sirgilligan
New member
For hand guns and long guns both, I have a question about owners and what is satisfactory. One example I will use is satisfactory accuracy.
I am trying to gather thoughts so that I can formulate a better argument.
I propose that any gun owner would prefer better accuracy from any firearm over less accuracy.
With the understanding that there are obvious contributors to accuracy that a hobbyist can understand, such as barrel length can directly contribute to enhanced accuracy.
May I use the term mechanical accuracy to describe the firearm's accuracy with the human element removed.
I propose that any gun owner would prefer the best mechanical accuracy for any firearm they own.
It may be that mechanical accuracy is dominated by the chamber and barrel components, and if a semi-auto pistol design, how the barrel locks and fits with the slide.
Sight radius is a component that is often mentioned which helps the shooter achieve accuracy. Trigger pull being another factor for the shooter. These and other components are dependent on the shooter, the shooters strength, eye sight, and other physical characteristics of the shooter.
An essential part of this equation is the bullet. There are many factors such as shape, length, and weight.
I propose that many of the arguments over firearms are really arguments about what the person feels is reasonable. Therefore all such arguments are subjective and may be that no one is ever right or wrong.
For example, the stagecoach gun. The requirements are for a short firearm for use in a small space. It is not considered reasonable to demand a short double barrel shotgun to shoot targets at 100 yards and compete with a Sharps rifle.
May I call that reasonable performance for a practical application.
The snub nose revolver only needs to hit a plate sized target at extreme close range.
With the long gun accuracy seems to be the subject of more heated debate than with hand guns.
It seems to me that one of the patterns of heated discussion is once again subjective and is centered around what the user expects and that the user sees themselves as reasonable. Any statement against the users position is often taken as an attack on their "reasonableness". However the arguments go back and forth on the mechanical abilities of the firearm.
In war, I propose that an accurate rifle always has an advantage over an inaccurate rifle. Also, I propose that a reliable rifle has an advantage over an unreliable rifle.
Arguments about which is better is completely situational.
If one is defending an accurate rifle that is less reliable over a less accurate rifle that is more reliable then the argument is "First shot I kill you because you missed me."
If one is defending a less accurate rifle that is reliable over a more accurate rifle that is less reliable then it may go "After stalking each other through adverse and nasty conditions we meet and you pull your trigger and nothing happens and I pull mine and you're dead."
Either scenario could happen theoretically.
Civilian users of weapons often "play" act military situations. Such activities may cause the participant to think they know what war is. Combat soldiers may at times become frustrated with those that play act and want to dismiss anything said with the argument that your statements are invalid because you have never been under live fire and you have never shot anyone.
For a civilian the cost of the firearm is a private matter. The civilian may afford the best components or firearm and have an extremely accurate and reliable weapon, or the civilian may only justify spending enough for an imported military weapon or copy that was mass produced. For them, "good enough" is very different. It comes down to their application, much like the stagecoach application.
I know I cannot end the debates over accuracy and what is good enough. Also, in the same vein, reliability and what is good enough. With literally thousands of different experiences of military personnel and thousands of different imagined scenarios the arguments will continue and threads will have to be closed and people will be upset.
If someone says it is good enough for them, then maybe it is. If another introduces things they think have not be considered and that someone still says it is good enough for them then it must be good enough. You might not understand why they don't see things the same way as you but that is out of your control.
I prefer excellent mechanical accuracy. I realize that target sights on my handgun may snag if I carry it in a holster, so a handgun in a holster gets sights suitable for the task.
Finally there is price. Some feel others are wasting money on, for example, expensive match barrels. While those that afford and justify more expense view the others as if they do not value their life.
Each view is biased by the person's definition of reasonable cost and value.
If money was removed from the equation then which firearm would you own?
If weapons, ammunition, accessories, and custom work were all free what you prefer to have for the various roles in which you use a firearm?
Since money is part of the equation and such everyone has different amounts of it and different means of acquiring money and at different rates of acquisition arguments centered around value often end in heated discourse as well.
This post has not drawn to a conclusion for me and I apologize for that.
Good enough is subjective, it is a person's opinion. Good enough can change in a moment. Anyone can contrive a situation where "your" good enough isn't good enough and then argue that endlessly.
