Working title of an upcoming blog post on my site (with thanks to another forum member who recommended the subject)...Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham
Working title of an upcoming blog post on my site (with thanks to another forum member who recommended the subject)...
I'm here all week, ladies and gentlemen...
Dude that is too easy.... one that stops the threat(s) in the allotted time.
Participation does not equal Proficiency
- Mike Pannone
OH WOW
And only measured in retrospect?
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
That is frequently entirely up to the person getting shot with it.
Sure, but carrying around a belt-fed 7.62 auto is a bit problematic. As always, it is a compromise and arguing that my compromise point is better than your compromise point is one that has been worked to death. I've interviewed lots of BGs and not a one of them has ever said that if the other guy had only been carrying a bigger gun he would have changed things. I've been in a few fights, and while it may be nice to have lots of stuff in reserve all of them could have been solved with a <6 shot revolver just as well as a 17 round semi-auto.
I thought the question was if the modified J-frame was a good lounge-around gun? There are plenty of cars that are more comfortable and get better mileage than say, a Chevy Malibu, but does that mean the Malibu is not sufficient for driving around town getting groceries and taking the kids to school? It seems these discussions always fall back to "Yeah, but A is better than B" instead of the basic "Given situation 1, is A an appropriatae choice".The question is whether there are guns as easy to carry, practically speaking, that have better ballistics, more firepower, and/or superior shootability.
Last edited by David Armstrong; 04-10-2013 at 10:51 AM.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Nope. Try again. You opened the door when you proposed "I've yet to meet a single person who has ever wished he had less gun when the time came for needing a gun." Given the fact that military combat is clearly a time for needing a gun the belt-fed heavy auto versus less gun is quite valid. Yet we do not issue belt-feds to all soldiers, and given the situation I know a number of folks that would reject the bigger gun for "less gun." The point is that you phrase it wrong, IMO. The better wording to me would be something that does not address if one wanted less gun but if there was a need for more gun. One could just as easily insert a 6" Mdl 29 or other gun if you don't like the belt-fed example.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
Perhaps you're not understanding reductio ad absurdum. Here's an example: inserting belt-fed machine guns into a discussion about concealed carry handgun compromises.
As for the j-frame debate, it's a pretty straightforward odds/stakes/costs problem. You may very well be correct and a j-frame or similar handgun will be adequate most of the time. But for those rare occasions when it's not the stakes are monstrously high, and the cost in terms of convenience and comfort between, say, a 442 and a G26 are tiny on any practical level.
Reply With Quote
