elChupacabra!
member
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
- Messages
- 562
Ok, I've got a question. I've spent a good part of my morning reading various boards that advocate that a Pump shotgun is more reliable than an autoloader; that a Lever rifle is as easy to manipulate quickly and under stress as a semi-auto, and that a revolver is more reliable than an autoloader.
I've heard all these arguments before, usually along these lines:
1) Pump shotguns never jam - autoloaders get fouled / have problems with gas system / etc. Only use 590 / 870.
2) If you know what you're doing, you can pump rounds out of a lever gun just as fast as from an AR. You don't need an AR or AK.
3) Revolvers never jam. That makes them inherantly better than autoloaders which may occasionally do so. ALWAYS use a revolver.
Unfortunately, I disagree with all these premises:
1) It's very easy to short-stroke a shotgun or just plain forget to pump it under stress. That could potentially make a pump-action 'gague LESS reliable than an autoloader that is proven to work with a given ammunition selection.
2) There's no way that a lever gun will beat a semi-auto rifle for rate of fire in either bursts or sustained fire. Further, add a reload and you are miles behind the power curve.
3) Revolvers may jam just the same as an autoloader - especially if dirty, poorly maintained, out-of-time, or something blocks the cylinder from rotating. On top of that, limited ammunition capacity, relatively long and heavy trigger pull (especially compared with a good 1911) and slow reloading times seem to me to make revolvers a VERY bad defensive choice, on the level.
I guess this all came to a head when I was reading about the Remington 7615P in .223 Rem. As the argument seems to go, that rifle is the best of both worlds - the precision of a rifle with the reliability of a pump-action. To me though, it's the WORST of both worlds - you lose the best thing about a good pump shotgun - 12Ga buck - and the best thing about a good semi-auto rifle - immediate, no-thought follow-up shots (this isn't to say it doesn't have its place in the hands of users with limited training, and it isn't as "scary" looking, but I don't believe, at $700, you can say there is any price advantage over an AR carbine, so I don't see what REAL advantage it has is - all I see are disadvantages where it counts).
What do yall think? What am I missing here? It seems to me that the simplicity of an autoloader for general-purpose, defensive uses, when considering the reliability of modern firearms (I've got an AR and several autoloading handguns that are 100% reliable), makes it the no-brainer choice, yet people still have their opinions otherwise.
Could you please share your opinions both ways? I really want to know what I'm overlooking, if that's the case.
Thanks guys.
I've heard all these arguments before, usually along these lines:
1) Pump shotguns never jam - autoloaders get fouled / have problems with gas system / etc. Only use 590 / 870.
2) If you know what you're doing, you can pump rounds out of a lever gun just as fast as from an AR. You don't need an AR or AK.
3) Revolvers never jam. That makes them inherantly better than autoloaders which may occasionally do so. ALWAYS use a revolver.
Unfortunately, I disagree with all these premises:
1) It's very easy to short-stroke a shotgun or just plain forget to pump it under stress. That could potentially make a pump-action 'gague LESS reliable than an autoloader that is proven to work with a given ammunition selection.
2) There's no way that a lever gun will beat a semi-auto rifle for rate of fire in either bursts or sustained fire. Further, add a reload and you are miles behind the power curve.
3) Revolvers may jam just the same as an autoloader - especially if dirty, poorly maintained, out-of-time, or something blocks the cylinder from rotating. On top of that, limited ammunition capacity, relatively long and heavy trigger pull (especially compared with a good 1911) and slow reloading times seem to me to make revolvers a VERY bad defensive choice, on the level.
I guess this all came to a head when I was reading about the Remington 7615P in .223 Rem. As the argument seems to go, that rifle is the best of both worlds - the precision of a rifle with the reliability of a pump-action. To me though, it's the WORST of both worlds - you lose the best thing about a good pump shotgun - 12Ga buck - and the best thing about a good semi-auto rifle - immediate, no-thought follow-up shots (this isn't to say it doesn't have its place in the hands of users with limited training, and it isn't as "scary" looking, but I don't believe, at $700, you can say there is any price advantage over an AR carbine, so I don't see what REAL advantage it has is - all I see are disadvantages where it counts).
What do yall think? What am I missing here? It seems to me that the simplicity of an autoloader for general-purpose, defensive uses, when considering the reliability of modern firearms (I've got an AR and several autoloading handguns that are 100% reliable), makes it the no-brainer choice, yet people still have their opinions otherwise.
Could you please share your opinions both ways? I really want to know what I'm overlooking, if that's the case.
Thanks guys.
Last edited: