posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:04 AM
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
From what I understand the .25acp and .32acp rounds were more popular in europe and thus the guns made there were more reliable. But of course
europeans drive smaller cars, live in smaller homes, drive on smaller roads, etc.
Nothing wrong with either culture, they just have different outlooks of life. To be fair though, most law enforcement agencies have upgraded to
.380acp and 9mm quite some time ago. I think the smaller rounds are a thing of the past with marginal acceptance in todays world. It has evolved
into a poor man's gun and/or target practice.
The Lorcin in question was a 9mm. It was a brand new weapon according to him, and it's possible that he hadn't cleaned it up very well out of the
box, but Lorcins and the like have reputations as jam-a-matics in those circles regardless of what you do to them, and he was too new to know that. He
just thought he'd got a great deal on a gun.
As far back as I can recall, even when I was a kid, .25's and .32's had reputations as bar-room guns. The original "point and click" devices, and
they had a bad reputation for accuracy. Accuracy, like reliability, is in the manufacture, so low grade guns got a bad rep on both accounts. On the
other hand, I don't know any reason why a .25 or a .38acp can't be every bit as accurate as any other pistol, given a suitable manufacturer. I've
heard it said time and again that .25's burn the barrels out fast, and so lose accuracy relatively quickly, but that's just anecdotal, and I can't
figure out any reason for that to be, other than possibly thin barrel walls - again, a manufacturing concern. No reason that they would be inherently
less accurate or reliable based on caliber alone.
To be honest, I think a hit with either of those would be a lot more discouraging than a loud miss with a Desert Eagle!