HK Jake
Member
I wouldn't carry it. Nothing could be worse in an SD situation than a gun which didn't fire, as you likely wouldn't realize the problem before it was too late.
Would you carry a less than reliable auto-loader?
- Thread starter MrIzhevsk
- Start date
- Status
hardluk1
member
Never . A pistol has to run atleast the first 600 rounds trouble free with 200 of them carry ammo before i trust it to carry.
JustinJ
Member
I don't know how one could make the arguement that nothing is better than something that works 98% of the time.
All other factors being equal I also dont know how one could make the argument that something that works 98% of the time is better than something that works 99.98% of the time.
If you are proficient with this specific gun get it fixed or buy another of the same model that lacks the issue yours is having. No offense but i don't know why something so simple needs a post.
All other factors being equal I also dont know how one could make the argument that something that works 98% of the time is better than something that works 99.98% of the time.
If you are proficient with this specific gun get it fixed or buy another of the same model that lacks the issue yours is having. No offense but i don't know why something so simple needs a post.
JerryM
Member
If the choice was to carry it or not carry I would carry it.
Jerry
Jerry
I will say that I had a difficult time wrapping my mind around this question, but then, the history buff in me thought back to the days when firearms were less dependable than today, during the flintlock and cap-and-ball days. Folks tended to carry larger blades and walking sticks and canes more prevalently, back then. I reckon that if I could have only one firearm, and that was less than reliable, I would carry it, but my go-to weapon at arm's-length and slightly beyond would be a stout blade. I already do carry stout blades, but would up the size a bit.
If I lived where blade length restrictions were Draconian, I would tote the cane, instead, to compensate for the handgun's handicap. Actually, my bad knee almost has me using a cane, already.
At arm's-lenth, and slightly beyond, the consequences of a malfunction are more immediate and severe.
Obviously, training in the use of contact weapons would be important.
If I lived where blade length restrictions were Draconian, I would tote the cane, instead, to compensate for the handgun's handicap. Actually, my bad knee almost has me using a cane, already.
At arm's-lenth, and slightly beyond, the consequences of a malfunction are more immediate and severe.
Obviously, training in the use of contact weapons would be important.
If the airplane was on fire hell yes.
Vern Humphrey
Member
But the airplane isn't on fire. We haven't even got in the freakin' airplane.
We're on the ground, planning our jump. Now, before we get in and take off, which parachute do you want, this one that has a 1% failure rate, or that one that has a 0.00001% failure rate?
As I said before, if you're killed because you chose to carry an unreliable gun, you planned your own demise. While you still have time, you might want to revise your plan -- and start taking action to get a reliable weapon.
RX-178
Member
I would never carry an unreliable handgun by choice.
If it were the only weapon available, then that's another matter entirely.
If it were the only weapon available, then that's another matter entirely.
Q- Would you ever leave the house without a gun, at all?
A- Yes.
Q- Would you ever leave the house with a pen knife, rather than a 10" bowie?
A- Yes.
Q- Would you ever carry a single shot pistol black powder pistol, just because you can?
A- Yes.
Q- How bout a single shot derringer?
A- Sure.
Q- Would you sometimes carry a rabbit's foot and a pack of gum in your pocket?
A- Sure, why not?
Q- Would you take a 99% reliable parachute with you to work, if you worked on a boat?
A- Probably not. But I wouldn't take a 100% reliable one, either.
Q- If you happened to bring your 99% reliable parachute, and you happened to need it, wouldn't you be glad you had it?
A- There's a 99% chance that's a yes.
Q- Would you carry a gun that works 99% of the time if it were your only one? Consider there's a 0.00001% chance of your needing it, and if needed, there's a 90% chance that even 0-1 shots can improve your outcome. Also, the gun will work 100% of the time when it's tap/racked, and you always have the option to NOT use it, if you feel it will put you in greater danger.
A- HECK NO!!!! It's no better than a brick.
Q- But isn't a brick better than nothing? Especially if it's a magic brick that shoots bullets 99% of the time?
A- Um, maybe.
Q- Would you carry a brick in your pocket?
A- That depends. Can I have a sharp stick, instead?
Q- Would you wear pants with a hole in them?
A- No way. I'd rather leave the house nekkid.
A- Yes.
Q- Would you ever leave the house with a pen knife, rather than a 10" bowie?
A- Yes.
Q- Would you ever carry a single shot pistol black powder pistol, just because you can?
A- Yes.
Q- How bout a single shot derringer?
A- Sure.
Q- Would you sometimes carry a rabbit's foot and a pack of gum in your pocket?
A- Sure, why not?
Q- Would you take a 99% reliable parachute with you to work, if you worked on a boat?
A- Probably not. But I wouldn't take a 100% reliable one, either.
Q- If you happened to bring your 99% reliable parachute, and you happened to need it, wouldn't you be glad you had it?
A- There's a 99% chance that's a yes.
Q- Would you carry a gun that works 99% of the time if it were your only one? Consider there's a 0.00001% chance of your needing it, and if needed, there's a 90% chance that even 0-1 shots can improve your outcome. Also, the gun will work 100% of the time when it's tap/racked, and you always have the option to NOT use it, if you feel it will put you in greater danger.
