Originally posted by Sans Souci
The first sentence in your last post proved my point. We didn't shoot crap or inferior ammo. We shot top-quality stuff. And it worked every time of which I'm aware. In fact, it worked so well that it fired 10k times w/o a single issue of any type in a 5904. The weapon was never cleaned. And this is a documented FACT.
I never suggested that, with top-quality ammunition, a good semi-auto was not reliable. However, if you read the rest of my post, you'll see that, for those of use who don't have the luxury of department-issued ammunition, top-quality ammo may not always be available. Would you not agree that, if inferior ammo is all that is available, a gun that will run with it is preferable to a gun that won't? Also, let's please see the documentation of your 10k 5904. Since you claim that this is "a documented FACT" you surely won't have any trouble providing us with said documentation beyond your repeated insistence that it happened.
Originally posted by Sans Souci
Make no mistake, we've had vastly different shooting experiences. You shoot for fun. I used to shoot for defensive tactics. I still have to shoot to retain my retirement credentials.
You have no idea how I shoot or why I shoot. While you have no problem bringing up your experience, credentials, and motivation for shooting, I have not mentioned mine so your assessment that I "shoot for fun" is purely an assumption on your part. Such a statement also implies, whether you intend it to or not, that I do not take shooting to defend my life and the lives of my family as seriously as you do. Such an implication is quite wrong as I've come to my conclusions about what guns best suit my defensive needs through years of research and firsthand experience and observation, none of which has been taken lightly. I am not so arrogant as to assume that you or anyone else hasn't taken the topic as seriously as I have and I would appreciate that same courtesy in return.
Originally posted by Sans Souci
I can't remember the last time I've seen a revolver on a professional firing line. Must be a couple decades. Those professions just lack the vast firearms knowledge that you possess. So if you want to retain your credibility, I'd suggest you acknowledge that you lack knowledge to determine the factual basis of that which I have posted. And I'll post if for you even though you, lacking professional firearms knowledge, attempt to weigh in a topic of which you know little: 100% of the the time, I'd take a good-quality semiauto over a revolver were my life to hang in the balance.
I'm sorry to have to be so blunt about this, but between the two of us I don't believe that it is I who is suffering in the credibility department. Afterall, it is not I who has repeatedly made sweeping blanket statements and then been forced to modify and qualify those statements when they are demonstrated to be incorrect. If you wish to retain your credibility, I'd suggest that you take a less condescending tone with those of us who disagree with you, consider the facts more carefully before making sweeping generalizations, and omit frequent hyperbole about life hanging in the balance.
Originally posted by Sans Souci
You've postured yourself into the very invalid belief that revolvers are more reliable than semiautos. I haven't attacked your beliefs. But I will now. You have very limited factual basis to determine which is superior. You're running on pure emotional attachment to a long ago belief that might've been true. In fact, you have to deny FACTS in order to defend the indefensible.
I'm beginning to suspect that one of us is certainly wedded to his beliefs, but I assure you it is not I. As far as factual basis to our arguments, I have explained with some detail the workings of both a revolver and semi-auto and, with the help of some of your own statements, I have demonstrated situations in which a revolver is clearly more likely to function properly. You, on the other hand, have resorted to vague assumptions about parts counts (which have been demonstrated to prove nothing), repeating the claim that revolvers will almost always fail catastrophically (which you have no evidence to back up), and purely anecdotal evidence of you own observations. As far as attempting to defend the indefensible, it is not I who make sweeping, and demonstratively incorrect, blanket statements.
Originally posted by Sans Souci
Why would you suppose that every single law enforcement agency in the world of which I'm aware issues good-quality semiautos? Do those cops lack your rarefied intelligence? Or is it more true that you've postured yourself so deeply into the revolver corner that you refuse to accept the FACT that semiautos are superior in every category for professional use?
There are a myriad of reasons why a law enforcement agency might choose a particular firearm. For one thing, polymer-framed semi-autos are substantially less expensive that revolvers of comparable quality. While a few hundred dollars difference in price may not be a big deal to you or me, that adds up rather quickly when a department is purchasing hundreds, if not thousands, of handguns. Modern semi-autos also require less skill, training, and specialized tools for the department armorer as most parts are drop-in and require little more that a hammer, punch, and screwdriver set to install. A large department must also settle on a handgun with which they can easily, quickly, and inexpensively train a wide variety of officers with, so a department-issued handgun must be a "one size fits all" solution. None of these are issues that I, as a private individual, have to contend with.
The fact of the matter is that I am not a cop, never have been, and don't plan to be. Because I do not seek out evildoers to confront with my handgun, I do not have the same requirements as someone who does. As such, the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy that you posit rings rather hollow with me. Assuming that a semi-auto is the absolute best type of handgun because that's what the cops carry makes no more sense that assuming that a Ford Crown Victoria is the absolute best type of car because that's what the cops drive.
Originally posted by Sans Souci
Let me repeat this so as you'll understand it: I have nothing against revolvers. However, in a tactical situation where my life would hang in the balance, I'd take a good-quality semiauto every single time. You might not grasp this concept because you lack actual knowledge. My advice is that you enroll in an S&W tactical skills course: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...2_757812_image That way, you'll have a basis of knowledge before you commence to punchin' keyboard keys.
I think I understand you quite adequately already. Allow me to make myself clearly understood: you do not know me nor do you know what I require of a defensive handgun. It would seem that what works best for me is quite different than what is optimal for you. I would suggest that you bear this in mind before you "commence to punchin' keyboard keys" in such a condescending manner.
Originally posted by Sans Souci
BTW, let me cut you off at the pass right now because I'd have to deal with similar myopic posters: never cite an exception if effort to disprove a rule. That is logical fallacy. Always go with the rule. So I don't give a sh@t that you have a cousin who's married to a guy whose uncle knows a fella down in Louisiana who's sister is married to a guy who works as a constable and he carries a Peacemaker.
Would not these supposed semi-autos that never malfunction, of which you have no proof beyond your repeated assertion that you observed them, not fit neatly into this category?
