🧵 Radian Ramjet vs JTT Barrel (P365), Is the price difference actually justified?

[five.five-six]

Again, false dichotomy. If you didn't understand the analogies then I see little point in debating you.

Simply put, skill and technology are not in conflict, despite your strawman fallacies and false dichotomies.

Sure, hop in a f35 and if you don’t know how to fly, a biplane will take you out before you get off the ground. It’s not the bow and arrow, it’s the Indian. Your floppy muzzle gadget will improve outcomes. The amount of improvement depends on your skill set. On the ends of the spectrum, novice and expert it will have the least impact. The mediocre shooter will see the most improvement. For the expert competitor, the muzzle break makes sense because there’s not as much room for improvement left in training and drills.



For the mediocre shooter, there is a lot more gains in training. But that requires work. Go buy your muzzle floppy thing, you’ll be such a great shooter, John Wick will be asking you for tips.

SMFH

 

[Brandon Breeze]

Sure, hop in a f35 and if you don’t know how to fly, a biplane will take you out before you get off the ground. It’s not the bow and arrow, it’s the Indian. Your floppy muzzle gadget will improve outcomes. The amount of improvement depends on your skill set. On the ends of the spectrum, novice and expert it will have the least impact. The mediocre shooter will see the most improvement. For the expert competitor, the muzzle break makes sense because there’s not as much room for improvement left in training and drills.



For the mediocre shooter, there is a lot more gains in training. But that requires work. Go buy your muzzle floppy thing, you’ll be such a great shooter, John Wick will be asking you for tips.

SMFH

You continue to prove that you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop.

We saw your video, we know you can't shoot.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Sure, hop in a f35 and if you don’t know how to fly, a biplane will take you out before you get off the ground. It’s not the bow and arrow, it’s the Indian. Your floppy muzzle gadget will improve outcomes. The amount of improvement depends on your skill set. On the ends of the spectrum, novice and expert it will have the least impact. The mediocre shooter will see the most improvement. For the expert competitor, the muzzle break makes sense because there’s not as much room for improvement left in training and drills.



For the mediocre shooter, there is a lot more gains in training. But that requires work. Go buy your muzzle floppy thing, you’ll be such a great shooter, John Wick will be asking you for tips.

SMFH

It's always both/and, not either/or. You're making false dichotomies, again. Your strawman arguments won't save you here.

Again, if there are two ace pilots then the one with better tech will win more often than not. Why do you think we're not using biplanes over Iran? Every single war in history has proven how tech can make a difference. The first jets vs. prop planes. The first guns vs. bow and arrows. Horses vs. non-mounted forces where horses make a difference. Spanish galleons vs. cultures without seagoing vessels.

Guns are a subset of missile weapons and have advanced over the years, from the first muskets to the most advanced weaponry, and optics are part of that co-evolution. Nobody on this forum is going to be using a flintlock for home-defense or conceal-carry.

The book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond outlines this beautifully. Tech is the reason some cultures conquered others, and why some were conquered, but skill is always part of the equation. A warrior culture is going to be better-trained than one that is agrarian. Even diet is part of the tech equation.

Everywhere you look, tech advances when it proves to be superior to the old ways, in all areas of life—from medical, diet, food supply, transportation, weapons of war, clothing, optics, comms, space tech, etc.

There is no conflict between tech and skill. If you create an artificial divide you're relegating yourself to the dustbin of outdated tech. You better get good with that bow and arrow, because guns are technology too, and the bow and arrow is technology which displayed fists, rocks, sticks, etc. No matter how much purity-filtering you do, you are the beneficiary of technology invented by people who built upon the tech of the past.

 

[five.five-six]

It's always both/and, not either/or. You're making false dichotomies, again. Your strawman arguments won't save you here.

Again, if there are two ace pilots then the one with better tech will win more often than not. Why do you think we're not using biplanes over Iran? Every single war in history has proven how tech can make a difference. The first jets vs. prop planes. The first guns vs. bow and arrows. Horses vs. non-mounted forces where horses make a difference. Spanish galleons vs. cultures without seagoing vessels.

Guns are a subset of missile weapons and have advanced over the years, from the first muskets to the most advanced weaponry, and optics are part of that co-evolution. Nobody on this forum is going to be using a flintlock for home-defense or conceal-carry.

The book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond outlines this beautifully. Tech is the reason some cultures conquered others, and why some were conquered, but skill is always part of the equation. A warrior culture is going to be better-trained than one that is agrarian. Even diet is part of the tech equation.

Everywhere you look, tech advances when it proves to be superior to the old ways, in all areas of life—from medical, diet, food supply, transportation, weapons of war, clothing, optics, comms, space tech, etc.

There is no conflict between tech and skill. If you create an artificial divide you're relegating yourself to the dustbin of outdated tech. You better get good with that bow and arrow, because guns are technology too, and the bow and arrow is technology which displayed fists, rocks, sticks, etc. No matter how much purity-filtering you do, you are the beneficiary of technology invented by people who built upon the tech of the past.

