Your opinion on a post from another gun forum

A

Andy Blozinski

New member
Here is a copy and pasted statement I read on another forum:

"6 shots when you can have several times as many with similar reliability
is pitiful, yes.

And I've seen revolvers with as few as 3 to as many as 24 rounds to the
cylinder, but I think 9 is the most you are likely to encounter."

I've been told I mis-interpreted it. What specific take-aways would you interpret from the above statement?
 
Revolvers with 24 rounds in the cylinder ? You might find them in Firearms Curiosa by Lewis Winant, and I recall seeing articles in the past advocating multiple bullet loads to improve the chances of a hit.
 
He said revolvers with 3 to 24 rounds. Are you thinking maybe he made a mistake and meant it to be an auto because of the number of rounds mentioned?
 
Quien sabe? One of those Internet comments where the tongue got wrapped around the eyetooth and he couldn't see what he was saying. "What you thought you heard is not what I thought I'd said."
 
I've not heard of a 24-shot revolver, but quite a few 9-shot designs exist, notably older .22LR H&R's.
Click to expand...

I've still got my old High Standard Sentinel, 9-shot .22LR. IIRC, there was once a 24-shot revolver, also .22 RF, that had a two-ring staggered cylinder and double barrels, one atop the other. The cylinder would revolve 1/24th turn bringing a "high" and "low" chamber to the corresponding barrel alternately. The firing pin was a blade that struck the bottom of the top chamber and the top of the bottom chamber, depending on which was in line with a barrel. :eek::cool:
 
I sometimes flinch when I read some posts made on gun forums for fear that I may encounter the OP in the woods someday with a loaded gun........
 
He does say "revolvers" and "...rounds to the cylinder" so, although I was ignorant of any revolvers holding more than 10 rounds (of .22), there are/were apparently such revolvers made.

Without seeming to be adversarial at all, is it possible to post a request for clarification? Like, "Do you mean revolvers, or handguns including semi-auto pistols?"

Without context it is hard to imagine why he wrote that or what it means.
 
What specific take-aways would you interpret from the above statement?
Click to expand...

What I take away from the statement is that the poster is an under informed over opinionated idiot, and not worth my time reading...

but, that's just what I get....
:D
 
I was talking about 6 shot revolvers. That was his reply. When I told him 9 shot revolvers were not the most common, this was his reply:

"Please, please, please make an attempt to read what I actually wrote:"
 
My take-away?

The guy's a ****-poor shot, and is equating capacity of a Wonder9 type handgun with effectiveness.

In my experience the loudmouth Wonder9 shooters at the range who are denigrating the people with revolvers NEED that extra capacity because, as often as not, they're the ones who are shooting everything BUT the target.

I had some tool talking smack to me years ago at the range. I had one of my revolvers out (and a couple of semiautos in the bag).

Somehow he turned it into a hypothetical gun battle between us and pointed out that "While you're reloading, I'll still shooting at you."

I looked at my target (all 18 of my shots were nicely on target. Not all kills, but solid hits) then the loose shotgun pattern on his target, and politely pointed out that I wouldn't need to reload.

He got all huffy for some reason, but he left me alone after that, so it was win win.
 
For the context:

> So every single revolver ever made is pitiful? I forgot, there are a
> few 8 shot revolvers. I'm surprised that the most used type of pistol
> is pitiful.

6 shots when you can have several times as many with similar reliability
is pitiful, yes.

And I've seen revolvers with as few as 3 to as many as 24 rounds to the
cylinder, but I think 9 is the most you are likely to encounter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top