# Revolvers or automatics?



## marlowegarp (Aug 13, 2007)

I recently visited the shooting range in Portland and discovered that I love revolvers. That said, the automatic is also great. Does anyone here have a preference?

Personally, I would have to go with the revolver, owing to the beautiful simplicity of the design.


----------



## Jes (Aug 13, 2007)

marlowegarp said:


> I recently visited the shooting range in Portland and discovered that I love revolvers. That said, the automatic is also great. Does anyone here have a preference?
> 
> Personally, I would have to go with the revolver, owing to the beautiful simplicity of the design.



revolver. definitely. old school. 

also? that's when i reach for my automatic just sounds stupid.

the end.


----------



## Timberwolf (Aug 13, 2007)

Well, I revolve automatically...


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Aug 13, 2007)

A revolver is a lot better for playing Russian roulette.


----------



## Orso (Aug 13, 2007)

Revolver? Automatic? Naah, those new, fashionable things won't do any good.

Let's be traditional, a good, trusty sword is much, much better.


----------



## Santaclear (Aug 13, 2007)

Shouldn't this be on the Clothing/Fashion Board?


----------



## Littleghost (Aug 13, 2007)

Santaclear said:


> Shouldn't this be on the Clothing/Fashion Board?


Only if you've got a replica.  Yeah, I do like the classic look of a revolver, but I imagine if I ever had to use one I'd need way more than 6 shots. Maybe I'm just waiting for the day they come out with an automatic revolver; or do they call those gatling guns??? :huh:


----------



## ZainTheInsane (Aug 13, 2007)

I like revolvers, because nearly all of them are more accurate than automatics (technically semi-automatics, because automatics are ILLEGAL), and they tend to be easier to clean and maintain.

I prefer automatics because I can vary the clip size, I can have one in the chamber as well as a full clip, enabling more ammunitions usage, and a greater likelihood that I won't run out of bullets before I want to.

Over all however, if I had to have the choice between an automatic, or a revolver in a gun fight...I'd honestly pick the revolver...it is pretty easy to inspect, and is pretty hard to make unshootable without notice...where as an automatic is more likely to have problems from not being cleaned or handled properly.

Oh yeah, and revolvers don't tend to go off accidentally.


----------



## ZainTheInsane (Aug 13, 2007)

Orso said:


> Revolver? Automatic? Naah, those new, fashionable things won't do any good.
> 
> Let's be traditional, a good, trusty sword is much, much better.



Yes, but it would be like anyone bringing a knife or melee weapon to a gun fight. As Indiana Jones proved...one shot is a lot simpler than a flailing swordsman. Oh, and unless you're the Flash, that sword isn't going to do jack against a gun.


----------



## Mini (Aug 13, 2007)

Neither platform is inherently superior to the other. I'd take whatever I could best use for my intended purpose.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 13, 2007)

Yeah, first of all what you were shooting was a semi automatic, not a full auto.

Personally, I prefer the semi automatic. I actually enjoy the longer ritual of loading the magazine, racking the slide, lining up my sights, and firing.

While I tend to not really enjoy shooting most revolvers, there are some little wheel guns that have a certain charm to them.

For self defense I'd choose a Sig P232 or one of the new P250's.


----------



## Jes (Aug 13, 2007)

Mini said:


> Neither platform is inherently superior to the other. I'd take whatever I could best use for my intended purpose.



JUST INSTALL LINUX, already!


----------



## Allie Cat (Aug 14, 2007)

Revolver ftw. Like the one in Half-Life 2. Well, technically that's a Magnum, but whatever 

And then I can call myself Revolver Ocelot... 

Although the only handgun I've ever shot was a semiautomatic. So I can't rightly say which I prefer to shoot.

=Divals


----------



## ScreamingChicken (Aug 14, 2007)

* I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? 
*

Enough said.:bow:


----------



## tnekkralc1956 (Aug 14, 2007)

... on what or who I'm shooting. Now if he (or they) are armed... screw the guns, I want air support.

Semis for quick assault and practice. Pistols for accuracy and dependability.

I've got a .44 S&W, too. Accurate as many .22 target pistols with nearly the same velocity depending on the load. Its my favorite gun, punk.


----------



## newlylarge (Aug 14, 2007)

I have fired revolvers, but I own a semi-automatic and I prefer it. One problem with many revolvers is the flash that can occur. Then, of course, is the far more limited ammunition capacity especially now that the 10-round limit on magazines has expired.

Many people, such as my Dad, grew up using revolvers and simply prefer the familiar. Then there is the notion that they are more reliable, which I suppose is true, but only to a degree that is unlikely to be an issue. By this I mean, a sufficiently reliable semi-auto should be more than reliable enough if properly maintained even if, in theory, a revolver would be even MORE reliable.

For example, I own a Berretta FS92 (or is it 92FS?) 9mm and I have never once had it jam or misfire. I know that, when the Army tested the military variant before adopting them as their new sidearm in the early 1980s, the testing included firing over a thousand rounds continuously (without cleaning between any reloads) without a failure. I am sure that many other brands and models could meet the same criteria.

So I feel pretty confident that I can count on it's reliability if I ever find myself in a life-or-death situation. Plus, I would have 15-rounds instead of 6 as well as the ability to rapidly reload with a fresh magazine. Does that matter on the firing-range? Perhaps not and I certainly hope that I never have need to use my pistol anywhere other than on a firing-range. But if I ever do have to fire at a target that shoots back, then I think the advantages of a semi-automatic could make all the difference.


----------



## CleverBomb (Aug 14, 2007)

Jes said:


> revolver. definitely. old school.
> 
> also? that's when i reach for my automatic just sounds stupid.
> 
> the end.


Mission of Burma!
Or, more likely, the Moby cover.

Either way, excellent call.

-Rusty


----------



## stan_der_man (Aug 14, 2007)

There's nothin' like the flame shooting out of a snub nose, stainless steel .357 magnum (I never could afford a .44 mag...)

But then again, pumpin' shells through a semiauto (maximum capacity clip, of course...) is also good for some shits and grins...




Dunno?... Good question. Preference I suppose.

fa_man_stan


----------



## Keb (Aug 14, 2007)

I'm an old-fashioned girl. I'll take the revolver. And also the sword, please


----------



## Allie Cat (Aug 14, 2007)

"I like swords!"
"Welcome to Corneria!"
"I like swords!"
"Welcome to Corneria!"
"I like swords!"
"Welcome to Corneria!"
ad nauseum

=Divals


----------



## marlowegarp (Aug 14, 2007)

It's true that a clean gun is a happy gun. Or a gun that is less likely to misfire. Upon reading this thread, I realize my preference for the revolver is largely one of style, although were I to enter a gunfight, I doubt I would be jumping around all Chow Yun-Fat style, and thus six shots would be enough. 

(At this point, my Revolver Ocelot figure falls off the shelf as a bitter omen)


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Aug 14, 2007)

From the limited shooting i've done (being in the UK and all!), i prefer semi-auto's. The best fun i had was probably with an AR15 in the New Mexico desert - now that was fun LOL

I'll hopefully be doing some shooting in Cali week after next


----------



## perelandra357 (Aug 14, 2007)

This post goes a bit beyond that basic question. In any discussion of firearms there is an, often unstated, consideration of their use in self defense. 

I own shotguns, rifles, semi-auto pistols, and revolvers. My comments reflect that I live in a suburban area. 

For home defense I use a revolver, either in .357 or .38 Spl loaded with relatively mile defense loads. Revolvers are utterly reliable and need no safety. Semi-autos require constant repetition of drill to be used. 

There is no way that I would use a rifle or shotgun for home defense. The rifle will present issues of over penetration (neighbor's house), and the shotgun is a scattergun. Where is the rest of your family? 

Being able to hit that at which you are aiming and not experience over penetration is extremely important in built up areas. Practice with that which you will use, including the exact ammunition type and caliber. Even the load in the round can affect the point of aim. There is an on-going debate about hand-loads and such in legal cases. I would stick with factory ammunition. 

Practice is essential, as is training for all but the youngest members of the family. Everyone should be comfortable with the presence of a firearm. Consider renting weapons at a gun shop that has a firing range. Find out with what you are comfortable. 

Consider your mindset. Are you really prepared to use it on another human being? If not, keep the weapon and the ammunition stored separately and use them for fun.

Finally, learn the local and state laws on home defense. You may be 
surprised.


----------



## Mini (Aug 14, 2007)

perelandra357 said:


> This post goes a bit beyond that basic question. In any discussion of firearms there is an, often unstated, consideration of their use in self defense.
> 
> I own shotguns, rifles, semi-auto pistols, and revolvers. My comments reflect that I live in a suburban area.
> 
> ...



Very well said, especially the part about mindset. If you're carrying a gun as a talisman to "ward off evil" you're doing it wrong.

Be prepared to use what you train with, or don't. Thankfully we're able to make that choice.


----------



## GWARrior (Aug 14, 2007)

I love how this thread make me think of dildos and vibrators.

and i prefer a vibrator. :happy:


----------



## Jes (Aug 14, 2007)

CleverBomb said:


> !
> the Moby cover.
> 
> 
> ...



please. I'm old school.

and no one laughs at: install linux?

that's how we answer ANY 'either/or' question where I'm from! dang.


----------



## Wagimawr (Aug 14, 2007)

Jes said:


> and no one laughs at: install linux?
> 
> that's how we answer ANY 'either/or' question where I'm from! dang.


There's nothing funny about Linux.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 15, 2007)

Wagimawr said:


> There's nothing funny about Linux.



Not even the cute little penguin?


----------



## Mini (Aug 15, 2007)

Linux... isn't that a cat?


----------



## Keb (Aug 15, 2007)

perelandra357 said:


> Practice is essential, as is training for all but the youngest members of the family. Everyone should be comfortable with the presence of a firearm.



This was all beautifully stated, but I'd like to add that even the youngest members of the family can and should be taught basic safety rules. Though a household with little kids should ensure guns are locked away just like medicines, in my family we were taught that even toy guns (with the exception of water guns) were never, ever to be pointed at anything we weren't willing to shoot. The kids were good at reminding one another (and I, the oldest, was the most prone to forgetting when we played). It's a concept even a toddler can, on some level, learn--though like anything else they'll need reminders.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

ZainTheInsane said:


> I like revolvers, because nearly all of them are more accurate than automatics (technically semi-automatics, because automatics are ILLEGAL), and they tend to be easier to clean and maintain.
> 
> I prefer automatics because I can vary the clip size, I can have one in the chamber as well as a full clip, enabling more ammunitions usage, and a greater likelihood that I won't run out of bullets before I want to.
> 
> ...




Nope. You just have to pay the $200 NFA tax and apply with the ATF, then have your local police chief, sheriff, or a judge sign off on it. It may be illegal locally, but the Fed doesn't care.

RANT: It's a magazine, not a clip!






Semi-automatic pistols don't go "bang" without pulling the trigger unless it's poorly designed (Jennings, Davis, etc.).

I carry a Walther P99 almost daily. I own revolvers but they're bulky and my P99 has never jammed so it's as reliable as anything. It's also flatter than a revolver so it doesn't "print" on the outside of my clothes as a revolver does.





My "pocket pistol" is a .32 caliber (7.65mm) Walther PPK.





Of course, for home defense there's nothing like a good shotgun or semi-automatic rifle (NOT an assault rifle in spite of the 30 round magazine and evil black finish.) 





I'm just waiting for one of THESE to hit the market! LOL!


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

perelandra357 said:


> There is no way that I would use a rifle or shotgun for home defense. The rifle will present issues of over penetration (neighbor's house), and the shotgun is a scattergun. Where is the rest of your family?




In tests, the .223 round is less penetrative in building materials than pistol bullets. It's lighter so when it hits stuff it loses energy faster, plus it'll upset faster, flying sideways and spreading it's energy over a larger area causing each impact afterward to slow it down more.

