Locked threads

[tombogan03884]

5.7 is a relatively new caliber, there has not been much feed back on it's performance, there was a discussion going on about it's apparent performance and because Rob didn't apparently like the reaction to his snarky sounding comment he locked the thread, this is not the first thread he has locked when he didn't like the way it was going, Whats with THAT ?

[Rob Pincus]

Tom,

I'm pretty picky about the threads in the D&T section... that thread had gone back & forth for a long time. Most recently, we got to spurious commentary, praise for officer Munley, linked articles and practical jokes between members.

There is plenty of room to discuss the 5.7 in the specific light of the new information from this past week and a new thread could be started now to do so, if you like. That one had gone on long enough and didn't show any signs of getting any better soon.


When I asked that the  D&T forum be created and offered to moderate it, it was under the specific goal of not becoming another mess of uneducated and unsubstantiated opinion. There is plenty of that on the net already.

Keep in mind that I lock threads when they are clearly off topic, when they aren't related to D&T (or maybe have stopped being related to D&T) or, as you said, "I don't like the way they are going".  The last category is a bit more subjective, but it usually relates to the quality of the opinions being made... judged most often by the quality of the information supporting those opinions.

You might want to re-read the "guidelines" in that sub-forum.

-RJP

[Rastus]

I feel a poo poo storm coming on......

Everybody get's a little on them when those things blow by....

[tombogan03884]

Well maybe us uneducated types should just avoid those "intellectual" areas

[Rob Pincus]

In the last six weeks, 4 threads have been closed:

-One was 12 pages long.
-One was 6 pages long, had gone one for months and was getting repetitive. There was a ton of good info that was risking getting watered down.
-Another was turned into a "I like this instructor more than that one", after an initially good conversation was started. I chimed in and warned everyone to stay on topic... that was ignored by at least two participants who continued to discuss people not the topic, thread closed.
-Lastly, the most recent one on the 5.7. It was 9 pages long and half of today's posts were in regard to the response to the active shooter at Ft. Hood, which deserves its own topic. Of the last few posts before the thread was closed, most of them were about one member using the term "clip" and another member reprimanding him for it.

 Keep in mind that, as I mentioned in a response to a nasty PM I got earlier, I have been talking about guns and related issues online since 300 baud modems and BBS's. I've seen a lot of threads go from bad to worse quickly and I've seen the reputations that those forums which allow it  get.

 I'd rather err on the side of closing threads of questionable value to those who may run a search in the future looking for life & death information.

If nothing else, it allows everyone to take a breath and start a new thread that might be more focused or more thought out.

Yes, I do desire a little higher level of discourse, but I don't think you should think of it as an area to be avoided.

Here is the pertinent part of the POSTING GUIDELINES notice at the D&T Forum:

Another update to remind everyone that this forum will have a different level of accountability for the posters than may be common in other areas of DRTV.

These are matters of life and death and we hope that people are coming here to learn. Please be sure to have examples to back up statements of fact and don't get your feelings hurt if your statements are challenged.

Statements of Opinion are usually WELCOME. Examples:

I like Glocks.
 
I don't like Glocks.

Those would be better and more valuable with explanations of "why?". Examples:

I like Glocks, and I find them easier to shoot than XDs because the grip area is a bit thicker.

I don't like Glocks because the grips are too square for my hand.

Statements of fact that are known to be wrong will be corrected or challenged. Examples:

Glocks Never Malfunction.

Glocks Always Malfunction with hollowpoints.

*******

Lastly, to steal a line from the founder of "The Firing Line" (where I've been on "staff" in one capacity of another for over a decade):

Think Twice, Post Once.

-RJP

[Sponsor]

[seeker_two]

Well maybe us uneducated types should just avoid those "intellectual" areas

Then who's gonna post anything?..... 


Good points, Rob.  In the last 5.7 thread, I was just remarking that I was reconsidering my position on the 5.7 round from a pistol. Perhaps I should have clarified.....I think it is a great close-range, anti-personnel round from the P90 platform d/t the fact that the longer barrel allows it to achieve velocities similar to the 5.56 round at 200-300yds....and it can use quality bullets. I had my doubts about its effectiveness from a shorter barrel like the Five-Seven. The Ft. Hood attack demonstrated (at least at this time) that it performs at least as well as most non-magnum pistol loads. I plan to follow the forensic reporting as much as I can to see further results.

