|
Post by scottw on Oct 19, 2016 16:13:59 GMT
Ahhh, yes, like the destructive might of the US military in Vietnam..it's man's folly to not learn from history. The US contains the most well armed populace in the entire world. If you think we're just a bunch of people who have a lot of guns, you haven't thought it through. Just my own two cents on the matter. There have been more than a couple of technological developments in the 40+ years since the Vietnam war. We don't fight wars now the way we did then. I am a military veteran and I live in Texas. I have no illusions about what American civilians can bring to bear, and it frankly isn't enough to matter in any sort of armed engagement with a 'first world' military. Don't kid yourself. I stopped kidding myself when I was still a kid. Don't take a defeatist attitude and apply it to the rest of the world. What happens when we take what they have? As I said, you haven't thought it through. I was in the military too, and I live in Texas as well Apparently we come from different worlds though. Anyway, back on topic. The comments about the .44 round are true, as well. .44 has its own versatility, just like the .357. Something you don't see much in other calibers. I guess they dont make a lot of things like they used to though..
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 19, 2016 16:22:10 GMT
IMO, .44 is getting outside of the sweet-spot of revolver size/weight which I find comfortable to tote around on a long hump.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 19, 2016 16:34:18 GMT
Someone needs to describe an apocalypse first and give good examples.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,815
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 19, 2016 16:51:13 GMT
Huge flesh eating bacteria clouds!
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 19, 2016 17:08:02 GMT
Someone needs to describe an apocalypse first and give good examples. Phil Plait does a good job in Death From The Skies. My particular favorite is a Gamma Ray Burst (GRB).
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 19, 2016 18:57:43 GMT
Doesn't sound like we need to worry about what happens afterwards.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 19, 2016 19:12:18 GMT
Doesn't sound like we need to worry about what happens afterwards. That's true for just about anything that would be truly apocalyptic. The lucky ones die quickly. Everyone else dies of dysentery or spongiform encephalopathy.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,815
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 19, 2016 19:28:32 GMT
But which of the revolvers lying around then would have been the best? (Back to topic) ... for a: Trapper (lone hunter) Fighter (zombies, killerpunks) Camper (bears)?
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 19, 2016 19:51:29 GMT
Ahhh, yes, like the destructive might of the US military in Vietnam..it's man's folly to not learn from history. The US contains the most well armed populace in the entire world. If you think we're just a bunch of people who have a lot of guns, you haven't thought it through. Just my own two cents on the matter. There have been more than a couple of technological developments in the 40+ years since the Vietnam war. We don't fight wars now the way we did then. I am a military veteran and I live in Texas. I have no illusions about what American civilians can bring to bear, and it frankly isn't enough to matter in any sort of armed engagement with a 'first world' military. Don't kid yourself. There is no fighting Asymmetric (guerrilla) Warfare in this country, with any type of military. Nobody is going to bomb their own towns, homes, communities, etc...which is like eating/sleeping where they poop. The reason for the Second Amendment in this country is the ability to address a potential, future tyrannical entity through Asymmetric (guerrilla) Warfare. Every hunting rifle is a sniper rifle, behind every blade of grass, in the very home towns of the soldiers who would be fighting them. If it cant work in a barren desert in the middle east...NO WAY its gonna work here. Politically, the assassinations, bombings, EASY destruction of infrastructure on all levels would be intolerable. The military would quickly attack any political group that ordered them to hurt their OWN CITIZENS.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 19, 2016 20:14:05 GMT
It's been proven time and time again that in civil war, the militaries can and will follow out orders to attack their own countrymen.