Pistol ammo hollow points will fill up with bits of wood and drywall to make it, in essence, a FMJ round that'll keep penetrating into next week.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/ 

Check this guy's site out. It's very informative.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

marlowegarp said:


> I doubt I would be jumping around all Chow Yun-Fat style, and thus six shots would be enough.



The question isn't "is six rounds enough", but is "are TWO rounds enough".

You may face multiple attackers. You may miss. Handguns are notoriously ineffective at taking the fight out of bad guys. There are countless incidents of cops and good guys shooting determined bad guys only to realize their bullets had little immediate effect. Sure, the guy may die later, but will he fall over NOW? Ceasing hostilities now is more important than killing him. True, death may result from a vigorous defense, but you aren't trying to kill, you're trying to prevent your death or greivous injury.

The incident in Miami in 1986 where Bill Mattix and Michael Platt shot it out with several FBI agens, killing some and wounding several others AFTER being shot themselves is why that agency went away from revolvers. One agent was executed while reloading his revolver behind cover.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

The first article is dry, technical, and graphic. If you still want your revolver after reading it then I wish you the best and hope your attacker is not as determined as some. 

Having been shot at myself you cannot carry enough ammo or have a large enough gun when the bullets are flying. (You can't have enough clean underwear, either!) Another time, while squirrel hunting with a revolver and wadcutter loads I was charged by a Shar-Pei with no collar or tags seemingly bent on sinking it's teeth into me. My police-duty sized revolver (Colt King Cobra) seemed downright puny as the adrenaline hit me. My first thought was "Oh crap! I only have six shots!".

Of course, S&W makes an 8 shot .357 revolver now, too. Naturally, being a traditionalist I'd go for their model 24 chambered in .44 Special...:wubu:


----------



## newlylarge (Aug 15, 2007)

There have been some very good comments made here including those related to safety (including keeping your guns locked-up), legal issues, and "mind-set." Also, as Canonista notes, it is magazine, not clip. I did not know that until I began doing some research before buying my pistol. Like many, my exposure to such terminology was from movies, tv, etc. where the use of the term "clip" is dominant. Once I learned that the proper term is magazine, I have always been careful to use it.

To follow-up on my first posting, I suppose since my first pistol was a semi-automatic, I have always been very comfortable with it. If anything, for me, firing a revolver feels a bit odd. It is whatever you are used to, I suppose.

As I said, a good, well maintained semi-automatic should be totally reliable. Also, as noted, there should be no danger of it firing when it is not supposed to. This was another reason for my decision to buy the Berretta 92FS 9mm. It has multiple safety features such as physically disengaging the firing pin, so even if jarred, it will not fire. I also like its de-cocking mechanism which many pistols lack.

Finally, as also noted by others, one's choice of weapon and ammunition is important for safety in the self-defense application. I chose a 9mm rather than a .45 because I felt it was less likely for a missed shot to punch through a wall an hit an "unintended target." And, of course, all my firearms (as well as ammunition) are kept locked in safes with combination locks so that there are no keys for anyone to stumble across. It always annoys me when some people are so anti-gun that they say that a gun in the home is a danger even if kept in a good safe. Guns are dangerous, but they are not plutonium. Proper measures can easily be taken to insure that a gun in the home can never fall into the wrong hands.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

newlylarge said:


> As I said, a good, well maintained semi-automatic should be totally reliable. Also, as noted, there should be no danger of it firing when it is not supposed to. This was another reason for my decision to buy the Berretta 92FS 9mm.



Have you had any luck concealing the big Beretta? I had one a long time ago before Michigan had CCW. I don't think I'd ever buy one for carrying now though. It's like shoving a hockey stick down your pants. It's huge compared to, say, a Glock 19 or Walther P99.

I've had REALLY good luck with Desantis holsters for my CCW guns. Galco is nice, but their leather seems to be too thick, diminishing concealability. Another favorite of mine is the little-known in the U.S. Vega holsters. They're Italian, nice looking, and durable as all getout.

Still, I always seem to find my way back to Desantis....:smitten:


----------



## newlylarge (Aug 15, 2007)

It is a moot point, I'm afraid. Conceal and carry is VERY limited in my "jurisdiction." If I could carry a pistol, I agree that the Berretta would not be very concealable. Or I could move to Kansas where, it is my understanding, I could simply wear the thing on my hip. I doubt if anyone would bother me then.


----------



## MrChipz (Aug 15, 2007)

Webly & Scott once made a revolver with a cylinder that moved back under recoil to cock the hammer. It wasted a lot of energy in sideblast, carried only the usual six rounds, and wasn't any more reliable than autoloading designs from Browning and Mauser, so it was dropped.


----------



## MrChipz (Aug 15, 2007)

Instead of the piston engine, how about a tiny turbine driven by gas tapped from the rocket motor? I think the fins need to be bigger, to put enough area behind the center of gravity to balance the area of the bar. Maybe if you skeletonized the bar...
Of course, a Metalstorm gun will cut anything that a chainsaw can, but you wouldn't want to fire _that_ from your shoulder.


----------



## prickly (Aug 15, 2007)

............guns are for soldiers and policemen (and that's questionable). sorry to state the obvious, but they are weapons. that means they have no use (intended or otherwise) other than for destruction, maiming or killing. therefore, why would any sane normal person who is not in the military (or police force in some places) want or need one?

i just find it so, so sad that all you people can talk like guns are just normal things to have. i know this has been debated before (so shoot me, ha), but it just never ceases to amaze me that many of the same people who cry over rising crime rates, murders, war, terrorism, and all sorts of violent shit are quite happy to embrace profileration of weapons!


----------



## Keb (Aug 15, 2007)

Prickly, that's probably something to bring up in Hyde Park, not here.

I'd just like to say that knives are also weapons...I'll bet your house has quite a stockpile of them just lying around in the kitchen, too! Cars can be pretty deadly weapons, too, come to that. 

There's a lot of answers to your concern, but yeah, they probably should be on Hyde Park, not here.


----------



## Ample Pie (Aug 15, 2007)

CleverBomb said:


> Mission of Burma!
> Or, more likely, the Moby cover.
> 
> Either way, excellent call.
> ...




