The case for the M-29 Smith

Dave_pro2a · Dec 21, 2007

imported post

Dave The Welder wrote:

Dave_pro2a, sorry for any confusion, I wasn't ever trying to bash you or your views on the board. Hope there's no hard feelings

No problemo.

I'm thick skinned, and this is just the net.

Personally, I think it's a great injustice to advise people "only X," so I speak up.

Doesn't matter what X is, could be 9mm, 45, AR15s, ak47s, etc. When you split everything into "group A and group B," and then declare that one of the groups is the only way to go it's just BS. Life is never so simple.

Dave The Welder · Dec 21, 2007

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

When you split everything into "group A and group B," and then declare that one of the groups is the only way to go it's just BS. Life is never so simple.

I agree. If I had written the original post, I would have worded it differently. Probably because I had met him, I took what he said differently than others. I do believe that he wasn't trying to say one group was better than the other, even if he kind of did, if that makes sense.

Bear 45/70 · Dec 21, 2007

imported post

Well, not being a fan of the N-frame S&W but I can't argue against the 44 Special. The revolver equal of the 45 ACP. That being said I wasan auto carrier, a custom Springfield Armory Champion (Commander sized with a full lengthgrips) with all the bells and whistles. Carried it for better than 10 years. Then came an exposure to a nerve agent (go figure, 2 full tour in SE Asia and never exposed to Agent Orange and I'm state side and get exposed to Hexane) along with carpal tunnel and cubital (same as the wrist stuff but in the funny bone nerve at the elbow) tunnel syndromes in both hands and arms. After surgerieswith only pain relief I ended up with degraded dexterity and grip strength in both hands. I can't reliably grip the slide to clear a jam if necessary anymore. So I started carrying a Charter Arms Bulldog "Pug" in 44 special. No slide to deal with and the same stopping power. After 5 years of carrying my Bulldog and thousands of round through it, the wife converts from her Charter Arms Undercover 38 Special to a Bulldog. Her comment out of the blue this evening while we watched TV was that she hasn't felt this safe since she quit carrying her 45's (either a Detonics Mark I or an H&K 45 Compact). So I agree with the caliber, just not the gun.

Dave The Welder · Dec 21, 2007

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

I can't reliably grip the slide to clear a jam if necessary anymore.

I have a good friend that had that same problem. The sockets for his thumbs degenerated to the point where attempting to rack the slide of his 1911 caused major pain. He's since had them replaced and they're better than new but for a year there, all he carried was his Vaquero .45 LC.

Bear 45/70 · Dec 21, 2007

imported post

Dave The Welder wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

I can't reliably grip the slide to clear a jam if necessary anymore.

Click to expand...

I have a good friend that had that same problem. The sockets for his thumbs degenerated to the point where attempting to rack the slide of his 1911 caused major pain. He's since had them replaced and they're better than new but for a year there, all he carried was his Vaquero .45 LC.

Unfortunalely mine is not fixable but is permenant.

Wheelgunner · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

Quite being so hyper sensative. I did not call you a liar, I said an oft repeated phrase used when people state uncited statistics as 'fact' in an argument.

Yes. And when I gave you two studies, your best response was to argue how OLD they were. Both studies cite a less than 3 shot per fight and list over 1,000 gun fights between them. You would know that if you had read them.

Great research, you found a 30+ year old study, done by NYC, to back up the claim 'more ammo isn't needed. If ANYBODY is going to argue against more ammo, it'll be NYC

(well and the LAPD of course, MA would too)

First study was done in mid 1980's. You wanted proof, then you disparage the proof when presented. Oh, well. I did not realize we should take your word over that of statistical evidence and scholarly studies. Perhaps all police Dept's should call you with their problems.

(gee, the same city that requies the police to put a 'revolver like' trigger on their Glocks lol)

That was after a bunch of guys shot themselves putting their G## in their holsters with their fingers on the triggers sending bullets into their legs. Want the cite?

As to people becoming less accurate after switching to revolvers. Umm, whatever.

Again, you do not listen. They became less accurate after they switched to SEMIAUTO's because they felt they could spray bullets and survive.Like you.

