- Joined
- Mar 31, 2018
- Messages
- 60,782
- Reaction score
- 6,488
- Location
- Norcross, Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You seem to have moved to a new topic. What is this about?
I was wondering what you meant with your posts# 83 and 85.
You seem to have moved to a new topic. What is this about?
A semi auto has more of a chance to jam, if it gets caught in a shirt you may not get a second shot off...
...if you are unfamiliar with clearing a jamed round that can make it less effective, they have more moving parts meaning more can go wrong...
...limpwristing is a common problem especially with a thinner sub compact that hasn't been properly trained with with a hammerless revolver prevents all of this.
The reason most police forces don't issue revolvers is a capacity issue. A semi auto gives you 3x the amount of rounds.
It sometimes interferes with the slide operationsWhy would a semi-auto have more chance getting caught in your shirt.
There are striker fired semi autos with no hammer.
Capacity issue would be my first guess then I would say the stopping power of the ammo at the time, but there have been a lot of innovations in that area over the last 30 or so years.I read the US police forces no longer issue revolvers, why is that ?
Limpwristing is when youre not holding onto a semi firmly enough for the slide to cycle correctly. No slide means no limpwristing issue.The grip is the same size, just that semi-autos don't have a fat cylinder full of bullets
Police are trained to deal with and limit those issues, a new gun owner and carrier may not be. That's why I recommend a revolver to begin with. Once you've got some experience choose whatever is best for you.Despite jamming issues ?
That is more a subcompact single stack, I don't like going that small because they don't fit my hands well. Smaller is not always better it's a personal preference. I have smaller compact Walther that holds 10 to 12 depending on magazine. That's still double a typical revolver.Besides a compact semi-auto has a lower capacity, often not much more than a revolver.
It sometimes interferes with the slide operations
Capacity issue would be my first guess then I would say the stopping power of the ammo at the time, but there have been a lot of innovations in that area over the last 30 or so years.
Limpwristing is when youre not holding onto a semi firmly enough for the slide to cycle correctly. No slide means no limpwristing issue.
Police are trained to deal with and limit those issues, a new gun owner and carrier may not be. That's why I recommend a revolver to begin with. Once you've got some experience choose whatever is best for you.
That is more a subcompact single stack, I don't like going that small because they don't fit my hands well. Smaller is not always better it's a personal preference. I have smaller compact Walther that holds 10 to 12 depending on magazine. That's still double a typical revolver.
The way one carries also will influence their choice.
A lot less lickley. If you get a chance check out a few YouTube videos with people shooting with guns wrapped in towles.I suppose so but then again the cylinder on a revolver could do that as they're no flush with the grip.
More that it will not cycle correctly after the first shot.I would guess that too, plus semi-autos today aren't as jam-prone as M1911's back in the day
Oh you mean to gun isn't cocked correctly
Some instructors (maybe all) suggesting carrying a cocked weapon. This guy says that thinking that women not being able to operate the slide is flawed thinking:
YouTube
Can't argue against police training.
Also wouldn't a revolver weigh more with its cylinder ?
If it's going to be mandatory, why not have be provided by the government for free?Training costs money that some people don't have, and you can't put a price tag on the exercise of a constitutional right.
Besides, why should people require training if they already know whatever they would learn from the training?
I've never heard an M1911 described as being "jam-prone".
That is because they aren't. Even under extreme conditions. The US Army at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, did a little test back in the late 1990s. They buried 12 different semi-automatic pistols in the snow and left them overnight in -60°F temperatures. The next morning only the M1911 was able to fire, the other 11, including the Beretta 92F used by the Army, were frozen solid and couldn't be budged manually.
I'm just hoping training is way to influence in right way, giving some perspective and hands-on knowledge. Also when something bad is happening there is people around who can act and shoot when needed (to prevent more tragedy). For car you need some lessons and practice, so why not with guns too.
I didnt see an answer to this. I think it would be significant to see how many gun deaths/injuries from lack of training can be compared to car accidents. There is a parallel there.Again, no one has ever said people shouldnt have training. AFAIK, everyone supports that.
My question to you is...what would it do to prevent gun violence? The bar in the US is high...and it should remain so...to force things unnecessarily on its citizens. So...there needs to be a substantial, valid reason to impose something on people by law (esp. if there's no evidence it will solve the problem). So: what gun violence would training prevent?
And then the next question would be: compared to driving (your example)...how many gun deaths/injuries are caused by 'lack of training?' And then we can compare those to car accidents.
I'm not surprised. I've inspected, disassembled, assembled, tested and repaired on occasion hundreds and hundreds of them. Literally over a thousand. I carried different examples daily for five years. I've owned several of my own. The only thing I would grant is that some of them can be finicky about feeding certain bullet types- but that can be remedied. "Jam-prone" as a general description is just stupid.
I had to qualify with the M1911 in the Marine Corps during the 1970s, but otherwise my experience with the firearm has been very limited. My preferred side-arm is the Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag. Because of its weight I tend to have closer groupings. I also own a Beretta 92F, but only use it for target practice. I've put approximately 5,000 rounds through both firearms and never had a problem with a jamming Beretta either.