How did we get to this topic while discussing revolvers? I like the Webley, and the old french cavalry revolvers. But I don't go hunting and don't have any combat experience. I just like how they look.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 19, 2016 20:23:01 GMT
It's been proven time and time again that in civil war, the militaries can and will follow out orders to attack their own countrymen. How did we get to this topic while discussing revolvers? I like the Webley, and the old french cavalry revolvers. But I don't go hunting and don't have any combat experience. I just like how they look. Civil war is a bit different than the abuses of a potential Orwellian police state.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 19, 2016 20:27:49 GMT
There have been more than a couple of technological developments in the 40+ years since the Vietnam war. We don't fight wars now the way we did then. I am a military veteran and I live in Texas. I have no illusions about what American civilians can bring to bear, and it frankly isn't enough to matter in any sort of armed engagement with a 'first world' military. Don't kid yourself. There is no fighting Asymmetric (guerrilla) Warfare in this country, with any type of military. Nobody is going to bomb their own towns, homes, communities, etc...which is like eating/sleeping where they poop. The reason for the Second Amendment in this country is the ability to address a potential, future tyrannical entity through Asymmetric (guerrilla) Warfare. Every hunting rifle is a sniper rifle, behind every blade of grass, in the very home towns of the soldiers who would be fighting them. If it cant work in a barren desert in the middle east...NO WAY its gonna work here. Politically, the assassinations, bombings, EASY destruction of infrastructure on all levels would be intolerable. The military would quickly attack any political group that ordered them to hurt their OWN CITIZENS. The US isn't the only country with a modern military. Also, if some radical militia attempted some sort of violent coup you can bet they would be put down hard and fast. There are any number of plausible scenarios we can cook up that might put armed civilians into direct conflict with a 'first world' military, and the only time the pros don't steamroller the partisans is when they aren't allowed to fully engage. The Red Dawn scenario is a lie try-hards tell themselves out of delusion or low self-esteem. In the real world the Spetsnaz would have turned Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen into a fine red mist, and that was before the advent of drones.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 19, 2016 22:06:52 GMT
There is no fighting Asymmetric (guerrilla) Warfare in this country, with any type of military. Nobody is going to bomb their own towns, homes, communities, etc...which is like eating/sleeping where they poop. The reason for the Second Amendment in this country is the ability to address a potential, future tyrannical entity through Asymmetric (guerrilla) Warfare. Every hunting rifle is a sniper rifle, behind every blade of grass, in the very home towns of the soldiers who would be fighting them. If it cant work in a barren desert in the middle east...NO WAY its gonna work here. Politically, the assassinations, bombings, EASY destruction of infrastructure on all levels would be intolerable. The military would quickly attack any political group that ordered them to hurt their OWN CITIZENS. The US isn't the only country with a modern military. Also, if some radical militia attempted some sort of violent coup you can bet they would be put down hard and fast. There are any number of plausible scenarios we can cook up that might put armed civilians into direct conflict with a 'first world' military, and the only time the pros don't steamroller the partisans is when they aren't allowed to fully engage. The Red Dawn scenario is a lie try-hards tell themselves out of delusion or low self-esteem. In the real world the Spetsnaz would have turned Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen into a fine red mist, and that was before the advent of drones. No question we are in agreement regarding enemies from abroad, which would be handled by our military. The asymmetric warfare on a foreign power, assuming they would win against our military (they WOULD NOT) would be FOREVER, and they would lose there as well...the soil of America would simply be poisonous towards such a thing (to many infrastructure variables working against it). No civil war militia would prevail against the US Govt. (we are in agreement on that). It is a potential future tyrannical govt. entity that is the main reason for the Second Amendment, and what I'm pointing out. The Soviets would have never attempted the (silly) "Red Dawn" fever dream, even taking out the impossibility of defeating the US military, they would inherit a poisonous soil with snipers behind every blade of grass and street corner, with NO infrastructure functioning.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Oct 20, 2016 1:32:17 GMT
Thank for the recommendations. I actually forgot about this thread
And of course anyone could argue the effectiveness of a rifle or anything like that, but if the world is just starting to go down hill, many people will still be alive and will probably like to try take my gun from me. Not to mention that a bigger gun will need to be lugged around.
I wanted a reliable small weapon so I can conceal it. The way I see it, I could always just sneak up on someone and take their gun if I needed to. And just so you guys feel better, I'll say this person is a bandit and he insulted your guys momma. So he deserves it.
If everything goes downhill, there will be few surviving, in my opinion. It's basically gonna just be one long paintball match, and I don't feel like being the first who goes. I would rather last for a bit just to see what happens until I inevitably die. After all, it is an apocalypse. It wouldn't be an apocalypse if you could survive it.