I am trying to gather thoughts so that I can formulate a better argument.
I propose that any gun owner would prefer better accuracy from any firearm over less accuracy.
With the understanding that there are obvious contributors to accuracy that a hobbyist can understand, such as barrel length can directly contribute to enhanced accuracy.
May I use the term mechanical accuracy to describe the firearm's accuracy with the human element removed.
I propose that any gun owner would prefer the best mechanical accuracy for any firearm they own.
It may be that mechanical accuracy is dominated by the chamber and barrel components, and if a semi-auto pistol design, how the barrel locks and fits with the slide.
Sight radius is a component that is often mentioned which helps the shooter achieve accuracy. Trigger pull being another factor for the shooter. These and other components are dependent on the shooter, the shooters strength, eye sight, and other physical characteristics of the shooter.
An essential part of this equation is the bullet. There are many factors such as shape, length, and weight.
I propose that many of the arguments over firearms are really arguments about what the person feels is reasonable. Therefore all such arguments are subjective and may be that no one is ever right or wrong.
For example, the stagecoach gun. The requirements are for a short firearm for use in a small space. It is not considered reasonable to demand a short double barrel shotgun to shoot targets at 100 yards and compete with a Sharps rifle.
May I call that reasonable performance for a practical application.
The snub nose revolver only needs to hit a plate sized target at extreme close range.
With the long gun accuracy seems to be the subject of more heated debate than with hand guns.
It seems to me that one of the patterns of heated discussion is once again subjective and is centered around what the user expects and that the user sees themselves as reasonable. Any statement against the users position is often taken as an attack on their "reasonableness". However the arguments go back and forth on the mechanical abilities of the firearm.
In war, I propose that an accurate rifle always has an advantage over an inaccurate rifle. Also, I propose that a reliable rifle has an advantage over an unreliable rifle.
Arguments about which is better is completely situational.
If one is defending an accurate rifle that is less reliable over a less accurate rifle that is more reliable then the argument is "First shot I kill you because you missed me."
If one is defending a less accurate rifle that is reliable over a more accurate rifle that is less reliable then it may go "After stalking each other through adverse and nasty conditions we meet and you pull your trigger and nothing happens and I pull mine and you're dead."
Either scenario could happen theoretically.
Civilian users of weapons often "play" act military situations. Such activities may cause the participant to think they know what war is. Combat soldiers may at times become frustrated with those that play act and want to dismiss anything said with the argument that your statements are invalid because you have never been under live fire and you have never shot anyone.
For a civilian the cost of the firearm is a private matter. The civilian may afford the best components or firearm and have an extremely accurate and reliable weapon, or the civilian may only justify spending enough for an imported military weapon or copy that was mass produced. For them, "good enough" is very different. It comes down to their application, much like the stagecoach application.
I know I cannot end the debates over accuracy and what is good enough. Also, in the same vein, reliability and what is good enough. With literally thousands of different experiences of military personnel and thousands of different imagined scenarios the arguments will continue and threads will have to be closed and people will be upset.
If someone says it is good enough for them, then maybe it is. If another introduces things they think have not be considered and that someone still says it is good enough for them then it must be good enough. You might not understand why they don't see things the same way as you but that is out of your control.
I prefer excellent mechanical accuracy. I realize that target sights on my handgun may snag if I carry it in a holster, so a handgun in a holster gets sights suitable for the task.
Finally there is price. Some feel others are wasting money on, for example, expensive match barrels. While those that afford and justify more expense view the others as if they do not value their life.
Each view is biased by the person's definition of reasonable cost and value.
If money was removed from the equation then which firearm would you own?
If weapons, ammunition, accessories, and custom work were all free what you prefer to have for the various roles in which you use a firearm?
Since money is part of the equation and such everyone has different amounts of it and different means of acquiring money and at different rates of acquisition arguments centered around value often end in heated discourse as well.
This post has not drawn to a conclusion for me and I apologize for that.
Good enough is subjective, it is a person's opinion. Good enough can change in a moment. Anyone can contrive a situation where "your" good enough isn't good enough and then argue that endlessly.
