>From: James Rogers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > From: Chuck Kuecker <email@example.com>
> > >All I own is mechanical guns. I don't trust those newfangled
> > >electrickal gadgets.
> > Many of my associates won't own a semi-automatic for personal
> > defense because they don't consider them reliable enough.
>I assume you mean "self-loading" rather than "semi-automatic", since both
>revolvers and pistols are "semi-automatic" (unless you are talking about
>The mythical reliability of revolvers has, in recent years, been largely
>superceded by modern self-loading designs. Most of the reputation of
>self-loaders being unreliable can be traced to a hundred year history that
>was dominated by the venerable Colt 1911 (first sold in 1905 despite the
>The 1990s saw the emergence of extremely reliable self-loading designs.
>Several self-loading designs, such as the H&K USP series and the Glock
>(9mm only), have Mean Rounds Between Failure figures that greatly exceed
>the MRBF figures for most revolvers. Most of the people I know who don't
>trust the reliability of self-loading weapons are long time shooters who
>are unwilling to consider that technology has improved beyond what it was
>or who are are too stubborn to change. Revolvers are being slowly confined
>to the increasingly small niches where they still offer real advantages.
I've got two Glock "self-loaders" (10mm and .40 cal.) and they've both
proven just as reliable as my wife's Colt .357 revolver -- nary a jam in the
bunch. The Glocks will tend to misfire when using the reloads at my local
firing range, but I chalk this up to the quality (or lack thereof) of the
reloads. I've had no such problems with "out of the box" rounds. Heck the
Glock manuals even tell you not to use reloads (but I'm a big cheapskate at
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:27 MDT