Perhaps if you actually read my post that would be a big help with all your confusion


Instead, you insist on making false dichotomies and assuming that OP is an ace fighter pilot…. Pretty sure he’s not.


The kind of people who would see more improvement from a ported barrel, then from additional training do not have to ask on the internet which ported barrel to buy. They already know.


Anyone who thinks that better grip means just grab harder really doesn’t have a clue and shouldn’t be giving advice.

 

[Brandon Breeze]

Perhaps if you actually read my post that would be a big help with all your confusion


Instead, you insist on making false dichotomies and assuming that OP is an ace fighter pilot…. Pretty sure he’s not.


The kind of people who would see more improvement from a ported barrel, then from additional training do not have to ask on the internet which ported barrel to buy. They already know.


Anyone who thinks that better grip means just grab harder really doesn’t have a clue and shouldn’t be giving advice.

We've seen your grip, your stance, your push/pull technique and you adjusting/tightening your death grip on the DEagle... all from what the 60's? No one needs a lecture from you about shooting. You were also working through those malfunctions at a snails pace and the muzzle was dipping back down below zero after each shot.

We're also not talking about ported barrels, I've covered this in previous posts. Not sure how or why you're still confused here.

Every shooter can benefit from reduced muzzle flip, especially you... that sure looks like a heck of a lot of muzzle flip, from someone telling us all to "learn to shoot" and using this video as an example of you controlling muzzle flip? That is a 4lb handgun that absorbs most of the muzzle flip/felt recoil on its own how did you handle it so poorly?

Is this "better grip" in the room with us? Because if you were attempting to display it here, you missed the mark by a large margin.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Perhaps if you actually read my post that would be a big help with all your confusion


Instead, you insist on making false dichotomies and assuming that OP is an ace fighter pilot…. Pretty sure he’s not.


The kind of people who would see more improvement from a ported barrel, then from additional training do not have to ask on the internet which ported barrel to buy. They already know.


Anyone who thinks that better grip means just grab harder really doesn’t have a clue and shouldn’t be giving advice.

You keep moving goalposts, which is another type of logical fallacy. I offered a hypothetical where two pilots are both aces. One is in a P-51 Mustang (a pretty good prop plane) but the other is in an F-15. Yet, you are failing to grasp the analogy. I'm not saying the OP is anything, I'm isolating the tech between two people with similar skill level.

Speaking of skill, learning how to debate is a skill you should work on. Start by understanding logical fallacies and then avoiding them. This also requires a modicum of intellectual honesty.

 

[five.five-six]

You keep moving goalposts, which is another type of logical fallacy. I offered a hypothetical where two pilots are both aces. One is in a P-51 Mustang (a pretty good prop plane) but the other is in an F-15. Yet, you are failing to grasp the analogy. I'm not saying the OP is anything, I'm isolating the tech between two people with similar skill level.

Speaking of skill, learning how to debate is a skill you should work on. Start by understanding logical fallacies and then avoiding them. This also requires a modicum of intellectual honesty.

ConflatingOP as an ace is a logical fallacy. I would never tell a fighter ace to learn how to fly. He already knows how.


Reading your post is a master class in logical fallacies. You need to work on reading comprehension.


My entire point is that you need to address fundamentals before you start chasing solutions to problems in equipment. If you’re having trouble with recoil management with a P365, a ported barrel can’t fix that. The P365 is not a race gun or a match target gun, it’s an EDC. Its intended purpose is for fast, quick and dirty close-up and personal violent exchanges.

If 9 mm recoil management is preventing you from putting rounds on target at 10 or 20 feet you have problems that a ported barrel can’t fix. You need to learn to shoot.


No amount of crying “logical fallacies” or fantasizing about fighter ace pilots is gonna change that.

 

[Brandon Breeze]

ConflatingOP as an ace is a logical fallacy. I would never tell a fighter ace to learn how to fly. He already knows how.


Reading your post is a master class in logical fallacies. You need to work on reading comprehension.


My entire point is that you need to address fundamentals before you start chasing solutions to problems in equipment. If you’re having trouble with recoil management with a P365, a ported barrel can’t fix that. The P365 is not a race gun or a match target gun, it’s an EDC. Its intended purpose is for fast, quick and dirty close-up and personal violent exchanges.

If 9 mm recoil management is preventing you from putting rounds on target at 10 or 20 feet you have problems that a ported barrel can’t fix. You need to learn to shoot.


No amount of crying “logical fallacies” or fantasizing about fighter ace pilots is gonna change that.

You have long overstayed your welcome here. You can barely clear a malfunction or control the recoil of a .44 DEagle, with too light of ammo to even run it. Get off my post. You continue to deflect and have stated ZERO facts about anything, especially relating to the OP.

All you have done is prove you can't shoot and have no business telling anyone anything about shooting.

 

[cali_jazz]

OK, I think we've ran this one well into the ground.

Happy Easter boys, let's try to be kind to each other

Thread locked.