Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
onetime

the problem with the mini-revolver is

6 posts in this topic

you;'re breaking the law to carry it, and after you pull it out, you're still not armed.  Ditto lugging around any sort of single shot.  I can clear a malfunction with EVERY shot from an AR15 and still be faster for the repeat hit than anyone can be with any single shot. So WHY give up the rapidfire potential, hmm? there's no reason. Dont kid yourself that if shtf, dozens of people wont hear every non suppressed shot that you fire, and plenty of them will shoot you on sight.

Lucienuh likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. How is a mini-revolver in any way tactically comparable to an AR-15 and your ability to clear a stoppage? And if you're breaking the law to carry a mini-revolver, how is an AR legal to carry under the same circumstances? I'm not harassing you, I'm just trying to figure out what your statement is about.

wally and juzcallmesnake like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the comparison was about 2 guns, the single shot shotgun or rifle  and the pocket pistol. If you're going to bother to lug around a longarm, why give up rapidfire? there's no reason.  If you're going to carry a pistol, why not carry one that offers rapidfire, and a LOT more power than any mini-revolver can offer?  Same size and weight, so why settle for 1 hit per second, with 60 ft lbs, when  you can have 5 per second, with  200 ft lbs, each hit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DUH of course I have always been a proponent of one semi auto in the group you carry,  I like a bolt rifle but would carry a semi pistol as well as a hide out those I would like in the same caliber.

wally likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always considered the "mini-revolver", to be the ones from North American Arms. I feel that as a last ditch "better than a stern look" tool that can easily fit into almost anyone"s pocket or other location, it is fine for it's (as I see it subjectively of course), intended purpose.

To me, that means as a third firearm in my person. I am not comfortable with one as a primary carry, but that is my own predjuidice coming through.

In urban nvironments, and "some" rural type areas, I personally prefer capacity over anything else, strictly due to population and social demographics.

juzcallmesnake and wally like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recent Topics

  • Posts

    • Books and wood carving here.....and sutureing,.. to go with the wood carving.
    • We are dealing with a narcissistic blackmailer like a robber in a bank with a room full of hostages and that is the scenario we have a madman with nukes threatening the whole world, if his demands are not met he may well sell weapons to our enemies, to bolster their position. When there is a madman in the room full of hostages with a gun you take him out. In this case we cannot afford for any of his military elite to survive him because if they have orders to launch or attack Seoul a city of millions he or surviving hierarchy will lash out. The strike has to be unseen and lay waste to Pyongyang timed with strikes to wipe out the military ability to use rockets and artillery I am just as sure they have Exocet m38 type missiles as well as many weapons we have turned from because of world opinion, that places us at a small disadvantage in close combat or naval surface warfare. It is a well known eastern tactic to get in so close so that their enemy cannot use any extraordinary weapons without killing themselves. This is why a conventional war with North Korea as it would kill millions in Seoul our troops and destroy many of our vessels and aircraft that threat alone make consider the nuclear option is the only course or we risk millions of innocent civilians and 35 thousand of our own troops as well as many thousands of sailors and air crews.  nuclear weapons are mass destruction indiscriminate and have long lasting implications if there is any destruction and indiscriminate killing I want it to be on them not us or South Koreans. Those that think we could merge the two are misunderstanding that like the old Japanese soldiers of World War 11 they were so indoctrinated they thought we were going to cannibalize rape and turn them all into salves as well as their leader was "god" most are just as institutionalized as a life sentenced criminal.  I sure don't like this but unless we are willing to fight the Korean War all over again with 10 to  100 times more losses against a country that is but an attack dog  of China that has gone off it's leash. China has created a Frankenstein and the monster may turn on them and that is what China fears just as much as a war that pushes millions of refugees over their borders. India and China have sent troops to repel refugees ------- Whhaaatt no open borders whats the world coming to.
    • Really great post and questions. I'm a woman and I'll ponder this a bit more before responding. (No offense taken at all BTW).
    • yea it's been a while glad your back.
    • If it were not for spell check it would look like the ramblings of Ted Kaczynski, bad enough my my lack of punctuation and tendency of dropping letters from my ring and pinky fingers it would take the investigators of the dead sea scrolls to decipher the ramblings IMO. Or did you mean Chicago typewriter ? I have proof read my stuff and found I drooped a paragraph of essential information primary to the topic.