message board home
Next
3/29/2012 8:16:18 AM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: Shotguns Subject: Maverick HS-12 Shotgun Msg# 826888
|
||||||
|
I've got to go with Mark on this one... How do you know that there are only going to be two goblins coming in through the broken glass? And, if there are only two, how do you know you won't miss either one of them with your first shot in the dark? Not something I'd ever bet any family lives on.
As for operational difficulties, if you can open and close a double gun you can probably work a slide between its two stops. Both have safeties to worry about, so neither has an advantage there. Allan your comments on capacity really cant be argued against. if that is a concern, a double will never win. as to the above. i dont know if there will be 1, or 20, once never does. just statistically speaking, 2 shots are the average fired in self defense scenarios. i know thats an average, but the possibility of the hordes of hell are slim, so that shouldnt be a reason in and of itsself. I dont disagree about the second above, however, in my observations i see many beginners short stroke the pump when excited OR take the muzzle out of action, as they pivot it up to the sky to obtain better purchase on the slide release and the foreend to manipulate the pump. I think those could be critical issues in a self defense situation. your comments about capacity are right on, they cant be argued against. and like i have commented to mark, this is probably a theoretical argument anyways as this only applies if the gun can be had for $300 or less, as I cant see a beginner entering the defensive shotgun market with $600. if you need a first time shotgun and have $300 or whatever, there really is only one choice. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: I find it arrogant to think that the most vetted form of self defense in the firearm world, that has successfully been used by solider, sailor, farmer, wife for hundreds of years, can somehow now be dismissed as no longer relevant. I can deploy it faster, fire off 2 rounds faster, not have to worry about pumping or slide release but can concentrate on target acquisition and whether or not to shoot. I've got to go with Mark on this one... How do you know that there are only going to be two goblins coming in through the broken glass? And, if there are only two, how do you know you won't miss either one of them with your first shot in the dark? Not something I'd ever bet any family lives on. As for operational difficulties, if you can open and close a double gun you can probably work a slide between its two stops. Both have safeties to worry about, so neither has an advantage there. The two-shot capacity is the absolute deal breaker for me. I would never use a double-anything for self defense. It strikes me as choosing to enter a fight with one hand tied behind your back and then tying it there yourself. I don't see anything positive about putting yourself further behind the self-defense 8-ball on purpose. Unless you and the local DA believe that a local castle doctrine law means you can shoot people just for breaking into your home, you are not going to be able to use deadly force unless and until you are under the imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. That means you are already behind and trying to catch up under the worst possible kind of pressure. I'll take the extra cushion of having five or more rounds in a pump gun, and the benefit of being able to slip replacements into the magazine tube with the gun continuously pointed at the threat and without temporarily disabling its action. If you can break open the double, clear the empty hulls, poke fresh shells in the holes, close the gun and reacquire the threat (in the dark) as fast as you can ca-chuck a pump gun (and with as little distraction), then you're not giving anything up by using a double. Otherwise you are taking an unnecessary risk. It isn't that a double gun is no longer relevant but rather that there are choices far less limited available today. I don't see any arrogance here, to me it looks more like an attempted promotion of common sense. That's how I see it but I freely admit I've been proven wrong before... |
