Originally posted by bac1023:
quote:
Originally posted by pedropcola:
Well... I’ve seen plenty of good revolver shooters make cloverleafs at bullseye matches so I think the claim of waaay more accuracy is a bit hyperbolic. As to durability I’ve never seen an L or N frame shot to death so I don’t buy that either. F+F it probably wins easily as it should at triple the price.
Just two words. Dan Wesson.
If you limit your comparison to a Colt Trooper or S&W 19 only it seems a bit disingenuous. Those aren’t exactly the state of the art revolver you might buy today. How about the Super GP100 or one of the N frame Smith’s? Tell me how this gun at triple the price is more durable, more accurate, and worth the extra 2k all while holding fewer rounds. Nice guns but come on. It’s like reading that article from the French police commander where he claims 6 shots is an advantage over higher capacity because it “forces” you to be more accurate with those shots. Umm, ok. Rationalize much? Lol
Beautiful guns but let’s not lose our collective minds.
The MR is K frame sized and will outlast the N frame and probably the Ruger. It will certainly outshoot either. Do you know anything about them or are you just dismissing it due to cost?
As for rationalization, I buy the best and that’s what matters to me. I put the MR above any American DA revolver built on this side of WWII. Capacity means nothing in terms of a revolver, because I don’t carry or compete with them. To me, worrying about capacity in a revolver is like arguing over who’s the tallest midget in the circus.
Yes, to me it’s worth 3x what an L frame is, because I wouldn’t own one if it was given to me. The old commercial models bring 5X what an L frame does, so these seem like a bargain.