That's a training/transition issue not a issue with the actual firearm. Sure a guy who "just transitioned to a semi-auto" will probably be less accurate after shooting revolvers for the last 15 years of his service, ******* duh. Too stupid of a point to even respond to, much less make. Blatantly stacked perspective to prop up your favorite position -- stacked information with a easily explained alternative interpertation.

The study followed them over 10 years of training. If you are so sure, perhaps you could call the University of Maryland and apply for a research grant and tell them where they are wrong.

A squib, afaik, is a underpowered cartridge that results in the bullet not leaving the barrel. If it leaves the barrel, then it was simply an underpowerd round.
A squib round CAN indeed cycle the action on a semi-auto without causing either a stovepipe, a doublefeed or afailure to eject --at least sometimes. A squib will not 'necessarily' cause any of those conditions...Thus the risk of firing a second full power round down the barrel and causing damage to the firearm when it encounters the lodged squib round. (this can also happen in a rifle too). If you do not know this, then perhaps you are not qualified to accurately compare revolvers to semi-autos.

Look, if it leaves the barrel, the revolver keeps going, the auto will most likely jam. Maybe it won't! Both weapons will be damaged if fired with a lodged bullet. Oh, I said that.

I've used revolvers and semi-sutos. I stick by my opinion that a revolver (due to the diameter of the cylinder) can be harder to effectively conceal and less comfortable to carry. You are of course welcome to YOUR opinion. Usually, opinions cannot be universally applied.

$100.

But I do agree with your opinion, that all guns conceal better UNDER A JACKET. Do you wear a jacket in the middle of July? Probably not. This should suggest a point that is obvious to anybody who thinks, or who has lived for more than 10 years: circumstances often dictate actions/activity/choices. Circumstances change. Therefore, actions/activity/choices change. To be explicit: a gun that is great for winter carry might not be the 'best' choice for summer carry. ******* DUH. You just can't effectively argue that revolvers and semi-autos conceal equally as well because they are both hard to detect if under a jacket. That is 'proof' that does not pass muster.

Actually, in my job,I do wear a jacket during the summer. And a tie. You did not specify the type of clothing, just that the tiny width difference between an auto and a cylinder of a revolver would make a difference in the ability to conceal.

Re: the FBI shoot out. Hmm, what do I make of your 'example.' I can find an 'example' of almost anything. I can find an example that 'proves' drinking water kills you. If I try to apply that to all people and all situation it obviously does not pass muster.

Point here is that, of course, you did not come up with any proof. So, you disparage all proof. Many more examples are in the book ON COMBAT by Grossman. It would mean you would have to buy a book.

Having 16 rounds in a gun fight is better than having 8. That is meant as a 'general' statement. That is my opinion. I'll stick to it. Sure, a proper response/actions is ideal. But I believe that even with proper response, it is ideal to have more ammo versus less ammo. No surprise that wonder nines made revolvers obsolete for a majority ofLEO and combat situations (as indicated by departments and the military switching over to them relatively soon after they hit the market).

The auto pistol has been with us since the 1800's. The 1911 has been around since 1911. Browning HP (13 shot) since 1935. I think the regrettable influenceof militarizing the local police Dept's has more to do with the adopting ofauto's than their availability.

As an alternative explanation on your example, the fact 1 FBI guy emptied 4 mags and didn't hit anybody doesn't matter. Maybe, just maybe, since he probably had back up... and bullets were flying in both directions,he could have been laying down supressive fire? Ya think?

No. If you had studied the incident you would know that he died dumping 45 rounds at 20 feet and hitting nothing. But he sure was lucky he had all those extra bullets!

Yes I'm sure there's some department somewhere, in "where the hell am I Alabama" that still issues revolvers. Yes I'm sure there's some super top notch unit in the military that still has the option of choosing a revolver, and who has some members who carry them. Those are just exceptions that prove the rule.

That was not the point of my post. If you had read it again, or have someone read it to you,I am not trying to convert military units over to the revolver. I am talking about flexibility and reliability in a personal defense weapon.