In fact, the only firearm where I've had consistent problems with jamming are 12-gauge shotguns that use 3" shells. Using 2-3/4" shells and there are no jams, but as soon as you start using 3" shells the problem arises. I've experienced this issue with Remington, Winchester, Ithica, and to a lesser extent with Mossberg.
What gun violence does training prevent?
And I have never ever heard or read any gun/2A supporter claim that training was a bad idea. We always encourage it.
Autoloading shotguns? Are they usually failures to extract, eject or what?
The Ithica was semi-auto, but the Remington Model 570, the Winchester Model 1912, and the Mossberg Model 500 were all pump-action shotguns. They all get caught up in the ejection port after firing when attempting to cycle a round. Not every time, but often enough to become an annoyance and a concern. It was one of the reasons why I replaced my Mossberg Model 500 with an AR12 in 2018. The main reason why I replaced the firearm, however, was because it had been my "camp gun" for the last 28 years and was showing signs of wear. My AR12 is my new primary "camp gun" and I cannot afford to have it jam. I've tested out the AR12 and had no problems using the 3" shell. I still have it loaded with just 2-3/4" slugs just to be on the safe side, but so far I've fired a couple of hundred 3" slugs without it jamming.
Benelli is what my father used, and liked very much. Unfortunately, I don't remember the model. I use my Remington Model 570 on grouse and ptarmigan, so 2-3/4" shells using 6-shot is all I really need. I remember when I only needed 8-shot for quail, dove and other small birds, but those were the days of lead shot and they are long gone now. My Mossberg is now "retired" and I've had one full salmon season with the AR12. Already I prefer it over the Mossberg for its accuracy. However, it does have a slightly longer barrel at 20", that will make a difference.modern semi auto shotguns are far better at going from 2-3/4 inch shells with 2.75 drams of powder (a normal quail or trap load) to 3" hot high brass goose loads or buckshot. The best on the market are the FnH SLP-1 and the Reminton Versa-Max. My son runs the latter in 3G competitions, and I the former. The benelli inertia action semi autos are legendary for being able to do that but they kick a bit more than the gas rigs like the SLP. The Mossberg Semi auto is really good for being half the money of the SLP or the Versamax-I have one of the 3G competition versions endorsed by Jerry Miculeck and I shot a really high Sporting clays score with it even though it got some funny looks from the guys I beat who were packing 7000 dollar K-80s and Beretta D-11s
Yes it would but agian sometimes smaller and lighter may not always be better. If you are a perspn sensative to recoil the revolver may be a better choice.
I've never heard an M1911 described as being "jam-prone".
There's a firearms instructor called James Yaeger who posts a lot on YouTube.
He had one video called "911's suck" and he was a huge fan of the Glock 9mm gun.
In it he said 911's are unreliable and he recalled a pistol class he was running where one guy had a 911. He asked the guy if it worked well to which the 911 owner said it did. To which Yaeger replied that a 911 that made it to the end of his class without a stoppage was as rare as a Glock that didn't.
He seems to have taken the video down now.
Is there any reason to despise training when it comes to guns?
I'm pretty sure that with extensive training program you can reduce some gun violence, but it's working only when training is mandatory (so you need training to own/use gun, it can be similar to driving licence).
So I'm interested in possible reasoning why training would be bad idea. There should be one as most of gun owners - if I'm right - are without proper training. So.. argument against training is alive as there isn't need to organize training for gun owners (and make it mandatory). I like to know that argument and then we can throw this whole idea about training to trashcan. As people are better off without training and things can keep going like they are just now.
I think firearm safety and basic range competence should be a required high school course.
We have indoor gun ranges built into our high schools specifically for that purpose in Alaska. Although, it is an elective course, not mandatory. Many already have firearm safety and proficiency with one or more firearms before they get to high school, so it would not be appropriate to make it a required course.
My father's high school in Canada had a range in the basement for the sea cadets, but everyone was encouraged to take classes.
I think it should be a required course here in the states, simply because weapons are so much a part of culture and everyday life.
My father began my firearm education when I was 6 years old. After a hunt he would allow me to help him clean his firearm. By the time I was 8 years old my father allowed me to start hunting with him using one of his firearms. On my 10th birthday my father bought me a Winchester Model 1912 pump-action 12-guage shotgun. By the time I reached high school age I was already proficient with multiple firearms and well-versed in firearm safety.
In fact, when I was attending high school we brought our shotguns to school with us so that we could go hunting after classes. This was in Fremont, Nebraska, during the 1960s and hunting is was what everyone did.
Because the gun culture is very much part of American culture and everyday life I think you will find children in that environment are already educated about firearms and firearm safety. It is where firearms are not part of the everyday culture, like in most major cities, where firearm training is needed most. It is only in the major cities where you find hoplophobes and those who are completely ignorant about firearms.
Since nobody is required to own a firearm, you cannot make classes mandatory.