Yeah, best part of the thread. Either version.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

prickly said:


> ............Guns are for soldiers and policemen (and that's questionable). Sorry to state the obvious, but they are weapons. That means they have no use (intended or otherwise) other than for destruction, maiming or killing. Therefore, why would any sane normal person who is not in the military (or police force in some places) want or need one?
> 
> I just find it so, so sad that all you people can talk like guns are just normal things to have. I know this has been debated before (so shoot me, ha), but it just never ceases to amaze me that many of the same people who cry over rising crime rates, murders, war, terrorism, and all sorts of violent shit are quite happy to embrace profileration of weapons!



I'll be 38 in a week or so and have been shooting since I was around 15. In that time and with the tens of thousands of shots I've fired I have not killed or injured a single person. Is your argument wrong or are my guns defective?

I am not the author of this, but it explains my feelings and those of many of my peers quite well.



> Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
> 
> In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
> 
> ...


----------



## prickly (Aug 15, 2007)

.........that's just silly, unless you want everyone armed......and then the biggest gun wins...........oh, back to the arguement about 130 vs. 200lbs........yep, circular and bang, bang you're dead.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 15, 2007)

I'm not a gun expert or anything, but I do know I want to watch Deathwish 3 when I get home tonight.


----------



## Wild Zero (Aug 15, 2007)

prickly said:


> .........that's just silly, unless you want everyone armed......and then the biggest gun wins...........oh, back to the arguement about 130 vs. 200lbs........yep, circular and bang, bang you're dead.



Absolutely not "bang bang you're dead" when both people have guns that's when we get a Mexican standoff.


And that's when the real fun starts!


----------



## Aurora1 (Aug 15, 2007)

I am so damn glad I came across this thread...so I know who's packin and who's not round these parts. A girl's gotta watch out now! :blink:


----------



## Mini (Aug 15, 2007)

prickly said:


> ............guns are for soldiers and policemen (and that's questionable). sorry to state the obvious, but they are weapons. that means they have no use (intended or otherwise) other than for destruction, maiming or killing. therefore, why would any sane normal person who is not in the military (or police force in some places) want or need one?
> 
> i just find it so, so sad that all you people can talk like guns are just normal things to have. i know this has been debated before (so shoot me, ha), but it just never ceases to amaze me that many of the same people who cry over rising crime rates, murders, war, terrorism, and all sorts of violent shit are quite happy to embrace profileration of weapons!



Don't like 'em, don't buy 'em. Free country.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

Aurora1 said:


> I am so damn glad I came across this thread...so I know who's packin and who's not round these parts. A girl's gotta watch out now! :blink:



Considering the background checks your average concealed pistol permit holder has to undergo you're a whole lot safer in our corner.

We'll leave room for you at the supper table. Come hungry, cuz` I'm cooking!


----------



## BLUEeyedBanshee (Aug 15, 2007)

Ok back on topic...even though when I shot the semi automatic (I think that's what it was. I can't remember which ones I shot though) and ended up with a hot shell in my bra...I still think it was more fun to shoot...

Seriously, one of these days I will end up buying one...maybe even two...they'd go good with my swords


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

BLUEeyedBanshee said:


> Ok back on topic...even though when I shot the semi automatic (I think that's what it was. I can't remember which ones I shot though) and ended up with a hot shell in my bra...I still think it was more fun to shoot...
> 
> Seriously, one of these days I will end up buying one...maybe even two...they'd go good with my swords



Another reason to not wear a bra! (In the interest of safety, of course....)


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

Let's only let soldiers have guns, because they're the only ones trained and mature enough to be able to handle one. I mean, if they can be trusted to not drive a multimillion dollar Abrams tank into a marsh....






On second thought, maybe cops are the only ones professional enough to handle guns, just like this DEA agent....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY


----------



## Lastminute.Tom (Aug 15, 2007)

guns are only cool in films/books/games, even then you can debate about that in hyde park, but this is just a hypothetical question so I'll answer revolver, because I love low-tech and because I'm distantly related to john wayne (only by marriage unfortuanetly) and because I did go through a period of wanting to be clint eastwood and because GUN was a hella cool game and because revolver ocelot is a great character, hmm if I were a teacher I'd give my self bad marks for repeating "and because" so many times, I shoulda just made a list


----------



## BLUEeyedBanshee (Aug 15, 2007)

Canonista said:


> Another reason to not wear a bra! (In the interest of safety, of course....)



Yes yes for safety! Or I could have worn a turtleneck instead of a v-neck.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

BLUEeyedBanshee said:


> Yes yes for safety! Or I could have worn a turtleneck instead of a v-neck.



I'm sure I speak for all men when I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 

lol


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

Fun with Photoshop.


----------



## BLUEeyedBanshee (Aug 15, 2007)

Canonista said:


> Fun with Photoshop.



Oohhh now that one would be pretty...


----------



## newlylarge (Aug 15, 2007)

Prickly,

I certainly respect your right to your opinion, and I hate to drag the thread off-topic again, but your approach assumes that everyone will play by the rules. The unfortunate reality is that there will always be those who will have no problem using force to get what they desire (be they a dictator or an individual criminal) and to assume that peaceful, law-abiding citizens can rely on everyone sharing their values in unrealistic.

Actually, it is interesting that you mention police and soldiers as being the only people who should have guns. I cannot imagine anything more dangerous in terms of the protection of the individual against the state. It is not often stated, probably because it sounds crazy in this day and age, but the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to serve as protection against the unchecked power of the government. Sure, the 2nd amendment says, "a well ordered militia," but in those days, a militia was a collection of ordinary citizens.

Personally, I would have no trouble with effectuating this language of the 2nd amendment by conditioning gun ownership upon being a member of a "well ordered militia," but that would entail (for example) every gun owner in a neighborhood banding together and even drilling regularly on, say, the local high-school football field. I doubt if most people REALLY want to see that.

