Excuse me? That is NOT all you said. What The record shows is you saying this:FN-Five-Seven wrote:Oh ... I am not calling anything "modern " or apparently considering anything "ancient " . It''s all you putting your own words in my comment , trying to convince me that I said it .The basic design of the cartridge you call "modern" is therefore older than the basic design of the gun you apparently consider "ancient"!
Are you a lawyer by any chance ?
All I said about the .357 Mag round is that , it's a high performance round .
The record is, then, that you called the 357 "high performance" and the 1911 a "100 + year old design and technology."What I do not understand is the logic behind using a high performance round such .357 Mag in pistol which has 100 + year old design and technology .
Reasonable people will understand your contrast here to infer that the 1911 is not "high performance" and that the 357 is not a 100 + year old design, which, of course, it is. So if this is not what you meant, please explain what you said -- ALL of what you said, not just the part that's convenient.
As far as the technology part, XL, who knows something about manufacturing in metal, has made a more than adequate case to debunk your technology allegations egarding the Coonan.
BTW, does it matter to you, whether I am a lawyer or not? I don't believe I categorizing individuals; I take them as they come. As a gun owner, I am tired of people lumping all gun owners into an undesirable category. If you want to descend into that sort of insulting and rude behavior, do it by yourself, because I won't stoop to it.
If two paragraphs constitutes a lecture to you, you must have quite an attention span.FN-Five-Seven wrote:Despite the engineering lecture , I will stick to what I said .This is an interesting comment! Semi automatic pistols based on modified 1911s and revamped 1911 designs have been the standard in pistol competition accuracy long after they put revolvers to bed, decades ago. Consider that, at least in your vaunted Smith & Wesson design, that, even if the chambers are all exactly on center, the cylinder cannot be reliably aligned with the barrel by a figure less than the clearance of the locking bolt in the notches of the cylinder, which also assumes that the locking notches are cut at exactly 60, as well. The bullet must jump from each of these 6 chambers through a lengthy freebore into an overbore forcing cone, after which it hopefully strikes the rifling squarely.
Contrary to your understanding, there are a lot more tolerances to add up in a revolver than in the 1911 design. In essence, your design intuition seems to find a tipping barrel to be less precise than a two piece barrel, and one where part of the barrel consists of 6 hopefully interchangeable parts, which are, in turn, swung in and out of the solid frame you find so reassuring. and which the hand that turns the cylinder tries to force out of the frame every time the cylinder is rotated.
Please, by all means, stick to what you have said. Likewise, the facts will stick to being facts.
Do tell? Has your attention span expired, with regard to your saying this:FN-Five-Seven wrote:I mentioned the words " weapon " & " gun " in the portion you quoted . The word " Revolver " and the concept of " Ambidextrous Cylinder release " are your imaginary contribution . So I think it's best you answer your questions yourself and consider I answered it .Second, I have to wonder at your magazine release comment! Are you saying that 1911s don't have an ambidextrous magazine release, but revolvers do? Which revolver has an ambidextrous cylinder release?
Furthermore, when you pull your revolver with your left hand and work its ambidextrous cylinder release, how do you reach over and load the cylinder with your right hand when the cylinder swings out to the left side of the weapon?
Furthermore, when you pull your revolver with your left hand and work its ambidextrous cylinder release, how do you reach over and load the cylinder with your right hand when the cylinder swings out to the left side of the weapon?
Snce you were comparing the shortcomings of the 1911 to a double action revolver, I am simply wondering where the abidextrous magazine release was on the double action revolver was that the 1911 didn't have, and which you found such a shortcoming.Also the 1911 does not have ambidextrous controls for safety or magazine release . Now , why would this bother me , a right handed person ?
Of course I said "ambidextrous cylinder release" regarding the revolver. I hope you will forgive me for assuming that you knew that revolvers have cylinders and that pistols have magazines, and that,with regard to repeating capacity, these parts have the same function. I am beginning to hope that I have not assumed too much on this matter.
The simple matter of these statements of yours is, you tried to create a strawman argument showing how the 1911 design was lacking. If you don't like 1911s, that's fair enough, and if you don't like the Coonan pistol, that's fair enough, as well. But if you decide to to build a set of strawman arguments on why your opinions are irrefutable, you might take the time to get your facts straight first.
