen to see it all at once and read..
Can't you budge an inch? lol
Ls
Last edited:
Michael Zeleny
member
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Yeah. I didn't think so. I guess it's a little like the 1922 match between Middleweight Harry Greb and undefeated American Light-Heavyweight champ and refined, scientific boxer, Gene Tunney. Undertrained and 4 years older...4 inches shorter...nearly blind in one eye...and 15 pounds lighter, Greb was a 3:1 underdog on fight night. Imagine everyone's surprise when Greb handed Gene his ass for 15 rounds. Tunney was unable to get out of bed for week following the fight. No sense in gettin' bloody, Michael. Can't say as I blame ya.
Give yours a rest. The last two major wars we jumped into was because our European allies...ahhh...Never mind. I don't need to give you a history lesson, too.
Anyway...If you'd like a go at defending your 210's honor...Ah'm yuh Huckleberry. Say when. Bring spare parts. You'll need'em.
EDIT TO ADD:
So now I see you're using an isolated incident in Vietnam to even out the score for the atrocities of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Pol Pot. I guess since an American officer went crackers over his men being killed from points in the villiage of MyLai, it somehow equates to the millions who were rounded up and exterminated behind fences and machinegunned while standing naked in neck-deep trenches.
I'm at the point that I can't continue this discussion without becoming abusive...so I shall withdraw post-haste.
Lonestar49
Member
...
It just keeps getting bigger, LOUDER..
Unless you've been in "any war zone", then you have no idea what "any" imperfect war can do to a man's head.. any man, any side, can become an animal, simply because "man is the ultimate weapon".. when pushed too long.
Bottom line is the 9mm has far more up front, and personal, head shot executions than any 45cal..
That's a fact, along with History.. and does not support your theory that the 9mm has proved itself over time and round counts, when it comes to accuracy in "pistol use".
Ls
It just keeps getting bigger, LOUDER..
Unless you've been in "any war zone", then you have no idea what "any" imperfect war can do to a man's head.. any man, any side, can become an animal, simply because "man is the ultimate weapon".. when pushed too long.
Bottom line is the 9mm has far more up front, and personal, head shot executions than any 45cal..
That's a fact, along with History.. and does not support your theory that the 9mm has proved itself over time and round counts, when it comes to accuracy in "pistol use".
Ls
IMO MZ's refusal of reciprocal terms from Tuner is tacit admission of the P210's lack of battle-field robustness.
MZ, if your goal was to raise visibility of the P210 you have succeeded, I find the gun to be quite interesting. If your goal was to prove the P210's superiority over the battle-tested 1911, then you have failed.
p.s. Argumentum ad Rembrandt is a bizarre tactic.
MZ, if your goal was to raise visibility of the P210 you have succeeded, I find the gun to be quite interesting. If your goal was to prove the P210's superiority over the battle-tested 1911, then you have failed.
p.s. Argumentum ad Rembrandt is a bizarre tactic.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
+1
Do I condone Calley's actions? No. I do understand it, though...Mr. Zeleny...and on a deeper level than you can glimpse in your darkest nightmares.
But...do carry on.
I envision Michael sitting at his desk in the dark flinging **** at his monitor hoping something will stick. On the other side, these globs of feces have transformed into text, which make little or no relevance to the topic at hand. There will be a "The 210 is superior" followed by a reference to Socrates, then comes "the 1911 is obsolete" with an attachment of Rembrandt with full name (full names always give more credence). I have been entertained.
Michael Zeleny
member
Neither more nor less so than "It's still being made and bought, therefore it must be better."
On that point you are correct.
In a formal debate, Argumentum ad Populum is just as fallacious as Argumentum ad Novus or Argumentum ad Rembrandt.
However, this isn't a formal debate, and when discussing the merits of product design, adoption is a totally relevant data point.
In a formal debate, Argumentum ad Populum is just as fallacious as Argumentum ad Novus or Argumentum ad Rembrandt.
However, this isn't a formal debate, and when discussing the merits of product design, adoption is a totally relevant data point.
steelyblue
Member
The 210 is a very good gun. It is way better than the GSR. I would, however, take almost any other brand of 1911 over a 210. I'm far more accurate with a 1911 and the 210 is just plain ugly to me as are all sigs in my eyes.
Michael Zeleny
member
Killing prisoners was sometimes justified as retaliation. The orderly of a popular Marine company commander who had been killed at Okinawa ‘snatched up a submachine gun and unforgivably massacred a line of unarmed Japanese soldiers who had just surrendered’. British troops, too, killed Japanese prisoners in revenge for earlier atrocities against Allied wounded. However, there is evidence that ‘taking no prisoners’ simply became standard practice. ‘The [American] rule of thumb,’ an American PoW told his Japanese captors, ‘was “if it moves, shoot it”.’ Another GI maxim was ‘Kill or be killed.’ The war correspondent Edgar L. Jones later recalled: ‘We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats… finished off the enemy wounded.’ War psychologists regarded the killing of prisoners as so commonplace that they devised formulae for assuaging soldiers’ subsequent feelings of guilt. Roughly two-fifths of American army chaplains surveyed after the war said that they had regarded orders to kill prisoners as legitimate. This kind of thing went on despite the obvious deterrent effect on other Japanese soldiers who might be contemplating surrender, making it far from easy to distinguish the self-induced aversion to surrender discussed above from the rational fear that the Americans would kill any prisoners. In June 1945 the US Office of War Information reported that 84 per cent of interrogated Japanese prisoners had expected to be killed by their captors. This fear was clearly far from unwarranted. Two years before, a secret intelligence report said that only the promise of free ice cream and three days’ leave would induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese.
—Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West, Penguin Press, 2006, pp. 545-546
Michael Zeleny
member
The only merit of product design that concerns me here is fitness to purpose. Purposes differ with reason. My purpose is to hit what I am aiming at. I aim small. I have no interest in dissuading shooters from aiming large and calling in an air strike when they miss. My points are meant for similarly inclined men. Adoption is a measure of broad inclinations that has little bearing on specific merit.
Michael Zeleny
member
There are as many battlefields as there are men. A grunt that can be barely relied upon to aim toward danger is best served by a G17. A marksman that takes the time and effort to learn and care for his sidearm deserves a P210. The M1911 is neither here nor there.
texagun
Member
So Michael, now that you have proven to be impotent is demonstrating the alleged superiority of an antiquated Sig Sauer model to the tried and proven design that has proven itselt in 4 major wars over a period of nearly 100 years, you are now leaning on your Left Coast political viewpoint to support an untenable position? What on earth does Mai Lai have do with the discussion at hand? You digress apparently because of a lack of any further valid arguments to support your preference in handguns. Why not stick to facts to prove your argument...it would be far more convincing.
MZ said:
Your insistence on a machine rest states otherwise. Unless your use of "I" instead means; machine rest.
Also, you keep reiterating your very narrow points and concerns: We get it.
Can we now move on?
ugaarguy said:
Agreed, that is the long and short.
Michael Zeleny
member
1911 addict: My gun is a design tried and proven in 4 major wars over a period of nearly 100 years.
MZ: U.S. kills in these wars are negligible compared to those scored by Germans and Russians. Get a Luger or a Tokarev.
1911 addict: Germans and Russians shot people in the back of the head.
MZ: So did Americans. Witness My Lai.
Michael Zeleny
member
If you want to test me, take a shot in my direction. If you want to test the gun, leave my skill out of the picture.
DougDubya
Member
Texagun - the P210 is not a SIG Sauer design. It's just a SIG design.
I'm still waiting for MZ to post facts and figures not hidden behind a 404 Error web-page.
Cut and paste doesn't work on your computer, Michael?
Oh, and as to Glock's not being for marksmen, how come I often see Glock 19's putting five into 1.9 inches in good hands?
I'm still waiting for MZ to post facts and figures not hidden behind a 404 Error web-page.
Cut and paste doesn't work on your computer, Michael?
Oh, and as to Glock's not being for marksmen, how come I often see Glock 19's putting five into 1.9 inches in good hands?
I'm not sure what you mean but as far as i know in Iwo Jima the japanese soldiers were ordered to shoot medics!!(10 gis)while the germans will stop shooting when they see medics trying to help wounded soldiers..action reaction simple law of physics..Not sure if you ever served but maybe a little history reading will help you realize that its all part of the hell of war...My grand father was hit with the rifle butt by japanese soldiers becs he was trying to bring some food to their house..
"Killing prisoners was sometimes justified as retaliation. The orderly of a popular Marine company commander who had been killed at Okinawa ‘snatched up a submachine gun and unforgivably massacred a line of unarmed Japanese soldiers who had just surrendered’. British troops, too, killed Japanese prisoners in revenge for earlier atrocities against Allied wounded. However, there is evidence that ‘taking no prisoners’ simply became standard practice. ‘The [American] rule of thumb,’ an American PoW told his Japanese captors, ‘was “if it moves, shoot it”.’ Another GI maxim was ‘Kill or be killed.’ The war correspondent Edgar L. Jones later recalled: ‘We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats… finished off the enemy wounded.’ War psychologists regarded the killing of prisoners as so commonplace that they devised formulae for assuaging soldiers’ subsequent feelings of guilt. Roughly two-fifths of American army chaplains surveyed after the war said that they had regarded orders to kill prisoners as legitimate. This kind of thing went on despite the obvious deterrent effect on other Japanese soldiers who might be contemplating surrender, making it far from easy to distinguish the self-induced aversion to surrender discussed above from the rational fear that the Americans would kill any prisoners. In June 1945 the US Office of War Information reported that 84 per cent of interrogated Japanese prisoners had expected to be killed by their captors. This fear was clearly far from unwarranted. Two years before, a secret intelligence report said that only the promise of free ice cream and three days’ leave would induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese. "
—Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West, Penguin Press, 2006, pp. 545-546
__________________
"Killing prisoners was sometimes justified as retaliation. The orderly of a popular Marine company commander who had been killed at Okinawa ‘snatched up a submachine gun and unforgivably massacred a line of unarmed Japanese soldiers who had just surrendered’. British troops, too, killed Japanese prisoners in revenge for earlier atrocities against Allied wounded. However, there is evidence that ‘taking no prisoners’ simply became standard practice. ‘The [American] rule of thumb,’ an American PoW told his Japanese captors, ‘was “if it moves, shoot it”.’ Another GI maxim was ‘Kill or be killed.’ The war correspondent Edgar L. Jones later recalled: ‘We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats… finished off the enemy wounded.’ War psychologists regarded the killing of prisoners as so commonplace that they devised formulae for assuaging soldiers’ subsequent feelings of guilt. Roughly two-fifths of American army chaplains surveyed after the war said that they had regarded orders to kill prisoners as legitimate. This kind of thing went on despite the obvious deterrent effect on other Japanese soldiers who might be contemplating surrender, making it far from easy to distinguish the self-induced aversion to surrender discussed above from the rational fear that the Americans would kill any prisoners. In June 1945 the US Office of War Information reported that 84 per cent of interrogated Japanese prisoners had expected to be killed by their captors. This fear was clearly far from unwarranted. Two years before, a secret intelligence report said that only the promise of free ice cream and three days’ leave would induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese. "
—Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West, Penguin Press, 2006, pp. 545-546
__________________
- Status