Based on your principle tha less is more, try carrying a 1 shot derringer and see how comfortable you feel in dark alleys (Reductio ad absurdum) :uhoh:

Strawman argument: I did not say less is more. You are putting words in my mouth and then building a scenario to ridicule.

BTW I compared a glock 19 to your precious revolver because I can. Revolvers max out at around 8 rounds, unless you have a .22. Semi autos, on the other hand, easily go up to 18.

Actually, I also compared a revolver to a G##. The picture is of a 8 shot .357 magnum revolver. Can you even read?

You compared 2 genres, I used an example from one of the genres. Don't blame me that you intentionally are trying to stack the deck in your favor by saying "gee man, don't look at all the wonder nines... just compare revolvers to the 1911s." If you exalt one genre above another (in an absolute sense) then be prepared for many examples of the 2genres. You're being disingenuous, flat out.

Here is my post. It is comparing all autos and their inherent problems to a specific revolver. Have someone read it to you.

"In my experience no automatic can match the S&W N frame revolver for reliability, accuracy, flexibility and power; as well as beautiful trigger pull, highest quality construction and natural pointing ability (with good grips). (Break)
The reason for choosing this weapon? Utter reliability. The entire concept of feeding jams, magazine spring weakness, double feeds, squib loads, failure to strip a round, failure to eject, stovepipe jams,weak hand jam, malfunction drills, extractor tension, ejector tuning, mag lips, bullet profile, feed ramp smoothness, etc. is irrelevant. There is no need to burn up 200 rounds to make sure a certain load is reliable in you weapon, because they always will be. (Is 200 rounds a good test? What happens when your shooting your $23.00 per 20 = 200 or $230.00 of test Super Zapper ammo and and you jam on round #190? Was it you or the gun? Do you clean and check the weapon for broken or mis-installed parts and then go out and buy another $230 bucks of ammo to re-test? Are you firing from the hip to check weak handed jams? (Try shooting weak handed from the hip and watch it jam)."

Every Simunitions kit I've seen involves a dedicated upper, or dedicated slide. I would not want to mess around with a stock firearm and Simunitions. That's my preference, you're welcome to point a loaded gun at your head for all I care because I'm not your keeper

(loaded with Simunitions of course, maybe, I dunno, did you check it? Double check it? Is the gun blue? No? Oh well, no worries it's probably loaded with Simunitions so go ahead and pull).

Simunition need a dedicated upper for an auto because they need tuned springs and lighter weight barrels to function reliability. Revolver cartridges are don't need a dedicated upper because the pull of the trigger operates the weapon. You would know this if you could read. If simunitions scare you so much, don't use them. After all, you said they were unnecessary.

Notice that some actors die because they thought the gun was loaded with blanks when it wasn't, and that happens on sets with dedicated safety personnel, chain of custody, double and tripple checks. "Force training" with real firearms, no thanks.

I don't own the company, dude. Again, if it causes you to piss in your pants, then hug your teddy, don't think about it, and it will go away.

Yes I didn't get into the 'horsepower debate." Is that some new gun term I haven't heard of before?

Is that like the caliber debate? Hey semi-autos come in all kinds of calibers. Some of them have can actually fire several different calibers (i.e. 9mm OR .357, 45 OR 45 super, etc.). You can also get them loaded in P, +P. +P+. If you hand load you can also download them too, if you were so inclined. You can even get smi-auto pistols that shoot genuine rifle rounds (if you really want penetration).

Evidently there is a lot you have not heard before. No it is not like the caliber debate. Again, an auto pistol only operates reliability within a narrow range of bullet weight, bullet profile, powder burn speed, spring pressure, strength of hold onthe weapon. A revolver works without regard to these factors. As such you can load very light rounds in a revolver for play, powerful rounds for defense, and specially constructed rounds for hunting without worrying about spring pressure, function or reliability.

Which is better 9mm or 45? Yeah no wonder I didn't talk about your horsepower issue, because there's no 'right' answer.

I never mentioned the difference between the 45 and the 9mm. Again, I was discussing the merits of power as it relates torevolver vs auto pistols for personal defense.

