Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Semi-Auto Handguns > 1911vsGlockvsXDMvsM&P...etc

View Poll Results: 1911 or Glock
1911 44 70.97%
Glock 18 29.03%
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-05-2013, 04:14 AM   #341
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,485
Liked 896 Times on 511 Posts
Likes Given: 363

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post
Apollo 13 barely made it back. It was a miracle that the crew survived. Despite what you'd like to believe, it was still a failure. The Apollo design failed that crew.

Considering the number of Apollo missions vs space shuttle missions, the space shuttle is far safer. There is a MUCH lower chance of anything going wrong. Of course, that doesn't align with your misguided attempt to prove that less parts are always better, so you'll probably just ignore that fact.
The Space Shuttle never left earth orbit and those 14 people who were aboard Challenger and Columbia are still factually very dead, so yeah, I guess it's not evidence that more complicated systems are more reliable, is it?

Your statements provide more examples of anti-logic than some liberals.
__________________
kbd512 is offline  
 
Old 08-05-2013, 04:34 AM   #342
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6559 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

..........

h4b75d819.jpg  
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Old 08-05-2013, 04:41 AM   #343
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ShagNasty1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,524
Liked 460 Times on 267 Posts
Likes Given: 22

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512

The Space Shuttle never left earth orbit and those 14 people who were aboard Challenger and Columbia are still factually very dead, so yeah, I guess it's not evidence that more complicated systems are more reliable, is it?

Your statements provide more examples of anti-logic than some liberals.
Says the one who said if you pay more, you get a better product but then says a plastic Glock that's been around for 25 years is better than a 1911, which is a design with minor changes (like Glock, lets not forget the different generations) which has been out for over 100 years. Lets take a look on those prices. A Glock Gen 3 goes for $529.99 at the local academy. A Colt 1911, which is the standard for 1911's goes for around 800 and up depending on where you are. Both NIB. Now according to what you said earlier, spend more money, get a better product, yet you still are arguing that a Glock is better than a 1911. Please explain that logic fallacy? And you're right. The shuttle never left orbit. That was never its job. But, it never also blew up in space. One was right above the launch pad and the other was in the atmosphere. Put the Saturn V through 134 launches and see if there is more than a partial failure that a crew got extremely lucky on. I'm sure there will be more than 2 failures compared to 1 in 11 launches. Lets use some math on that. 1 failure (and yes it was a failure whether you like to admit it or not) to 11 launches multipled by X over 134 launches. That would equate to 12.19 failures then
__________________
ShagNasty1001 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Old 08-05-2013, 04:49 AM   #344
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,485
Liked 896 Times on 511 Posts
Likes Given: 363

Default

Tex, when you don't like the fact that numbers don't work out in your favor it's a pissing contest.

You tried to tell me how much "safer" the Space Shuttle was than Apollo, and yet nobody died who flew aboard an Apollo spacecraft whereas 14 people died in two different shuttles. I guess when you're dead you truly are "safe" because nothing can be detrimental to you at that point, but if the machine you're riding in kills you because of mechanical failure, most of us choose to call that a mechanical issue, problem, or incident of unreliability with respect to the faulty aspect of the design.

I try to separate my personal likes and dislikes and focus on how things actually work out in real life versus how I would like them to work.

I like simple solutions to simple problems because all other things being equal the simplest answer to a problem tends to be the correct one. If not, there's generally overwhelming evidence that a more complicated solution is necessary to solve the problem.

More complicated mechanical systems can be more reliable than simpler ones, but generally at greatly increased cost in terms of time and resources. Again, general case, not some specific example that you can find to try to counter the general case.

__________________
kbd512 is offline  
 
Old 08-05-2013, 04:53 AM   #345
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,485
Liked 896 Times on 511 Posts
Likes Given: 363

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShagNasty1001 View Post
Says the one who said if you pay more, you get a better product but then says a plastic Glock that's been around for 25 years is better than a 1911, which is a design with minor changes (like Glock, lets not forget the different generations) which has been out for over 100 years. Lets take a look on those prices. A Glock Gen 3 goes for $529.99 at the local academy. A Colt 1911, which is the standard for 1911's goes for around 800 and up depending on where you are. Both NIB. Now according to what you said earlier, spend more money, get a better product, yet you still are arguing that a Glock is better than a 1911. Please explain that logic fallacy? And you're right. The shuttle never left orbit. That was never its job. But, it never also blew up in space. One was right above the launch pad and the other was in the atmosphere. Put the Saturn V through 134 launches and see if there is more than a partial failure that a crew got extremely lucky on. I'm sure there will be more than 2 failures compared to 1 in 11 launches. Lets use some math on that. 1 failure (and yes it was a failure whether you like to admit it or not) to 11 launches multipled by X over 134 launches. That would equate to 12.19 failures then
You can make a 1911 every bit as reliable as a Glock and even more so if you have enough time and money.

For a fixed cost, generally speaking, you can't make a more complicated mechanical device more reliable than a simpler mechanical device. If money is not a consideration, then given greater resource investment it is possible to build a more complicated mechanical device that is just as reliable in actual use as a simpler mechanical device.

