Originally Posted by
C4IGrant
I guess it could be cost, but "generally" people have enough sense. We do see the Bersa/HP/SCCY pistol crowd, but they are smaller than imagined.
When it comes to AR's, it seems that same "sense" goes out the window. Odd...
C4
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, this will be a general reply to a number of your, and others, recent comments. In particular I'll address two points.
The first applies particularly to a number of your comments, but others can be guilty as well. Maybe it's not intentional on your part, and it my seem lazy for me to repeat portions of my last post, but you seem to have an affinity for non sequiturs. I get it, they are one of the more effective logical fallacies; as they require some rough elements of truth. In this specific instance, it's found in the "pistols and rifles" argument.
Assumption 1 - Cheap (inexpensive) pistols are equal to cheap ARs
Assumption 2 - Cheap pistols are not reliable, or chosen, for self defense
Conclusion- Cheap ARs are not reliable, and shouldn't be chosen, for self defense
This logic is flawed on multiple levels. First, the assumptions are inaccurate. Reliability of a firearm is drawn from design and configuation of the components. For pistols, the designs and configurations vary. Sure, the basic function of an auto loading pistol is going to be the same across brands. But one can't take an M&P slide and slap it on a Glock frame. Very few parts are interchangeable between models and brands. So, your attempt to correlate pistols to the AR platform simply doesn't play. What makes the AR platform inherently reliable are the same elements necessary with pistols; the design of the platform and configuration of the parts. While pistol components largely cannot be swapped, the exact opposite is true for ARs. As an example, suppose we had an Armalite AR from the 90s and a Stag fresh off the assembly line today. One by one, we could swap just about every component between the rifles; and both would still function.
The second assumption also takes some liberties that may not be correct. What makes a pistol cheap? And of the pistols that would fall into that category, are they all unreliable? Given the specific brands you call out when referencing "cheap" pistols, it seems that price is basically the primary variable. So, let's start with a good pistol; Glock. Ballpark pricing is around $500. One of their biggest competitors is S&W; and most would agree that they're rough equals in reliability. S&W pistols, like the Sheild and M&P, often sell in the $300-$400 range; or 20-40% less than the cost of a Glock. We could do the same cost comparisons with models from Brands like Ruger, Springfield, etc., but the point would remain the same. Now, your claim that people don't choose these brands and models for defensive carry is untrue. There are plenty of instances where individuals have used these examples in defensive situations; and they performed as required. Having identified what makes a pistol qualify as "cheap", let's apply the same formula to rifles. I'll use Colt, as they're the "standard" you'd likely site. They run about $1000. Thus, "cheap" rifles would be those in the $600-$800 range. Models from brands like PSA, Ruger, Wyndham, and S&W can all be found in this price range. So, people that chose these models and brands, expecting them to be reliable, are no less reasonable than those people who choose the "cheap" pistols.
As evidenced by the sections above, the conclusion you've attempted to draw simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Even if my position differs from yours, regarding what makes a firearm qualify as "cheap", the more important point stands. Given that the AR platform, in terms of functional configuration, is essentially identical across the spectrum of all brands, pistols simply cannot be used as a meter to draw conclusions about ARs.
Now, my second major point regarding this debate boils down to futility. Those taking the position that certain Brands are not worthy will often site lack of evidence, and challenge those holding opposing views to provide data to prove otherwise. Nothing wrong with this. However, the goalposts are continually being moved. It generally goes something like this...
Person A- "You need to take a Class, and then report back."
Person B - "I did, and it held up perfectly."
Person A - "Well, what I really meant is that you need to take multiple classes under X conditions."
Person B - "I did, and it held up perfectly."
Person A - "Well, you just don't know and it's a sample of one. I've been to every AR factory, have seen the assembly lines and standards, and Company X does so much more than Company Y."
No evidence presented will ever be sufficient. And even when evidence is provided, it often results in the "authority" making claims that amount to "Just take my word for it." If not the "trust me" line, instead they'll use more non sequiturs. Earlier someone mentioned how Travis Haley used a BM overseas, and that it performed in harsh conditions during major firefights. And, it's no secret that plenty of other contractors used bushy ARs during their time in the Middle East. So what was the reply? "Well, Travis didn't choose to run a BM." That point is irrelevant. So what if he didn't chose it. Did it not perform as required? And, if saying Travis didn't choose it somehow proves a point, then shouldn't the decision by his Contracting firm to select BM rifles be of equal merit? Also, I doubt Travis would willingly put his life on the line if he had no faith in BM rifles. And if Blackwater was seeing major failures, I'd have to believe they would have reevaluated their selection.
I could go on, but what's the point. As stated earlier, no amount of evidence would suffice. If, as a community, we purchased 5 Colt ARs and 5 PSA's with the intention of running them through a reliability test, trying to draw conclusions would be futile. If they performed equally, the goalposts would be moved. There'd be claims that the test wasn't hard enough, that it was a fluke to have all the PSAs perform, etc. If the Colt outperformed, many would call it undeniable proof that a PSA cannot perform like a Colt. But if the PSA outperformed the Colt, that same group would say the test isn't statistically significant. It's a complete crapshoot. No matter how big of a sample size. The path of the discussion is so predictable that we could make a flowchart.
TL;DR - More non sequiturs are not the solution. Try again.
"I actually managed to figure this one out: you've got to find a woman who loves God more than she loves you -- albeit just barely."
-Army Chief
I did not know the man quoted above, and joined this Forum after his passing. He seemed to be a leader of men; both spiritually and physically. Someone we'd all be proud to emulate.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks