>>then maybe they are not that good of a shot.
Maybe they aren’t. So what? Some fishermen aren’t that good. Some bowlers aren’t that good. Most golfers aren’t that good.
But, we are humans. We can compensate with technology. That’s what makes us better than animals. A toothless old man can kill a healthy grizzly bear, but a toothless old grizzly bear cannot.
It’s really not your place or mine to decide that a person can’t use technology to overcome their shortfalls. That’s what Progressives do.
>>the more problems it will have over the lifetime or under adverse conditions.
Again, so what? My first 1911 (Colt Model 70) jammed on a round about every 14 shots. I spent a bunch of money and got it good enough to shoot 100 rounds with maybe one failure. My latest 1911 has never failed to feed.
Never. That’s with about 1000 rounds through it.
My 20 year old Glock 17 has never failed to feed or broken a part. As a test, I did not clean it for the first 750 rounds, except to brush the barrel. Never a problem. No reasonable person would make the claim that a Glock is not a gun that is built for adverse conditions.
The AR and AK platforms have fought in many wars. I have a friend with a Remington 700 that has a recall notice on the trigger. All machinery can and will break. The huge advantages of a modern semi-auto far outweigh the very small probability that they will fail more than anything else.
“...The huge advantages of a modern semi-auto far outweigh the very small probability that they will fail more than anything else.”
An incomplete view of the situation. Also neglects the key element of mission orientation. Like any other tool, a firearm is designed to perform a specific function. Try to make perform other functions, and it will not be so successful. Tradeoffs are inescapable; we live in a suboptimal world.
Small arms like the AR-15 family of rifles were designed to lay down large volumes of fire without interruption, and to be controlled in full-auto fire. Individually aimed shots are not even part of the Army Dept’s definition of “firepower” (which is shots per minute). Optimization for the volume-fire mission renders them less useful for the private-party owner, who would typically operate alone and will not have the money nor the field transport to support the lavish logistics needed to accomplish volume fire.
Autoloading guns have no “huge advantage” that renders them superior for every task in every circumstance.
Grenades work pretry well too. :)
Only joking. I agree people should use whatever you want. Black powder, bow, even a shotgun.