For T-Shirt info, contact: Warbirdbunker.com
Join this channel to get access to exclusive members only content:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClZVCPZf1QOTEoxXKg-TPLw/join
When the projectile leaves the muzzle, the platform becomes irrelevant. A 250 grain .45 Colt GoldDot, departing a M1873 SAA revolver, with a 5.5-inch barrel, remains a highly effective defensive “system,” notwithstanding it’s “archaicness.” Okay, I am NOT suggesting we abandon modern sidearms for single action revolvers, however, if the shooter places the bullet accurately, then this nearly 150 year old firearm-design remains effective . . . as do more modern SA/DA wheel guns, 1911A1s, BHPs, traditional DA/SA autoloaders, and so forth.
I carry old guns if not old designs in handguns all the time, course I am old too. Weapons like the Walter PP,/PPK series in .380 and 7.65, the 1911 in many cartridges .38 Super on up, even Sauer 38H pistols in .32 a favorite design, but in the mix are more modern weapons like the CZ75D Compact and yes even a GLOCK 19. IM NOT adverse to a good revolver either. My opinion is based on a lot of experience and that is the only absolute in selecting a weapon, old or modern IS TO CARRY IT ALL THE TIME AND BE COMPETENT IN ITS USE. Criminal attack is going to be at close range as they want to get near the intended victim in order to prevent bring notice. They seldom have a contingency plan, and I'd estimate in 85% or more cases once the victim starts shooting, they run as this level of response was totally unexpected. If your weapon functions with the ammunition you deploy and you can competently use it, caliber or weapon type is not ad critical as many may think.
I tend to carry a revolver most days so I’m accustomed to hearing how inadequate my hand gun choice is and how it will get me killed. I like revolvers and 1911’s. I am only in my 40’s but have never been drawn to the polymer handguns. They’re great and I own some but I carry either a revolver or 1911.
LOL I don't even OWN what anyone would call a "modern fighting firearm", either handgun or rifle. My go-to home defense gun, and right at the front of my safe, is an 1897 Winchester 12 g. shotgun. I can shoot that thing almost as fast as any modern semi-auto, just by holding the trigger down as I work the action. My primary "fighting" rifle is a Soviet-made SKS manufactured in 1952. The ONLY weakness I perceive in these platforms is the inability to mount a light on them. At the engagement ranges I would expect, I don't need fancy electronic sights. Likewise, I don't expect to be facing an army, so a limited magazine capacity doesn't particularly worry me.
I have my Great Grandfathers Savage model 1907 in 32acp, I don't carry it because there is a few notroiously delicate parts in them and replacements have to be made by hand by a skilled professional at this point as all old-newstock has been used, but other than that it really isn't that out of date. It's very heavy for it's size but 10 rounds of 32 acp in such a little gun I think would still be a completely viable for a concealed carry. The sights do suck and I wouldnt want to hit anything that I couldn't point shoot at but for normal distances I think it would be completely fine.
The premise is false. The gun industry hasn't evolved or progressed in any significant manner in decades. Ammunition has gotten notably better. All I can really credit the gun industry for of late is A general improvement in trigger quality. Small arms evolution will require material advancement (FAR HIGHER CHAMBER PRESSURES) or lighter more power dense batteries …….. Coil/Gauss/Rail/ LASER etc..
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Old guns may or may t suck for self-defense. But old men do not suck at self-defense. What is the evidence? We are still alive!
An old, tested, tried and true firearm sucks for self-defense? Hardly think so.
Yes they most definitely do! Now I am starting a service to take all of them off the streets, for free!
Safety, reliability, accuracy, durability >> capacity, comfort (under many circumstances), low maintenance
When the projectile leaves the muzzle, the platform becomes irrelevant. A 250 grain .45 Colt GoldDot, departing a M1873 SAA revolver, with a 5.5-inch barrel, remains a highly effective defensive “system,” notwithstanding it’s “archaicness.” Okay, I am NOT suggesting we abandon modern sidearms for single action revolvers, however, if the shooter places the bullet accurately, then this nearly 150 year old firearm-design remains effective . . . as do more modern SA/DA wheel guns, 1911A1s, BHPs, traditional DA/SA autoloaders, and so forth.
I carry old guns if not old designs in handguns all the time, course I am old too. Weapons like the Walter PP,/PPK series in .380 and 7.65, the 1911 in many cartridges .38 Super on up, even Sauer 38H pistols in .32 a favorite design, but in the mix are more modern weapons like the CZ75D Compact and yes even a GLOCK 19. IM NOT adverse to a good revolver either. My opinion is based on a lot of experience and that is the only absolute in selecting a weapon, old or modern IS TO CARRY IT ALL THE TIME AND BE COMPETENT IN ITS
USE. Criminal attack is going to be at close range as they want to get near the intended victim in order to prevent bring notice. They seldom have a contingency plan, and I'd estimate in 85% or more cases once the victim starts shooting, they run as this level of response was totally unexpected. If your weapon functions with the ammunition you deploy and you can competently use it, caliber or weapon type is not ad critical as many may think.
I tend to carry a revolver most days so I’m accustomed to hearing how inadequate my hand gun choice is and how it will get me killed. I like revolvers and 1911’s. I am only in my 40’s but have never been drawn to the polymer handguns. They’re great and I own some but I carry either a revolver or 1911.
LOL I don't even OWN what anyone would call a "modern fighting firearm", either handgun or rifle. My go-to home defense gun, and right at the front of my safe, is an 1897 Winchester 12 g. shotgun. I can shoot that thing almost as fast as any modern semi-auto, just by holding the trigger down as I work the action. My primary "fighting" rifle is a Soviet-made SKS manufactured in 1952. The ONLY weakness I perceive in these platforms is the inability to mount a light on them. At the engagement ranges I would expect, I don't need fancy electronic sights. Likewise, I don't expect to be facing an army, so a limited magazine capacity doesn't particularly worry me.
I have my Great Grandfathers Savage model 1907 in 32acp, I don't carry it because there is a few notroiously delicate parts in them and replacements have to be made by hand by a skilled professional at this point as all old-newstock has been used, but other than that it really isn't that out of date. It's very heavy for it's size but 10 rounds of 32 acp in such a little gun I think would still be a completely viable for a concealed carry. The sights do suck and I wouldnt want to hit anything that I couldn't point shoot at but for normal distances I think it would be completely fine.
I would trust my 1911a1 and my Berreta 92s. Thanks HR
The premise is false. The gun industry hasn't evolved or progressed in any significant manner in decades. Ammunition has gotten notably better. All I can really credit the gun industry for of late is A general improvement in trigger quality. Small arms evolution will require material advancement (FAR HIGHER CHAMBER PRESSURES) or lighter more power dense batteries …….. Coil/Gauss/Rail/ LASER etc..