And by the way, as some claim, the National Guard is not such a "militia." It is far more than that and can be "federalized" as it has been recently for Iraq. So the National Guard is certainly not a check on the power of the Federal Government as the Framers of the 2nd amendment intended. So that leaves the language, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Then there is the question of why anyone should fear law-abiding citizens owning guns. Do people imagine that someone who never committed a crime before will suddenly become a dangerous sociopath as soon as they come into possession of a gun? In one sense, that is a bit insulting to gun owners.

Finally, even if we wanted to completely ban guns from private ownership, would that prevent those with criminal intent from obtaining them? Consider the failure of the "drug war" or of prohibition from preventing people who want to obtain drugs or alcohol from doing so. If guns were banned, they would become the subject of a criminal black-market as drugs have and as alcohol did during prohibition. Further, the result would be that the only people who would acquire guns on the black-market would be those willing to break the law.

Sorry if my response seems a bit much, but I think you have to admit that your asking, "why would any sane normal person who is not in the military (or police force in some places) want or need one?" was rather inflamatory. You as much as said that all gun owners are "insane" and "abnormal." I take seriously the original intent behind the 2nd Amendment. It may seem inapplicable in modern times, but consider that any oppressive government certainly does not want its people to be armed and able to resist. Crazy talk? It may seem so and I certainly hope that the possibility of citizens having to resist our own government is as unlikely as it seems.

As to the more typical argument of protection against criminals, it would be nice if the police could arrive anywhere at a moment's notice, but that is clearly unrealistic. If we had THAT many police, then we would be living in a very disconcerting world.

Would I prefer that I never need to use a gun to defend myself or others? Of course. Would I futher prefer that, should the need arise, the police will always be there, with time to spare, to deal with the threat? Again, of course I would. But I know this is not always possible. At least, in the (admittedly) unlikely event that I face an armed intruder in my home, I will stand a "fighting chance." And that does not make me a criminal or a nut.

I am an attorney who has worked for the United States Attorney's Office and, as such, passed an FBI background check. When I was admitted to the bar, I swore an oath to uphold the law. I have never in my life committed a crime, other than speeding, and I have no intention to do so in the future.

So forgive me if I find your comments just a bit offensive.

But really, I did not take it personally. 

If anything, your comments make for some interesting debate.


----------



## GWARrior (Aug 15, 2007)

Keb said:


> I'd just like to say that knives are also weapons...I'll bet your house has quite a stockpile of them just lying around in the kitchen, too! Cars can be pretty deadly weapons, too, come to that.



Im pretty sure Ive never used a gun to cut my food or to drive to the store.

just sayin.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 15, 2007)

GWARrior said:


> Im pretty sure Ive never used a gun to cut my food or to drive to the store.
> 
> just sayin.



Right, but people use guns to go get food all the time.

Venison = yummy! (Even though elk is better)


----------



## newlylarge (Aug 15, 2007)

Point well taken, GWARrior.

In light of my last posting, let me say that I harbor no ill will toward anyone including Prickly. If anything, I find this to be an interesting and relevant issue. Off-topic, perhaps, but nevertheless, a stimulating discussion. As I noted, I am an attorney, so I am certainly one who enjoys a good, rousing debate, and I hope everyone takes my comments in that spirit. We can disagree and even argue, but that does not mean we do not have respect for one another.

And yes, one never never "used a gun to cut [one's] food or to drive to the store." Let's not fool ourselves. As Prickly noted, guns are lethal weapons. They may have peaceful uses, such as target shooting, but they were certainly invented for the purpose of killing.

So what of that? As I said, if we are lucky, we will never need to use a gun for such purposes. But that does not mean that we should ignore the possibility. Consider this. Do you have fire extinguishers in your home? If you do not, you should. I do.

If someone has fire extinguishers in their home, does that mean they secretly hope that their house will catch fire so that they may enjoy the thrill of fighting the blaze? Of course not. We hope to never have a fire and most of us, thankfully, will not. So it is with a gun in the home. We hope to never need it, but we recognize the possibility that we will and we further recognize that, as with a fire extinguisher, if you ever NEED one, you had better HAVE one around.

But really, as I said, I hope this topic need not devolve into unpleasantness. I am sincere when I say that I enjoy the debate and discsussion and I do not intend my statements as a personal attack. I really think this is interesting. 

Maybe it is my "lawyer's nature," buy I am used to seperating disagreement and debate related to an "issue" (as we no-good lawyers call it) from personal attack or animosity. In my "professional experience," I am used to fighting a "knock-down, drag-out fight" with an opponenent and then going out for drinks together later. I sometimes forget that people who do not suffer from the weird nature of being an attorney may not share this point-of-view. I sometimes forget that for normal people (non-lawyers), getting into an arguement with someone means that you do not respect them. If I have made that error here, I apologize.

I very much hope that my comments, thus far, are not seen as anything more than "defending a position" and I further hope that everyone agrees that we can disagree and still respect one another. I guess I am belaboring the point a bit, but I am asking that everyone take this discussion as good-natured debate and discussion and nothing more.

Let us all express our points-of-view and, when we are done, be friends again.


----------



## Keb (Aug 15, 2007)

Newlylarge,

Maybe I should've gone to law school. You make it sound like so much fun!


----------



## newlylarge (Aug 15, 2007)

I enjoyed it, but then again, I have reason to question my sanity.


----------



## Lastminute.Tom (Aug 16, 2007)

pro-gun ownership people, just a question, if you had a button that could remove every single fire-arm in the world, would you push it?, I know its not currently possible because our society is based around fear, but just as a hypothetical question, would you?


----------



## Keb (Aug 16, 2007)

Would it also remove the knowledge of how to make weapons and the desire to do so from the hearts of bad people? 

...actually, removing the desire to hurt/kill other people from bad people would be a lot more effective. Can I have that button please?


----------



## newlylarge (Aug 16, 2007)

Lastminute.Tom said:


> pro-gun ownership people, just a question, if you had a button that could remove every single fire-arm in the world, would you push it?, I know its not currently possible because our society is based around fear, but just as a hypothetical question, would you?



