You're viewing a single thread.
At least that’s a revolver he’s packing. He’ll be limited to six shots with that before reloading, and not some ridiculous number like nine or sixteen.
After all, if you cannot solve a non-military, non-combat problem with six shots or less, you are unlikely to solve it with more.
Left and right holster don't look like revolvers, and he's probably gotta backup stuffed under a fat roll upfront.
Nah, look at those pants and that stance; dude's got cold steel between those cheeks.
"The only men I let inside me are Jesus, and Smith & Wesson YEEEEHAW BROTHER!"
We got a Hank Hill build here. No ass to hide a gun, let alone their fragile sense of safety.
Judging by the complete lack of any shape to the pants I'm not sure he actually has any cheeks to speak of.
All you need is a skeleton riding a motorcycle and the caps lock key and you'll be ready to join !the_pack@lemmy.world
five if he's practicing safe gun handling and keeping the hammer on an empty cylinder.
But considering the fact that he has it stuffed in his ass crack, who are we kidding. Yeah...it's six.
That was important in 1873. It's 2024 and modern guns have extra safety features.
Old revolvers had the firing in on the hammer and could fire if they were dropped and landed on an uncooked hammer. For most of the past century, however, the firing pin has been separate from the hammer and that kind of drop-fire is impossible.
Guy's still a dumbass, but every time someone says something so outlandishly incorrect it just gives ammunition to right-wing nut jobs who love to point out how little the other side knows about firearms.
Was not aware that it had been fixed. Thanks for the clarification.
Old revolvers had the firing in on the hammer and could fire if they were dropped and landed on an uncooked hammer. For most of the past century, however, the firing pin has been separate from the hammer and that kind of drop-fire is impossible.
I have some bad news for you. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/06/investigates/sig-sauer-p320-drop-fire/
That model was one of the most popular service pistols - LOADS and LOADS of them out there. That is also not the only model with drop-fire problems..... Remington 700s will unintentional discharge as well:
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/remington-fix-triggers-model-700-rifles/
There are others I cannot recall.
It's a problem.
Since these are not revolvers, they don't add to the point of carrying on an empty cylinder.
Outside of the revolver discussion, it's important to note that both of these examples were the result of QA issues that have since been corrected.
Revolvers aren't designed that way anymore.
Counters with design problems in auto-loaders and shotguns.
Welcome to arguing on the internet!
Especially about guns in a liberal space.
note t
But since you have a fixation with revolvers .. here ya go: https://www.guns.com/news/2018/09/17/rossi-safety-warning-some-revolvers-may-fire-if-dropped
Like I said. drop-firing still a problem.
Firstly, I don't have an obsession with revolvers; it's just that you responded to a conversation specifically about design changes in revolvers that mitigated the need to carry on empty cylinder.
Secondly, this is another example of a limited QA issue that has since been corrected with a recall. It doesn't seem to indicate that a modern revolver with properly functioning parts would be dangerous to carry with all cylinders loaded. Otherwise, are you to say all airbags are dangerous just because of the Takata/Honda issue that killed some people when the airbags exploded?
bsession with revolvers; it’s just that you responded to a conversation specifically about design changes in revolvers that mitigated the need to carry on empty cylinder.
Secondly, this is another example of a limited QA issue that
.... Whatever. Information free positions are impossible to discuss, you have a great evening and good luck with that stuff.
All airbags are dangerous, and this has been known for decades. It's a literal explosive box sitting right besides your thumbs. The fact they save lives doesn't make them any less dangerous. Now, if that's valid for an item developed exclusively to save lives, imagine what we can say about a weapon intended solely for killing and maiming.
That's not the statement I was replying to. The "this only happened to revolvers like 100 years ago" was the focus, which is just factually wrong. Still happens, sooo.. great? I guess. Have a nice day
There's lots of guns with problems. But double-action revolvers like the one in the picture aren't subject to the same issues as a Colt Single Action Army.
Yeah, the P365 was and is a dumpster fire of a gun the Army never should have adopted over the objectively superior guns it was up against from Glock, Beretta, HK, and Smith and Wesson.
Though zero of them in military service ever had that problem. It was discovered in the army Modular Handgun trials and corrected prior to deployment. What they didn't do was fix the guns being sold to the public until a YouTube video came out showing the issue. People should have gone to jail for that bullshit.
Yeah, Remington makes shitty guns and has for decades.
Taurus made guns that shoot when shaken, and are still sold in California because California won't authorize newer, safer models to be sold.
In this thread
if it's non combat that gun should never come out, they aren't supposed to be a deterrent but I guess that's what he's going for with this goofy look lol
Don't tell the cops that they need to use that whole mag every time.
Revolver "Shalashaska" "Ocelot" Ocelot
Relevant https://xkcd.com/692/
Take a closer look, he's got at least 3 guns on him, I wouldn't be too surprised if it was 4.
After all, if you cannot solve a non-military, non-combat problem with six shots or less, you are unlikely to solve it with more.
This is really a terrible take. 6 shots is likely not enough in most self defense circumstances. Especially if it's more than 1 attacker.