BTW, great attack on the poster rather than attack the post, with your criticism of my grammer and spelling. If you want to compare sheep skins I can almost guarantee I'll win... but I personally have no need to piss over spelling and grammer on a forum post.

And it certainly shows. (Grammar, not grammer) Actually, my post was almost completely dedicated to refuting your pathetic response. I have cited evidence, studies, examples, facts and observations and books. I have devoted only a line or two to the fact you can't write or spell.

Dave_pro2a · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:

And it certainly shows. (Grammar, not grammer) Actually, my post was almost completely dedicated to refuting your pathetic response. I have cited evidence, studies, examples, facts and observations and books. I have devoted only a line or two to the fact you can't write or spell.

I'll take a guy who has poor spelling and grammer over a guy who is a dick and full of shit -- any day of the week.

Dave The Welder · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Great research, you found a 30+ year old study, done by NYC, to back up the claim 'more ammo isn't needed.

It doesn't matter that the research is 30 years old, it's still valid. The gunfights that the study uses still happened and the number of rounds that were shot didn't change in the last 30 years. If you disagree with his research then you should go find a more recent one that disproves his point.

Johnny Law · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

This is not an endorsement of any type of gun in particular. Just trying to add some much needed levity to this thread.

OC-Glock19 · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

For those who say that wheelguns are too slow I give you the following.

8 shots on one target in 1 second, then 8 shots on 4 targets in 1.06 seconds, THEN 6 shots, a reload and 6 more shots in 2.99 seconds. All with a revolver.

Edited to remove objectionable content

Pa. Patriot · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

...

...

Dave_pro2a · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

Dave The Welder wrote:

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Great research, you found a 30+ year old study, done by NYC, to back up the claim 'more ammo isn't needed.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that the research is 30 years old, it's still valid. The gunfights that the study uses still happened and the number of rounds that were shot didn't change in the last 30 years. If you disagree with his research then you should go find a more recent one that disproves his point.

No, because I reject the premise.

Instead I believe that, all things being equal (i.e. level of training) it is better to have more ammo than less. And I agree with the following poster:

cREbralFIX wrote:

I disagree with this completely. Statistics does not predict the future and certainly using them to justify low capacity does not make the point valid.

***

Goblins tend to travel in packs and we're seeing more encounters where multiple attackers are shot. You may not *need* 17+1 capacity, but it's there if you do.

***

Always carry at least one full reload...ALWAYS. John Farnham (and others) have reported on several incidents where an officer was killed because he ran out of ammunition (invariably, they were off duty and carried no spare ammunition).

***

The 44 Magnum is a great carry choice! It's like getting three guns in one. Reloaders have the most versatility because they can make very soft shooting target rounds or uberthumpin' fireballers! If you're out of 44 Magnum--shoot 44 Special!

***

How many times have you been to the range and seen the bloke next to you “working” to get his weapon to feed or clearing a jam? I see it every time I go. And whilerevolver shootersremove our brass carefully, the pistol sprays hot brass all over (When one goes down your shirt, we snicker).

Click to expand...

You may pick out your brass carefully. I tilt my gun muzzle up, whack on the ejector a coupla times, and slam a moonclip in there as fast as possible.

I do this with my K17 and TRR8 too.

***

As for N-Frame reliability: hmmm..careful there. Don't get overconfident. My S&W 625's firing pin broke recently and the gun is not a year old. Problems have developed with timing. These are mechanical devices, so breakage can occur at any time. Like I tell the semi-auto guys in class: have a second gun available. I learned this early when my P220 went down...I was gunless because a $2 part broke!

Regardless of what you choose carry, keep an identical spare around. Even if it doesn't break, if you use the gun in self-defense, the police will likely confiscate the gun.

Don't let gunlessness happen to you

No need to find a contrary study.

Dave The Welder · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

No, because I reject the premise.

Instead I believe that, all things being equal (i.e. level of training) it is better to have more ammo than less. And I agree with the following poster:

cREbralFIX wrote:

I disagree with this completely. Statistics does not predict the future and certainly using them to justify low capacity does not make the point valid.