Good question. Probably yes.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 16, 2007)

Lastminute.Tom said:


> pro-gun ownership people, just a question, if you had a button that could remove every single fire-arm in the world, would you push it?, I know its not currently possible because our society is based around fear, but just as a hypothetical question, would you?



No. My guns are for recreation and self defense. Why would I give up a harmless activity that makes me feel good and also gives me the upper hand against a group of thugs with bats and knives?

Not to mention the self-reliance of not needing to rely on the grocery store if it ever comes down to it.


----------



## Allie Cat (Aug 16, 2007)

I think I would.

=Divals


----------



## marlowegarp (Aug 16, 2007)

prickly said:


> ............guns are for soldiers and policemen (and that's questionable). sorry to state the obvious, but they are weapons. that means they have no use (intended or otherwise) other than for destruction, maiming or killing. therefore, why would any sane normal person who is not in the military (or police force in some places) want or need one?
> 
> i just find it so, so sad that all you people can talk like guns are just normal things to have. i know this has been debated before (so shoot me, ha), but it just never ceases to amaze me that many of the same people who cry over rising crime rates, murders, war, terrorism, and all sorts of violent shit are quite happy to embrace profileration of weapons!



Unfortunately, policemen and soldiers are often the last people who should have guns. A lot of cops can't hit the broad side of a barn wall (and this is direct from the source) and a mercenary army seldom the best judge of when to use its weapons. 

Terrorism and war are much more products of people's ignorance and willingness to follow orders than those of availability of weapons.


----------



## GWARrior (Aug 16, 2007)

Canonista said:


> Right, but people use guns to go get food all the time.
> 
> Venison = yummy! (Even though elk is better)



that would totally make sense if hunting didnt involve killing.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 16, 2007)

GWARrior said:


> that would totally make sense if hunting didnt involve killing.



Killing animals for food is not in any way equal to killing humans.

Not even in the same ballpark.


----------



## GWARrior (Aug 16, 2007)

Canonista said:


> Killing animals for food is not in any way equal to killing humans.
> 
> Not even in the same ballpark.


 

Guns are only used to kill/injure (notice I didnt say what was being killed/injured).

Knives and cars CAN be used to kill, *but* have other uses... like cutting food and transportation.

Hunting still involves killing. The whole killing people vs. killing animals wasnt even the point.

:doh:


----------



## Keb (Aug 17, 2007)

Guns are used to defend, as well. Often their mere presence is enough to deter some crime, which is why cops wear them even if they are someplace they're unlikely to need them and why military personnel are trained in their use even in peacetime.

Guns also have non-hunting sporting uses...just like bows and arrows. There are at least a few olympic shooting competitions, not to mention other target shooting competitions of various levels. I presume you don't object to paper targets being "killed"? Superior marksmanship is a honed skill just like other sports, requiring intensive training and good hand-eye coordination. In some of the events, it also requires full body athleticism. 

Guns are also collected by museums and private collectors that appreciate their beauty and crafsmanship. Like I said (on topic) in this thread, I'm an old fashioned girl and I admire the handcrafted detail on older guns, but even some modern guns have a certain beauty to them that appeals to some people the same way that other collectibles do. Some collectors like to shoot, some merely like to have a display of their most unique acquisitions. 

I'm pretty sure I've only hit the edge of the community in which guns are appreciated beyond being killing machines. A gun by itself is no more dangerous than a rock. It's only a dangerous object when in the hands of either an unknowledgable person or a person with evil intent.


----------



## CleverBomb (Aug 17, 2007)

Lastminute.Tom said:


> pro-gun ownership people, just a question, if you had a button that could remove every single fire-arm in the world, would you push it?, I know its not currently possible because our society is based around fear, but just as a hypothetical question, would you?


Yes.

Then I could conquer the world with a butter knife.

(H/T Dogbert)



-Rusty


----------



## James (Aug 17, 2007)

in such weapons... is limited to Halo... 










I used to favor the Pistol as far as I recall?


----------



## Canonista (Aug 17, 2007)

Keb said:


> Guns also have non-hunting sporting uses...just like bows and arrows. There are at least a few olympic shooting competitions, not to mention other target shooting competitions of various levels. I presume you don't object to paper targets being "killed"? Superior marksmanship is a honed skill just like other sports, requiring intensive training and good hand-eye coordination. In some of the events, it also requires full body athleticism.



Hail. Head. Smack!

For those who think guns have no use other than killing, have you checked out shooting clubs? Try Googling "IDPA" "SASS" MI3gun" "USPSA" "NSSA" NSCA" and the "US Olympic Shooting Team".



> Guns are also collected by museums and private collectors that appreciate their beauty and crafsmanship. Like I said (on topic) in this thread, I'm an old fashioned girl and I admire the handcrafted detail on older guns, but even some modern guns have a certain beauty to them that appeals to some people the same way that other collectibles do. Some collectors like to shoot, some merely like to have a display of their most unique acquisitions.



These are my own personal guns.

First is a Colt 1911 that's been engraved and gold inlaid. It wears elephant ivory stocks carved by Paul Persinger.





Second is my Ruger "Flat-Top" Blackhawk. These were only in production for three years, then Ruger made design changes altering their appearance. This was made in 1957. After buying this gun I sent it to Hamilton Bowen (God himself sends his guns to Mr. Bowen). In his talented hands he color case hardened the frame, rechambered it from .357 magnum to .44 special, added a number of aftermarket improvements (hand fitting them all), and tuned the action. As some of the modifications were being done he sent the grip frame off to Paul Persinger and had him hand-fit bison horn grips to the frame.


----------



## Wagimawr (Aug 17, 2007)

James said:


> in such weapons... is limited to Halo...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shotgun. All the way.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 17, 2007)

Wagimawr said:


> Shotgun. All the way.



Fighting the Flood there's nothing better than a shotgun and some plasma grenades!


----------



## James (Aug 17, 2007)

ahh... the nerd in me wants to hijack this thread and talk about halo 3 now...

(you would have thought at 27 I woulda grown out of that kind of thing!)


