TargetTalk

???????????????????????

I like mine just fine. My grip didn't fit, but other than that it's a fine pistol...

Scrench wrote:???????????????????????

Who are the "so many"?

The reason might be that the Evo didn't live up to the hype. I' m still happy with my LP10.

kevinweiho wrote:The reason might be that the Evo didn't live up to the hype. I' m still happy with my LP10.

That's because it's pretty much an lp10 with a few minor differences. The exploded views are extraordinarily similar. I certainly wouldn't consider switching if I already had an lp10.

Chia wrote:

kevinweiho wrote:The reason might be that the Evo didn't live up to the hype. I' m still happy with my LP10.

That's because it's pretty much an lp10 with a few minor differences. The exploded views are extraordinarily similar. I certainly wouldn't consider switching if I already had an lp10.

From the beginning, people expected and were all excited that the Evo was going to be a completely NEW pistol. It turned out to be a revamped version of LP10, which in my personal opinion, is near perfection. The LP10 is already a proven design, time-tested for more than 25 years, and has won its fair share of medals.

Nice strawman/informal fallacy.

I think perhaps the only reason to be disappointed with any airpistol is because it is not a Morini 162EI. ;)

I'll give credit to the Morini 162, it's the grandfather to all the modern day match pcp air pistols and is still kicking ass till this day.

I hear the opposite... Anna Korakaki equaled the junior record with it, took the Olympic bronze.

Pretty much the same gun really. Different screws for the rear sight blade and a couple of holes on the barrel sleeve don't make it any different

The main upgrade that the EVO (E) brings is it's new eletronic trigger.

The mechanical version of the EVO is pretty much the an LP10 with minor modifications.

If I were buying my first 10m pistol, I would get the EVO. But for those with an LP10 already, the EVO -- as the name states -- seems an evolution rather than anything revolutionary. Some of the "new" features are simply gimmicks to me... the rotating sights in particular.

SamEEE wrote:Nice strawman/informal fallacy.

I think perhaps the only reason to be disappointed with any airpistol is because it is not a Morini 162EI. ;)

I disagree. It's actually a great example of begging the question, which is a fallacy that the vast majority of people use as a phrase when they really mean "raises the question."

I recently got my Evo 10e from Pilkguns and love it. As someone mentioned the grips are larger. For example I have a large grip on my Steyr LP50 and the large grip on my Evo is significantly thicker around the middle part of my hand. Wonderful trigger! Wonderful service!

Chip

Rover can tell you: It doesn't have a long honkin' underlever.

Or a curmudgeon to operate it successfully.

Houngan wrote:

SamEEE wrote:Nice strawman/informal fallacy.

I disagree. It's actually a great example of begging the question,"

You people are unnecessarily harsh on the Original Poster. He committed none of the aforementioned fallacies.
"Begging the question" means using a circular reasoning. For example, had OP said, "so many people dislike EVO because they find it inadequate," that would be begging the question.
Strawman fallacy refers to attacking an argument that the other party did not make.
Informal fallacy refers to correct reasoning reaching a wrong conclusion for the reason of starting from a wrong premise.

All the above does not apply, because even though OP might have started with an incorrect premise ("many people dislike EVO"), he did not make any inferences or attempt to reach any conclusions. He merely asked a question.

shaky hands wrote:

Houngan wrote:

SamEEE wrote:Nice strawman/informal fallacy.

I disagree. It's actually a great example of begging the question,"

You people are unnecessarily harsh on the Original Poster. He committed none of the aforementioned fallacies.
"Begging the question" means using a circular reasoning. For example, had OP said, "so many people dislike EVO because they find it inadequate," that would be begging the question.
Strawman fallacy refers to attacking an argument that the other party did not make.
Informal fallacy refers to correct reasoning reaching a wrong conclusion for the reason of starting from a wrong premise.

All the above does not apply, because even though OP might have started with an incorrect premise ("many people dislike EVO"), he did not make any inferences or attempt to reach any conclusions. He merely asked a question.

I disagree. Begging the question involves an unproven premise in the body of the question, in this case that so many people dislike the Evo. The classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Is similar, there's an assumption in the question that is unproven and inarguable based on the format of the question. It lacks the redundancy of some classic examples, but burying a premise inside of a question that leads elsewhere is the interrogative typical form of the fallacy.

Why don't we leave philosophy to the experts and focus on shooting.

I like the Evo. Everyone else seems to think it is pretty good, if not an evolution.

As soon as I can get back to it I'll be practicing with mine. I know this much: the gun shoots a damn sight better than I can.

Houngan wrote:I disagree. Begging the question involves an unproven premise in the body of the question, in this case that so many people dislike the Evo. The classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Is similar, there's an assumption in the question that is unproven and inarguable based on the format of the question. It lacks the redundancy of some classic examples, but burying a premise inside of a question that leads elsewhere is the interrogative typical form of the fallacy.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is not begging, it is a "loaded question" fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Regardless of classifications, OP did not commit any fallacy -- he did not use his question as a rhetorical instrument. His question was simply a request for information.

Troll feeding is a dangerous practice