I've Read Bunk, and it Stunk!!!

[SATRP]

A staff poster here posted my quote of:

I know this borders on heresy, but a good quality semiauto is more reliable than a revolver. A double-action revolver has far more moving parts than a 1911A1.

Obviously he was seeking extremely unscientific confirmation of his normalcy bias. But these boards typically are replete with self-anointed gun exerts. They ruin the quality of intellectual debate, for they insist upon their myopic assumpuptions based upon their emotional attachments and incorrect/anachronistic beliefs. Science and facts are anathema to them.

Facts are facts, except for this poster. He'll make up his own facts just as quickly as any anti-Amendment II liberal.

I've had two S&W revolvers suffer catastrophic failures. I have personal knowledge of many more. I have never, ever seen a good quality semi suffer any kind of failure. Period. I have personal knowledge of my former agency testing a then new S&W 5904 to determine suitability for issue to its cops. My former agency's armorers put 10,000 through a single copy w/o cleaning or maintenance. In essence, they were trying to cause it to fail. It never did.

The most reliable and accurate handgun I've carried was a Sig P229 .40 S&W. I have never, ever seen nor heard of a law enforcement duty Sig failure. Period. Ever.

In the end, we're all responsible for committing to thorough research before selecting a handgun that's intended to save its owner's life.

As for this outfit, my suggestion is to be far more circumspect before allowing its staff to condemn other poster's posts as bunk. It's because of posters like him that I rarely visit this outfit.

[USNRet93]

Confused..the 'staff guy said

but a good quality semiauto is more reliable than a revolver.

You then criticize him for saying 'unscientific' things BUT then go on and agree with him..

I've had two S&W revolvers suffer catastrophic failures. I have personal knowledge of many more. I have never, ever seen a good quality semi suffer any kind of failure.

[T. O'Heir]

"...seen a good quality semi suffer any kind of failure..." Um, like USNRet93 says, that's what your "staffer" said.
What's an "assumpuptions"?

[dyl]

Specifically, about the "far more moving parts" so I'm asking how you folks would count them.

The OP of that thread quoted something he knew would be controversial (but gave a caveat warning about this) but asked a technical question. How would you count moving parts in a semi auto versus a revolver? That could actually be a technical discussion. And that was the original topic of discusion.
The purpose of using the quote was to call into question the idea that more moving parts = more failure. And how difficult it can be to define moving parts. If the whole slide moves does anything inside it count as a part? How about the contribution of ammo, or metallurgy at the time each type of pistol was introduced?

I don't think it was about pushing 1 type of pistol over another. The pages of discussion was all over the place but there were some good points to be found.

[Mal H]

This may help with some of the confusion with the first post in this thread.

The quote was not from a "staffer" it is a statement made by SATRP (as he said in his first sentence) here:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=73

The staffer, 44AMP, quoted SATRP here and was simply questioning how other folks count parts in various firearms.

[Edit]
dyl and I were essentially simulposting.

[dyl]

Yes Mal H, I just edited my post because it took me a moment to realize the origin of Amp44's quote, which was from SATRP.

I don't want to step into the middle of any verbal fights here, but I don't think anyone set out to offend anyone else, and I rather enjoyed questioning what gives pistols vs revolvers their reputation, optimal vs. suboptimal circumstances for each, and their historical origins.

This is like how early direct impingement AR's still suffer stigma from their introduction in the jungle environment.

And if this thread is going to be a continuation of the other one:

I have never, ever seen a good quality semi suffer any kind of failure.

That may be, and somehow there are a bunch of army guys saying the Beretta M9 is JUNK. (I personally think Berettas are great, and am holding my tongue about poor maintenance etc...) Gun discussions are fun, aren't they?

[Mal H]

Originally Posted by dyl

I don't think anyone set out to offend anyone else ...

I don't either.

[J.G. Terry]

Overgeneralizations always suck.

[FrankenMauser]

We all have opinions.
Some differ.
-Life.

[dyl]

FrankenMauser

-Life.

These days, to be hip, you have use #Life.

And watch, it'll change since I've figured that much out.

[FrankenMauser]

Pound life. Like, in a kennel?

[mk70ss]

Guns are simple machines. Machines suffer mechanical malfunctions and parts breakage at some point. Both revolvers and semi auto firearms will suffer a failure at some point,

[walnut1704]

But these boards typically are replete with self-anointed gun exerts [sic].

Hmmm.....I see your point.

[jglsprings]

J.G. Terry
Overgeneralizations always suck.

J.G. - All generalizations are false

(this post is a joke, in case you missed it...)

[Aguila Blanca]

The original discussion ran for 80 posts before it had to be closed. We don't need to do it again.

Closed.