----------



## Canonista (Aug 18, 2007)

James said:


> ahh... the nerd in me wants to hijack this thread and talk about halo 3 now...
> 
> (you would have thought at 27 I woulda grown out of that kind of thing!)



I just turned 38 and I *LOVE* Halo 1 and 2. I'm pretty excited about Halo 3 coming out.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 18, 2007)

James said:


> ahh... the nerd in me wants to hijack this thread and talk about halo 3 now...
> 
> (you would have thought at 27 I woulda grown out of that kind of thing!)



Have you tried out the Bioshock demo yet?


----------



## marlowegarp (Aug 18, 2007)

James said:


> ahh... the nerd in me wants to hijack this thread and talk about halo 3 now...
> 
> (you would have thought at 27 I woulda grown out of that kind of thing!)



I started the thread and I wouldn't blame you. The urge to go into how cool Revolver ocelot is tugs at my inner geek. 

I'm a bit more old school, but remember the Plasma Rifle in Doom?


----------



## marlowegarp (Aug 18, 2007)

Canonista said:


> Killing animals for food is not in any way equal to killing humans.
> 
> Not even in the same ballpark.



Vegetarians/animal rights types often link the killing of animals to the killing of people. Although I'm not a vegetarian, it's not an invalid point. I'm well aware that my willingness to consume dead animals is slightly indicative of my willingness to, in some circumstances, kill people.

However I wouldn't condone trapping people or animals in little pens so they can't move, and try to consume accordingly.

Hey, I can see the original topic way off in the distance!


----------



## Les Toil (Aug 18, 2007)

James said:


> ahh... the nerd in me wants to hijack this thread and talk about halo 3 now...



Well the nerd in me wants to hijack this thread and talk about anything other than instruments of death.


----------



## marlowegarp (Aug 18, 2007)

Too bad!

www.hysteria-lives.co.uk/.../spm2video.jpg


----------



## Allie Cat (Aug 19, 2007)

That said, Halo, Bioshock, and Metal Gear are all full of win and awesome.

=Divals


----------



## Canonista (Aug 19, 2007)

Hey look! A gun being used for sport!


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Aug 19, 2007)

Revolvers are marvelous, while semi-autos are generally as streamlined as a brick and about as aesthetically appealing. I won't even go into the tendencies of autopistols to jam or encourage accidental discharges. Just aesthetically, there's a huge difference. It's like the difference in a Roman Gladius and a cheap pocket knife.

The Smith and Wesson N frame Model 29s, 25s, and 27s are works of art.
Big, beautiful handguns.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 19, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Revolvers are marvelous, while semi-autos are generally as streamlined as a brick and about as aesthetically appealing. I won't even go into the tendencies of autopistols to jam or encourage accidental discharges. Just aesthetically, there's a huge difference. It's like the difference in a Roman Gladius and a cheap pocket knife.
> 
> The Smith and Wesson N frame Model 29s, 25s, and 27s are works of art.
> Big, beautiful handguns.



Barring a mechanical defect keeping your booger hook off the bang switch is a 100% guaranteed way to keep the bullets in the barrel. It works every time it's tried in both semi-autos and revolvers.

I have never had a gun go bang when I didn't tell it to.

I did have a S&W 29-2 (4 inch, nickel plated :smitten: ) jam on me. I bought it used and it needed to go back to S&W for some rehabilitation. It's flawless now.

Jams on "bottom feeders" are most often caused either by ammunition, "limp wristing", or poor maintenence. Older self-loaders aren't always designed to cycle hollow pointed ammunition and the nose of the bullet will catch on the barrel's feed ramp. That doesn't happen with handguns built in the last 20 or so years. Some foreign ammo, like from "Wolf", a Russian brand, have steel cases instead of brass. The properties of steel are totally different from brass and won't always function in guns not designed to operate with steel cased ammo. My guns eat it just fine, but quite a few don't.

Semi-automatic guns rely on timing. Certain things have to happen at certain speeds. If your cartridge doesn't accelerate the slide properly then it won't go far enough back to compress the recoil spring enough, and as a result the gun either won't pick up the next cartridge from the magazine or it won't feed it all the way into the chamber. Also, with poor slide velocity, dirt in the extractor, or a weak extractor spring, your spent shell casing might not completely fly free from the ejection port, causing what is known as a "stovepipe" jam. With practice clearing stovepipe jams are easy and fast.

"Limp wristing", or not grasping the pistol firmly (you don't need to strangle it) allows the pistol's frame to move in a rearward motion, reducing the speed differential between the slide and the frame. This effectively reduces the speed and distance the slide moves rearward and prevents the next cartridge from being picked up from the magazine and moved into the chamber. 

If you keep the slide rails, ejector/extractor, and trigger mechanism lightly oiled and clean you should have no problems with jams on semi-automatic pistols. Glocks, which require next to no maintenence at all, can go literally 50,000 rounds without a jam with barely any maintenence at all. They are not the only manufacturer to make semi-automatic pistols that reliable.

I have revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. They are equally reliable.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Aug 19, 2007)

Canonista said:


> Barring a mechanical defect keeping your booger hook off the bang switch is a 100% guaranteed way to keep the bullets in the barrel. It works every time it's tried in both semi-autos and revolvers.
> 
> I have never had a gun go bang when I didn't tell it to.
> 
> ...



Well, but is it that you are highly knowledgeable and trained in their use, care, and feeding, is the question? I don't think revolvers and autopistols are equally reliable in untrained hands or across the board, i.e., in practical terms. If you have to feed it a certain ammo type, hold its grip a certain way, clean it "X" number of rounds, gunsmith it more often, and so on, it has lower inherent reliability, in my opinion. 

I agree that some modern high quality semi-autos (Beretta 92family, Glocks, HKs, etc.) are just as reliable as revolvers, but across the board there's a difference. Under normal conditions, revolvers tend to be more reliable, especially if you want to use a good SWC hollow point. 

