Not comparing assault rilfes and battle rifles. When somebody says rilfes the assumption is that he menas battle rifles, especially whith his emphasis on bigger and faster bullets that make sense no?
It is not about him learning to shoot properly, that would take a we ebit longer.
But you waon’t use full size or large frame pistols as backups if you can help it. Ta this point I don’t care about his opionin, he has priven time and time again tat he does not know what he is on about.
(Sub) compacts just happen to be the category that would make the most sense to carry as a civillian.
Here’s a 1911 barrel with a close-up on the chamber. The dark thing hanging below the chamber is the cam that tilts it up to lock the barrel into the slide and then back down to allow the slide to eject the spent case and strip another cartridge from the magazine. Fixed barrel pistols without revolving cylinders are only a minority of what most sane people would consider pistols.
Its literally such a slighty movement that it I didnt even mention it, unlike in revolvers where the entire chamber rotates. And how could I “go “well not too much”” if you havent proven me wrong yet, as if i have done it?
And are you are trying to compare one mistake to borderline unreadable comments of yours, I didnt even “give you shit” for spellchecking, I just told you to put some actual effort if you want people to understand you.
You said it did not move, it did. How much it moved is not the point. Also, revolver chambers don’t move during the firing process.
See above
Yes, yes I am. It is the same principle. Also you oddly enough seemed perfectly capable of undertstanding me (as in readign my words, not undertsanding my arguemnts mind), despite what you make out to be “grave spelling errors”.
Again its such a slight movement compare to when a revolver chaimber moves.
It isnt odd, I could understand your previous comments after decrypting them, instead of you just writing properly. Its not the same principle, if you think so that is concerning.
Are you seriously comparing how much a tilt-barrel Browning-type short recoil semiautomatic pistol moves in comparison with a revolver?
Sure, the barrel itself might not move as much as the chambers revolving, but did ever you consider the other moving parts of the pistol? A pistol has much more moving parts than a revolver.
At this point it has been well established that he knows even less about guns than I do.
Still not the issu. You said they do not move, you were proven wrong. Instead of actually refuting arguemnts or admitting defeat you just go “well yes but actually no”.
You could read them, despite me not bothering to sepllcheck, yes.
As far as I can tell you never quote understood unqote them. I don’t have any issues with spelling errors, not even on your part. I just find it funny that you give people shit for soemthing you do yourself.
I do not care how much moving parts a pistol has. The chambers of a revolver rotate and move significantly more than a tiny movement of a pistol. Pistols arent the same as revolvers
My claim was that pistols are not the same thing as revolvers.
Can you actually read my comments? I didnt “give you shit”, I told you to put effort. What the fuck is this even suppossed to mean?
I literally dont know what you are trying to say in that sentance, that is incomparable to one mistake I made, and if you find that funny you have a horrible sense of humor.