But anyway, a revolver would just be a base gun until I could find something else. I'm not looking to be the armed up guy that everyone robs when he's sleeping, working hard in the sane world so that when it hits the fan, I'll be the number one supplier.
|
|
|
Post by Alexander on Oct 20, 2016 3:10:32 GMT
Ahhh, yes, like the destructive might of the US military in Vietnam..it's man's folly to not learn from history. The US contains the most well armed populace in the entire world. If you think we're just a bunch of people who have a lot of guns, you haven't thought it through. Just my own two cents on the matter. There have been more than a couple of technological developments in the 40+ years since the Vietnam war. We don't fight wars now the way we did then. I am a military veteran and I live in Texas. I have no illusions about what American civilians can bring to bear, and it frankly isn't enough to matter in any sort of armed engagement with a 'first world' military. Don't kid yourself. Someone should tell ISIS
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 20, 2016 3:25:27 GMT
There have been more than a couple of technological developments in the 40+ years since the Vietnam war. We don't fight wars now the way we did then. I am a military veteran and I live in Texas. I have no illusions about what American civilians can bring to bear, and it frankly isn't enough to matter in any sort of armed engagement with a 'first world' military. Don't kid yourself. Someone should tell ISIS I know there is a lot of confusing misinformation being thrown about, but there really isn't a committed '1st world' military fighting ISIS. You can regurgitate any nonsensical rhetoric you like, but ISIS wouldn't last a year against a modern army fighting a total war.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Oct 20, 2016 5:22:03 GMT
I don't at all mind the current discussions and by all means, continue, as its educational. But let's keep in mind that politics isn't allowed and that everyone has their views on war. What's supporting evidence for you could be seen as a chink your armour by someone else. That's the thing about views.
Not calling anyone out. I don't know anything about war. I'm joining the military this year so hopefully I can contribute more to this discussion in the future
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cobol on Oct 20, 2016 6:47:58 GMT
Back to the earlier suggestions of a Ruger or S&W 357 -- I'd be inclined to pay extra for the S&W. The Ruger GP100 & SP101 I have owned both had worse trigger pulls than my (older) Smiths, so my double-action speed & accuracy suck. I wouldn't go with either of those unless you are willing to cock manually. Also those Rugers both pinch my trigger finger and would raise a blister if I practiced very long.
By far the best double-action revolver trigger pull I've seen is the centerfire Ruger LCR, but sadly I don't think they make a model (yet) that would suit you, just 2-inch fixed sight models several calibers, plus a 3-inch adjustable-sight 38. All are really light & easy to carry but recoil can be nasty. But eventually I expect they'll put their sweet new trigger pull trick into some larger & heavier guns.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 20, 2016 13:56:27 GMT
In discussion like this, I generally suggest that if people don't like the way things are or the results of the last election, they should call for a convention and start the ball rolling for something else. It's been done before for exactly the very reason that some people would do it now. It didn't turn out well at all. Besides, that would be a pretty radical thing to do and not conservative at all, in my opinion. I consider myself a conservative, though my wife would argue otherwise. After all, I voted for Nixon.
I just don't understand how some people can interpret the 2nd amendment as a means of changing the government, which is covered quite well in the body of the constitution and it's one of those things that gets under my skin.
Speaking of knives, not to change the subject, but I have read that Bowie knives were sometimes the subject of early restrictions on the carrying of weapons, although they were supposedly considered controversial, a Bowie knife not being that easy to define. It's like "assault rifle," another term used solely for political purposes. Such and such a rifle is or isn't an assault rifle ad infinitum. All I know is, the army doesn't use them. There's no reference to such a thing in any army manual. I don't even think Cooper used the term and he's the only person I can think of entitled to make up a definition for a firearm, like "scout rifle." Or Scout Rifle.
I'll be quiet now for a while.
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Oct 20, 2016 18:00:11 GMT
We have a rule here that discussion of politics is not allowed. I have taken this thread down and deleted the political discussion.
|
|