I'm not saying autopistols are bad; a tradeoff is that they reload much more easily. But a revolver can chamber a superior bullet much more easily. And they are easier to get in longer barrels and utilize to hit targets at longer ranges. I prefer the idea of the latter over a fast reload, and I have more confidence in a pistol that I could use to hunt game animals.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 19, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> I'm not saying autopistols are bad; a tradeoff is that they reload much more easily. But a revolver can chamber a superior bullet much more easily. And they are easier to get in longer barrels and utilize to hit targets at longer ranges. I prefer the idea of the latter over a fast reload, and I have more confidence in a pistol that I could use to hunt game animals.




That's why enthusiasts should own both.

While I love my 1911 and P99, I wouldn't ever give up my Ruger Super Blackhawk or S&W 29-2.


----------



## CeCe the Porky Princess! (Aug 19, 2007)

Wouldn't know my arse from a revolver/whatever or wanna to be honest ... happy shooting (???:doh:   )

CeCe xx


----------



## Canonista (Aug 19, 2007)

CeCe the Porky Princess! said:


> Wouldn't know my arse from a revolver/whatever or wanna to be honest ... happy shooting (???:doh:   )
> 
> CeCe xx



Well, after an hour or so I'd put down the revolver.....


----------



## Canonista (Aug 19, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> I prefer the idea of the latter over a fast reload, and I have more confidence in a pistol that I could use to hunt game animals.




Here's my "game animal" revolver.


----------



## Allie Cat (Aug 19, 2007)

Canonista said:


> Here's my "game animal" revolver.



This gun satires itself...

=Divals


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Aug 20, 2007)

Canonista said:


> Here's my "game animal" revolver.



Nice! Bet you could hunt mule deer with that one.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 20, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Nice! Bet you could hunt mule deer with that one.



Funny you should mention mule deer. The .44 magnum was developed by a man named Elmer Kieth for the purposes of mule deer hunting.

He was an interesting fellow. Too bad he died in 1981. His kind is sorely needed today.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Aug 20, 2007)

Canonista said:


> Funny you should mention mule deer. The .44 magnum was developed by a man named Elmer Kieth for the purposes of mule deer hunting.
> 
> He was an interesting fellow. Too bad he died in 1981. His kind is sorely needed today.



Both Keith and Jeff Cooper were fine innovators of the art of the handgun.  I disagree with a lot of Cooper's notions with autopistols, but he had some excellent ideas. His "scout rifle" thing was a great concept.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 20, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Both Keith and Jeff Cooper were fine innovators of the art of the handgun.  I disagree with a lot of Cooper's notions with autopistols, but he had some excellent ideas. His "scout rifle" thing was a great concept.



His concept, while sound, has been surpassed by EOTechs and Aimpoints. A low magnification Aimpoint with it's illuminated dot floating in the center of the reticle has the same effect as a scout scope, only better because you aren't searching for crosshairs.

EOTech makes a magnifier for their red dot sights. I have a 553, but no magnifier. I'd like to put it on my varmint AR and go after coyotes with it if I could go afield with a good caller who could get the doggies in close.

If you have never used an EOTech, you really don't know what you're missing. It's too bad Mr. Cooper got sick before they really, really took off. I think he would have liked red dot optics very much, even with the batteries (which old-timers hate).


----------



## The Obstreperous Ms. J (Aug 20, 2007)

Hey Marlowgarp!

I love revolvers!!!!
I can't tell you how awesome it is to shoot a .357 Mag, Long nose nickleplated beauty!!
(sigh)
Wasn't mine, but one of my best friends guns.

While in college, my friends and I used to go out to the desert, with a ridiculous amount of guns, ammo, BBQ fixins', and anything we could (legally) shoot at.

Grew up with them (My dad was a cop and all of us kids learned gun safety from a very early age) but I never got a chance to actually shoot one till college.


----------



## marlowegarp (Aug 21, 2007)

For financial reasons, I can only occasionally pack heat. That sounds great, though. Congrats on your 1000th post.


----------



## Jes (Aug 21, 2007)

marlowegarp said:


> broad side of a barn wall (and this is direct from the source) .



You're a barn?

Awesome.


----------



## Canonista (Aug 22, 2007)

marlowegarp said:


> For financial reasons, I can only occasionally pack heat.



What? Are you renting a gun or something? Once it and the holster are paid for they're yours and your only expense is the cost of an occasional box of ammo.

So... What'cha packin?


----------



## marlowegarp (Aug 23, 2007)

Back on the East Coast, I packed a Ruger 22LR, an Eagle Arms Double-Barrel 12 gauge (legally modified) and a Remington .870 pump (the best of the three) with a pistol grip that held five rounds. The Eagle was the classic boomstick, it came from a farmer who kept it by his bed. It fired magnum loads and remains the loudest gun I have ever encountered. It was accurate up to about eight yards. The Remington was classy. An ebony princess with a butt of rubber that one could actually hunt with. The sound the pump made was so smooth, you would have believed it was the soft leg of a BBW breaking the surface of a pond, rather that metal components sliding together. But those of you who know me know that i am prone to hyperbole. 

In OR, not so much. I don't drive, so I never changed over my license (which in OR is all you need to own a gun) and, while I'm not broke, I don't have the money for weaponry right now. So to the shooting range I must go. Never owned a handgun, and although I've enjoyed shooting them, at the moment, I prefer to let them be someone else's responsibility.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Aug 24, 2007)

marlowegarp said:


> The Remington was classy. An ebony princess with a butt of rubber that one could actually hunt with. The sound the pump made was so smooth, you would have believed it was the soft leg of a BBW breaking the surface of a pond, rather that metal components sliding together. .




Love the description. That's how I feel about the action of a Marlin 30-30.
Wonderful gun. I wish they made them with box magazines in bigger cartridges.


----------



## newlylarge (Aug 24, 2007)

Been a while since I posted to this thread, and I have enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts. Once again, I express my preference for autoloaders which, if anything, is mostly a function of their being all that I REALLY know. I can see the nostalgic appeal of revolvers, but realistically, I do not see issues of reliability as being a factor. As I said earlier, I think it is what you are used to. For me, all I have really every known are autoloaders, so I feel completely comfortable with and confident in them,


----------