Let's do some math on actual historical figures Shag:

0 in-flight deaths of Apollo crew members

14 in-flight deaths of Space Shuttle crew members

Consider those figures however you want to in your head, but 0 deaths is better than 14 deaths in my mind.
__________________

Last edited by kbd512; 08-05-2013 at 04:59 AM.
kbd512 is offline  
 
Old 08-05-2013, 05:10 AM   #346
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ShagNasty1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,524
Liked 460 Times on 267 Posts
Likes Given: 22

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512

For a fixed cost, generally speaking, you can't make a more complicated mechanical device more reliable than a simpler mechanical device. If money is not a consideration, then given greater resource investment it is possible to build a more complicated mechanical device that is just as reliable in actual use as a simpler mechanical device.

Let's do some math on actual historical figures Shag:

0 in-flight deaths of Apollo crew members

14 in-flight deaths of Space Shuttle crew members

Consider those figures however you want to in your head, but 0 deaths is better than 14 deaths in my mind.
I get the deaths. I'm not talking about deaths. I'm talking mechanical failure. A crew got lucky with the Apollo mission. The Challenger and Columbia crews didn't. I know this, it affected me with the Columbia explosion, as I knew the commander of that shuttle, Colonel Husband. His family was a friend of my grandparents. And lets do some math again on historical figures for you.

Apollo Missions: 11 over 5 years with 1 MECHANICAL failure

Shuttle Missions: 134 over 20 years (as of 2011) with 2 MECHANICAL failures which resulted in the loss of 14 lives

MECHANICALLY speaking. The Apollo rockets had a failure rate of 9%. The Shuttles had a failure rate of just under 1.5%. Did those two failures have a worse effect? Yes. But mechanically speaking, a failure is a failure and the Apollo Rockets had a higher percentage. There is no denying simple algebra. Not once did I mention any deaths. I said mechanical failures.

Now more math for you

Take Apollos 1 MECHANICAL failure over 11 missions (1/11) and multiply it by X number of failures over 134 missions like the Shuttles have (X/134). Now cross multiply and divide. That would be 11X/134 multiplied by 100 so you get a percentage. That would make X at 8 percent. Still higher than the shuttles. Now 2 of those shuttle missions had casualties. So we must factor those in for Apollo. Take that 8 percent and multiply it by the 1.49 percent of the shuttles MECHANICAL failures (which resulted in casualties so the numbers would be the same) and you would have 7.8% of those would not have casualties
__________________

Last edited by ShagNasty1001; 08-05-2013 at 05:15 AM.
ShagNasty1001 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Old 08-05-2013, 05:12 AM   #347
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6559 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512 View Post
Tex, when you don't like the fact that numbers don't work out in your favor it's a pissing contest.

You tried to tell me how much "safer" the Space Shuttle was than Apollo, and yet nobody died who flew aboard an Apollo spacecraft whereas 14 people died in two different shuttles. I guess when you're dead you truly are "safe" because nothing can be detrimental to you at that point, but if the machine you're riding in kills you because of mechanical failure, most of us choose to call that a mechanical issue, problem, or incident of unreliability with respect to the faulty aspect of the design.

I try to separate my personal likes and dislikes and focus on how things actually work out in real life versus how I would like them to work.

I like simple solutions to simple problems because all other things being equal the simplest answer to a problem tends to be the correct one. If not, there's generally overwhelming evidence that a more complicated solution is necessary to solve the problem.

More complicated mechanical systems can be more reliable than simpler ones, but generally at greatly increased cost in terms of time and resources. Again, general case, not some specific example that you can find to try to counter the general case.


..........
pointless-debate.jpg  
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
3
People Like This 
Old 08-05-2013, 05:13 AM   #348
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6559 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShagNasty1001 View Post
I get the deaths. I'm not talking about deaths. I'm talking mechanical failure. A crew got lucky with the Apollo mission. The Challenger and Columbia crews didn't. I know this, it affected me with the Columbia explosion, as I knew the commander of that shuttle, Colonel Husband. His family was a friend of my grandparents. And lets do some math again on historical figures for you.

Apollo Missions: 11 over 5 years with 1 MECHANICAL failure

Shuttle Missions: 134 over 20 years (as of 2011) with 2 MECHANICAL failures which resulted in the loss of 14 lives

MECHANICALLY speaking. The Apollo rockets had a failure rate of 9%. The Shuttles had a failure rate of just under 1.5%. Did those two failures have a worse effect? Yes. But mechanically speaking, a failure is a failure and the Apollo Rockets had a higher percentage. There is no denying simple algebra. Not once did I mention any deaths. I said mechanical failures.

Now more math for you

Take Apollos 1 MECHANICAL failure over 11 missions (1/11) and multiply it by X number of failures over 134 missions like the Shuttles have (X/134). Now cross multiply and divide. That would be 11X/134 multiplied by 100 so you get a percentage. That would make X at 8 percent. Still higher than the shuttles.
Clear your pms.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Old 08-05-2013, 05:18 AM   #349
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ShagNasty1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,524
Liked 460 Times on 267 Posts
Likes Given: 22

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker

Clear your pms.
Should be good now
__________________
ShagNasty1001 is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Old 08-05-2013, 05:27 AM   #350
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6559 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default



__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Glock 1911 (lip) Vincine Semi-Auto Handguns 3 04-01-2012 11:01 PM
Glock 21 vs 1911 RedLegX Semi-Auto Handguns 46 01-03-2012 05:24 AM
1911 or glock austin125 Semi-Auto Handguns 45 12-15-2011 05:10 PM
Glock vs m&p vs xd(m) vs 1911 Paulsd Semi-Auto Handguns 3 06-02-2011 01:46 AM
1911 vs Glock saviorslegacy 1911 Forum 46 06-19-2010 07:54 AM