A- HECK NO!!!! It's no better than a brick.
Q- But isn't a brick better than nothing? Especially if it's a magic brick that shoots bullets 99% of the time?
A- Um, maybe.
Q- Would you carry a brick in your pocket?
A- That depends. Can I have a sharp stick, instead?
Q- Would you wear pants with a hole in them?
A- No way. I'd rather leave the house nekkid.
Last edited:
almherdfan
Member
Please, someone explain the advantages of going unarmed vs. being armed (albeit 2% chance of malfunction).
I don't think it is a choice between these two...at least my answer, point of view, wasn't directed at such a circumstance.
I see it more as a gun that may work or something that will work...even if it isn't a gun. It isn't as if you are going to attack a horde of BGs...or even one...it is the ability to defend yourself and escape from injury/harm. While we are in the Handguns: General Discussion subforum, it doesn't mean that you should be limited to a handgun for defensive uses.
Nushif
Member
This is coming from the OP:
That being said ... I'd carry it. Until I could find something more reliable.
Because it is actually better to have a firearm than to not have a firearm.
That being said ... I'd carry it. Until I could find something more reliable.
Because it is actually better to have a firearm than to not have a firearm.
Vern Humphrey
Member
In logic, that's called "the fallacy of false dilemma."
There is more than one gun in the world, so your choice isn't between "going unarmed vs. being armed (albeit 2% chance of malfunction)." Your choice is between carrying a gun with 2% chance of malfunction versus carrying a better gun.
If the only gun you have has a high malfunction rate, start saving to get a better gun now.
As I have pointed out many times, most disasters happen because people plan to have disasters. If you wind up in a life-or-death situation with an unreliable gun, it's because you planned to carry that gun.
I'd hardly call using something with a 98% success rate "planning to have disasters." People are blowing this way out of proportion for some reason. Your heart doesn't automatically explode because your carry gun has a hiccup if/when you need it. The gun's mechanical reliability, even with 2 failures in 100 shots, is less likely to get you killed than any number of other factors involved in a self defense situation. Worst case scenario, you've got 1 good shot with the gun before it becomes an overpriced club.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I repeat -- we're about to go up for a jump. Pick your parachute. Do you want the one with the 2% failure rate, or the one with the 0.0001% failure rate?
Read the OP's post and ask yourself if that analogy is relevant to the discussion. If we just want to compare two things of differing quality and not consider any other factors, obviously you'd pick the higher quality one every time. In the real world there are other considerations.
In any case, a parachute is a one-shot tool. If it fails, you fall to your (almost certain) death. If a pistol fails to cycle you still have other options, not the least of which is tap-rack-bang which in all likelihood will get it working again.
In any case, a parachute is a one-shot tool. If it fails, you fall to your (almost certain) death. If a pistol fails to cycle you still have other options, not the least of which is tap-rack-bang which in all likelihood will get it working again.
Vern Humphrey
Member
In the real world, people die because they chose unreliable weapons, parachutes, or other vitally important items of equipment.
I think it's more often that they die by simply being unprepared, or unaware of a threat. The number of people who die because they had a gun but it failed to cycle is probably very low, especially if we're talking about HD/CCW situations and not extended combat shooting scenarios.
Vern Humphrey
Member
A big part of being unprepared is failing to understand the reality of violent crime -- and thinking you can get by with an unreliable weapon is a strong symptiom of that failure.
So the "reality of violet crime" is that I'll certainly die if my gun fails to cycle after the first shot, in a normal self-defense situation?
You talk about reliability as if it's a black and white issue. The difference between 98% and 99.999999% is quite small and unlikely to even present itself in the small number of rounds you'd fire in a SD situation, even if you empty your mag. If the gun does fail, you still got one shot off and can either try to clear the malfunction or just use the gun as a blunt weapon. In no wise are you worse off than if you hadn't carried the gun. If all you have is a less-than-reliable weapon, you're still better equipped to defend yourself than most of the population, and only marginally less equipped than someone carrying the most reliable handgun ever created.
You talk about reliability as if it's a black and white issue. The difference between 98% and 99.999999% is quite small and unlikely to even present itself in the small number of rounds you'd fire in a SD situation, even if you empty your mag. If the gun does fail, you still got one shot off and can either try to clear the malfunction or just use the gun as a blunt weapon. In no wise are you worse off than if you hadn't carried the gun. If all you have is a less-than-reliable weapon, you're still better equipped to defend yourself than most of the population, and only marginally less equipped than someone carrying the most reliable handgun ever created.
Vern Humphrey
Member
If you have to put words in your opponent's mouth, you've lost the debate.
I didn't put words in your mouth. You made the analogy that carrying a less-reliable gun is like using a parachute that won't open. I pointed out the difference above that, unlike the failed parachute, the gun failing to cycle won't automatically take you to the grave. You then (indirectly) claimed I didn't understand the "reality of violent crime."
Vern Humphrey
Member
You're taking this far too personally.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked