Echo40
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2017
- Messages
- 4,058
- Reaction score
- 7,896
Over the past few years, I've seen a growing sentiment that folks need to thoroughly test their weapons to make sure that they function reliably, but it seems to be going increasingly further, essentially getting into the realms of passing the buck of Quality Assurance onto the end user of a product rather than the company who produced it.
Don't get me wrong, obviously checking a firearm to make sure that it will function reliably is just due diligence, but personally I feel that if you purchased a firearm from an otherwise reputable manufacturer, then you really shouldn't have to field-strip at the gunshop prior to purchase in order to confirm that it is free of flaws or evidence of shoddy workmanship, nor should you need to fire hundreds or even thousands of rounds of cheap steel-cased ammo at the range without any malfunctions, much less subjecting it to a gauntlet of simulations of extreme conditions in order to consider it worthy of EDC.
In addition, I feel that it's absolutely absurd how certain folks assert that knives must be subjected to straight up abuse and neglect to ensure that they're adequate for defensive use.
Honestly, in what realistic civilian self-defense scenario is one likely to have their firearm dropped/knocked into the mud, stepped on or even run over with a vehicle, yet still be left with ample time/opportunity to crouch down, pull it out of the mud, then ready it? Or have their firearm subjected to prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures below 0° or greater than 200° Fahrenheit for that matter?
Furthermore, in what situation would it be necessary to bury a knife into a piece of wood, then pry it out sideways as opposed to simply pulling it out? Or used to split hundreds of logs? Or be left in a vat of saltwater overnight?
Regardless, the aforementioned scenarios seem to be regarded with an increasing degree of seriousness, with some even insisting that such scenarios must be repeated by every "responsible individual" who "takes their personal protection seriously" because apparently these are completely realistic scenarios which may occur and we need to be prepared for.
Granted, some folks are subjecting their weapons to such extreme conditions in preparation for some sort of TEOTWAWKI scenario, but I'm not talking about them, I'm referring to those who are specifically talking about an ordinary firearm to be carried on a daily basis in the world as we know it today, tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future.
To me, it's one thing if you're deliberately preparing for extreme conditions with a loadout of weapons specifically selected to serve in an environment in which such extremes may unexpectedly occur, but for Everyday Carry, it seems excessive, to say the least.
Don't get me wrong, obviously checking a firearm to make sure that it will function reliably is just due diligence, but personally I feel that if you purchased a firearm from an otherwise reputable manufacturer, then you really shouldn't have to field-strip at the gunshop prior to purchase in order to confirm that it is free of flaws or evidence of shoddy workmanship, nor should you need to fire hundreds or even thousands of rounds of cheap steel-cased ammo at the range without any malfunctions, much less subjecting it to a gauntlet of simulations of extreme conditions in order to consider it worthy of EDC.
In addition, I feel that it's absolutely absurd how certain folks assert that knives must be subjected to straight up abuse and neglect to ensure that they're adequate for defensive use.
Honestly, in what realistic civilian self-defense scenario is one likely to have their firearm dropped/knocked into the mud, stepped on or even run over with a vehicle, yet still be left with ample time/opportunity to crouch down, pull it out of the mud, then ready it? Or have their firearm subjected to prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures below 0° or greater than 200° Fahrenheit for that matter?
Furthermore, in what situation would it be necessary to bury a knife into a piece of wood, then pry it out sideways as opposed to simply pulling it out? Or used to split hundreds of logs? Or be left in a vat of saltwater overnight?
Regardless, the aforementioned scenarios seem to be regarded with an increasing degree of seriousness, with some even insisting that such scenarios must be repeated by every "responsible individual" who "takes their personal protection seriously" because apparently these are completely realistic scenarios which may occur and we need to be prepared for.
Granted, some folks are subjecting their weapons to such extreme conditions in preparation for some sort of TEOTWAWKI scenario, but I'm not talking about them, I'm referring to those who are specifically talking about an ordinary firearm to be carried on a daily basis in the world as we know it today, tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future.
To me, it's one thing if you're deliberately preparing for extreme conditions with a loadout of weapons specifically selected to serve in an environment in which such extremes may unexpectedly occur, but for Everyday Carry, it seems excessive, to say the least.
