Firepower!
member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 723
Magazine capacity
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.One is that the 210 is defunct...except in limited areas...and the 1911 is still going strong.
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.After switching to the 9mm cartridge in order to have ammunition commonality with our European allies...a mistake IMO...the US Marines have taken a second look at the failures of the cartridge and the platform, and have begun to call the old .45s remaining back into the game, and issuing them to the people who are actually taking pistols into a fight rather than to a target range.
Does it look like I am negotiating?So...Enough talk. You want to conduct a test to see what the outcome would be, but you want to drink tea and dance a minuet. I want to see how your 210 does in a street brawl. Drink a few beers and step outside, if you will. After all...If the sidearm is a fighting tool instead of an officer's symbol of rank, that would be a much better litmus test. I'll even go with the machine rest thing that you seem to be so convinced is the end-all venue to prove its worth...but after the brawl.
Firepower! said:Magazine capacity
Do you understand the difference between history and speculation?As has been pointed out previously, most of those shots attributed to the Germans and Russians were delivered to the back of the head. Certainly not an indication of effectiveness, and thus, a meaningless statistic.Sorry to rain on your parade, but judging by the XXth century body counts, U.S. small arms rate orders of magnitude below German and Russian ones.
No sand pits, no mud baths, no credit for human ability.
Give your fantasies a rest.
Unless you've been in "any war zone", then you have no idea what "any" imperfect war can do to a man's head..
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.
Neither more nor less so than "It's still being made and bought, therefore it must be better."Argumentum ad Rembrandt is a bizarre tactic.
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.Bottom line is the 9mm has far more up front, and personal, head shot executions than any 45cal..
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.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.
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.IMO MZ's refusal of reciprocal terms from Tuner is tacit admission of the P210's lack of battle-field robustness.
MZ said:My purpose is to hit what I am aiming at. I aim small.
ugaarguy said:In summary
Mr. Zeleny wants a benchrest pistol, and Tuner wants a combat pistol.
1911 addict: My gun is a design tried and proven in 4 major wars over a period of nearly 100 years.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.
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.Your insistence on a machine rest states otherwise. Unless your use of "I" instead means; machine rest.My purpose is to hit what I am aiming at. I aim small.
MZ said: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.