Winchester_73
New member
No flaming necessary.
Well aren't you assuming quite a bit of things. Based on your posts, I assume you never heard of a Radom pistol before this thread. Do you not realize that the gun was originally a military sidearm designed around and for the 9mm? So you think it may not last as long....becase its....old? Polish? Whats your reasoning? Many older guns are better made than many today. My grandfather liberated a Radom and shot the snot out of it, because back then, it was nothing special, back in the 50s and 60s. The odds of someone shooting a radom, with responsibility of course, to the point where parts need replaced is VERY unlikely. I could see grips breaking, but as for the hardware IE the essential pieces, it should take 1000s if not 10s of thousands of rounds before there would be anything that needed replaced.
People seem to think that an older gun is more fragile or that shooting devalues it, but when you think about it, many guns, including military issue guns, were meant to be shot. In cases such as my luger, which has a SN in 15 places including the firing pin, perhaps then the pieces cannot be replaced, but in general? These guns can handle a lot of use and period replaced pieces which are not serialized is not a big deal. Any gun accepted for use by a military is commonly endurance tested, because it is expected to be used.
A hasty generalization. A milsurp P38, hi power, radom, etc is a much better gun than a bryco, raven, rohm, commanche, etc. It depends on which vintage gun and which modern gun you're talking about. Questioning the durability of a military accepted arm made in the last 50 or even a 100 years is an exercise in futility. Guns don't age the way we do.
Well aren't you assuming quite a bit of things. Based on your posts, I assume you never heard of a Radom pistol before this thread. Do you not realize that the gun was originally a military sidearm designed around and for the 9mm? So you think it may not last as long....becase its....old? Polish? Whats your reasoning? Many older guns are better made than many today. My grandfather liberated a Radom and shot the snot out of it, because back then, it was nothing special, back in the 50s and 60s. The odds of someone shooting a radom, with responsibility of course, to the point where parts need replaced is VERY unlikely. I could see grips breaking, but as for the hardware IE the essential pieces, it should take 1000s if not 10s of thousands of rounds before there would be anything that needed replaced.
People seem to think that an older gun is more fragile or that shooting devalues it, but when you think about it, many guns, including military issue guns, were meant to be shot. In cases such as my luger, which has a SN in 15 places including the firing pin, perhaps then the pieces cannot be replaced, but in general? These guns can handle a lot of use and period replaced pieces which are not serialized is not a big deal. Any gun accepted for use by a military is commonly endurance tested, because it is expected to be used.
A hasty generalization. A milsurp P38, hi power, radom, etc is a much better gun than a bryco, raven, rohm, commanche, etc. It depends on which vintage gun and which modern gun you're talking about. Questioning the durability of a military accepted arm made in the last 50 or even a 100 years is an exercise in futility. Guns don't age the way we do.