***

Goblins tend to travel in packs and we're seeing more encounters where multiple attackers are shot. You may not *need* 17+1 capacity, but it's there if you do.

Click to expand...

No need to find a contrary study.

I completely agree that all things being equal, more ammo is better than less. That's why I carry a 10 round magazine for my spare. As for statistics, you're also right in that they do not predict the future. What they do is provide trends and give us most likely scenarios for us to prepare for. How do you know that a 9mm is going to stop an attacker? Because statistically, people repeatingly shot in the chest with defensive ammunition out of a 9mm stop their aggression. You argue that 6 rounds is low capacity and not as effective as 18 rounds. Why isn't 18 rounds low capacity? How do you know that you don't need level III body armor and an M-4 with spare 30 round magazines just to go to the store? Because statistically, scenarios which involver that type of firepower don't occur often enough for most people to feel that they need that type of protection. Does that mean that it won't happen tomorrow? Of course not, because as you said, statistics don't predict the future.
This other guy wrote that goblins travel in packs more and more; how do we know this? Because of statistics. To argue that because statistics don't predict the future, we shouldn't look at them is absurd. Your entire argument is based on statistics. The world is run on statistics.

irfner · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

Wheelgunner; That is a nice revolver. It would really fill the hand and pack a wallop. It looks like it would be fun to shoot as well. I can see why it was chosen as a preferred carry gun. On the other hand I had a chance to lift 'Dave The Welder's' semi-auto, sweet sweet sweet. It would also be great to shoot. What ever gun I am carrying for self defenseI have no intention of shooting through walls or doors. In fact I try to load ammo that will not pass through a wall and hurt some innocent person. The only power I need is what is required to stop an attacker. Hopefully one I can clearly see. Which is quite different thana loadI would use for Bear hunting. As for the long drawn out shoot outs, I will leave that up to LE.

That said there are good and bad in semi-autos and revolvers. So I do not think reliability should be an issue. By the time you use a gun for carry you should be practiced with it and 100% convinced of it's reliability. Otherwise replace it or don't carry it.

Preston1911 · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

Wheelgunner.

looks like some real exhanges. I have a choice to carry a 357 or a full size springfield 1911 and I always end up carrying the 1911. I find it more comfortable to shoot and more accurate. I will say that I am very surprized how accurate the short barrelled 356 is however. Just a note, I know a former Delta operator. Most of the Delta guys carry some very trick autos. They carry sig 226's and 1911's. None carry a wheel gun. I don't know why but I can guess that in combat they need more capacity.

Merry Christmas, good wishes.

.45 1911

amlevin · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

OC-Glock19 wrote:

8 shots on one target in 1 second,

In Washington isn't it illegal to have a weapon that shoots more than 5 rounds per second?

Bear 45/70 · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

amlevin wrote:

OC-Glock19 wrote:

8 shots on one target in 1 second,

Click to expand...

In Washington isn't it illegal to have a weapon that shoots more than 5 rounds per second?

As long as you pull the trigger for each shot, you can shoot as fast as you are man enough for.

amlevin · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

That's what I thought although I thought the State added the "Shots per second" qualifier too.

Maybe to keep people from using the cam type crank activator that was popular for 10/22's

Bear 45/70 · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

amlevin wrote:

That's what I thought although I thought the State added the "Shots per second" qualifier too.

Maybe to keep people from using the cam type crank activator that was popular for 10/22's

As far as I know those crank gizmos are still legal and I never heard of a rate of fire limit. I mean how the hell do you tell a guy with a revolver that he can't fire it as fast as he can pull the trigger? Since by definition it isn't a machine gun as long as you make the trigger function for each shot.

Dave The Welder · Dec 22, 2007

imported post

irfner wrote:

On the other hand I had a chance to lift 'Dave The Welder's' semi-auto, sweet sweet sweet.

That was my problem. I had never shot a 1911 before so a friend lend me his. After shooting it for about a month I took it back to him and he asked if I wanted to buy it; the rest is history. Next time I'm over we'll have to go to the range and I'll let you shoot it. I'll also bring my shotgun over for a little trap with you.

The case for the M-29 Smith

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Attachments

Founder's Club Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member