But...as always...superior mindset, planning, and marksmanship are more important than the equipment used....just check out the single-action-revolver thread on that....

[tombogan03884]

That dog ain't hunting Rob.
Haz raised a valid point about  the performance of the CALIBER, to which you replied with irrelevancies about the platform used to deliver it. Perhaps capacity and recoil DID enter into Hasans selection, So what, he's a nut job. then you finished up with a snarky sounding comment
"I'm sure if he had a 1911 and (had to do 10 reloads) and manage recoil all 40 would be dead.."
Probably not, but I'll bet money they would not have been "running around" or aiding other casualties as reported in some of the linked articles you seem to find fault with, (Myself, I don't see anything wrong with linking to further information, )
nor did you address the issues that I raised:
"To bring this back on topic, I will mention that the .223/5.56MM was developed using the same thought process as the 5.7, small high velocity round, and troops have been cursing them as barely adequate at best for the past 40+ years.
Every person with experience that I have listened to said they did not remember hearing the gun go off nor did they remember the recoil, so while those may be of interest on the range or plinking squirrels they seem irrelevant in a self defense weapon.
And when addressing the 20 round capacity, I just read a quote from Walt Rauch "If you can't solve the problem with 5 rounds, what makes you think five more (in this case 15 ) will do it".
Then of course there is plain old common sense, assuming effective hits, bigger holes bleed faster.
I may someday own a 5.7, but it will be for squirrels and targets, I'll trust my LIFE to bigger rounds."

Since the original topic, opened in MAY, was "Is there any real-life information on how the FN 5.7 round performs in a self defense situation? Is this a round worth looking at for that purpose or is it too small?"

It appears that the round leaves an insufficiently large wound channel as it over penetrates which means No it's NOT any good for a self defense situation where the requirement is to STOP an attack immediately.

[Rob Pincus]

It appears that the round leaves an insufficiently large wound channel as it over penetrates which means No it's NOT any good for a self defense situation where the requirement is to STOP an attack immediately.

THAT I agree with to a large degree.

...and if this were the D&T forum, I'd clip it out and start a new thread on the efficacy of the 5.7 for SD as I locked this one. 

-RJP

[Clark Kent]

I'm a new guy here, but have frequented online forums almost every day since Algore invented the Internet.   I've found that each forum has its own personality, with some being so strictly managed I feel like I'm in a library or a church and others more relaxed, like sitting in a bar.   My very first gun forum was the old Shooters.com, where I made many friends, some of whom have remained friends to this day.   Some of us called ourselves the CTASHRs, an acronym that stood for "Crazier Than A S.H (outhouse) Rat" and came about during some pretty wild discussions that often involved a troll or two deliberately trying to mess with our heads.  

I sometimes miss those the wild, untamed days, as I miss some of the strong personalities there, such as Flowerchild and Don Nelson (DonOTMW, the initials stood for "of too many words").  Don, whom we elected "mayor of Shooters.com," died not long before the forum itself passed away.  

I guess I've matured a tad since those days, as I now prefer fora that are frequented by folks who clearly know whereof they speak.  I don't even mind the strict enforcement on some of these sites, so long as they continue to offer valuable knowledge and expert opinions.  But I also enjoy sites that are less formal.   Until I stumbled across this thread, I'd found Down Range to be a site frequented by people who know what they're talking about and who express themselves in a friendly manner.  

The very name of this room - Down Range Cafe - suggests a more relaxed atmosphere than, say, a room devoted to a particular type of firearm or to Second Amendment politics or other topics not as inviting of informal banter.  

So I was surprised to read Rob's explanation of how he manages threads and what he expects to find in them.   I don't know Rob, nor does he know me, but in the spirit of "cafe," I'll risk being seen as brash to say, "Rob, no offense, bud, but I think the coffee's getting a little cold."

[Jackel]

well said Clark. i liked the coffee part