|
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Pete C. wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote: On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:17:37 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:25:44 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Ignoramus11443 wrote: That's a very enduring design, yes. I actually own a Beretta and love it. How does that .45 handle, is the recoil a little too much? i I prefer 9mm personally, mostly for the high capacity. I have shot friend's .45s many times during the same shooting sessions as my 9mms and really didn't notice much difference in recoil. Given my tendency for carpal tunnel issues I would think I'd notice. I do notice a difference in recoil between my two S&W 9mms, one being metal frame and one being plastic frame with about 12oz weight difference and otherwise with the same barrel length and shooting the same ammunition. The lighter plastic frame 9mm has more pronounced recoil as you would expect with the lower weight / mass. High capacity? How many people do you figure are going to be attacking you at one time? If its more than 3..doncha think a rifle would be a better tool? Zero would be my preference. I just don't want to have any real possibility of going empty in any reasonably probable scenario. Average number of rounds fired in a self defense shooting situation...2.5 G Average range, 7 yrds I think you are going to be pretty safe with a 8 rd weapon that can actually stop someone with the first round. That unfortunately cant be said of the 9mm I think the idea that a .45 is an elephant gun that will stop a subject with one shot and a 9mm is a pea shooter that couldn't stop a subject with a whole box of ammo is a bunch of nonsense just like Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge. And then there was the lawyer at the AA meeting recently that stoppedan attach with two shots ....from a Keltec P32 (.32ACP) Neither hit was COM IIRC. The BG vacated the premises promptly, died outside. |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"RBnDFW" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: I have multiple springs for my .45; an Ace .22 conversion; a CO2 pellet conversion for shooting in the basement; and a .38 Super barrel from my short stint at shooting plates. A Co2 conversion? Never heard of such a thing, love to have one. Details? Sold by Crossman in the '70s. Made by Blazer and imported. It's a pretty rare item today. That and my original ACE .22 conversion are probably worth much more than the gun itself. It's accurate and good for target shooting, but not real quiet. Basically, it's just a .117 cal. CO2 pistol that looks like a 1911 slide. You remove the .45 slide and the pellet gun conversion screws on with a single thumb screw. You load one pellet at a time. No part of the slide moves when you shoot, unlike the ACE conversion, which is some kind of modified blowback, I think. You could inquire with Crossman; maybe they know if it's still available from Blazer. -- Ed Huntress |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Wes wrote:
RBnDFW wrote: JB had a gift! I have a few of his designs and I appreciate them. I have a P08 that is truely a work of art but hasn't the practicality, durability or ease of mfg. of the 1911. The bad side is that many of my handguns, especially the P08 are now too valuable as "collector" pieces that I'm afraid to use them. The last appraisal I had on the P08 was over $4k, I wish I had one to shoot! Shooter grade P08s are readily available for under $1000 Indulge yourself ! I almost bought a P38 until I was clued it it was post war and had an alloy frame. I'll never have a real Luger though I have have a fun little Stoeger Luger .22 pistol which isn't the same thing but has the shape. http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIR...eger_luger.pdf I've had two of those in the last 3 years. Neat little pistols, appreciating rapidly |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:53:45 -0500, the infamous "Pete C."
scrawled the following: Larry Jaques wrote: On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:03:34 -0500, the infamous "Pete C." scrawled the following: The Rangers are NATO. But are they UN approved? dg&r Probably. You can check on the Winchester site. I thought the UN disapproved of anything which wasn't entirely touchy-feely/warm-fuzzies/Kumbaya. -- Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for. -- Earl Warren |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Well. There you go, again.
-- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ... It was fine, when I wrote it. I sense you're the one who didn't understand. Chris, you may be living a sheltered life, but in the NYC metro area, the term has been around for decades. It never had a particularly homosexual connotation that I recall. As your own "dictionary" said by example, and as the Wikipedia reference that West referred to says, it's a term that applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. What's going on here is that the teabaggers, who are mostly traditional conservatives and reactionaries, tend to be homophobes as well. It's part of the package. So they took offense, and off it went. But the offense is a reflection on their own homophobia and misunderstanding. They created a pejorative for themselves, and handed it to the people who like to make fun of them. They aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. -- Ed Huntress |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ... Well. There you go, again. I think your record has a scratch in it, Chris. g -- Ed Huntress -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ... It was fine, when I wrote it. I sense you're the one who didn't understand. Chris, you may be living a sheltered life, but in the NYC metro area, the term has been around for decades. It never had a particularly homosexual connotation that I recall. As your own "dictionary" said by example, and as the Wikipedia reference that West referred to says, it's a term that applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. What's going on here is that the teabaggers, who are mostly traditional conservatives and reactionaries, tend to be homophobes as well. It's part of the package. So they took offense, and off it went. But the offense is a reflection on their own homophobia and misunderstanding. They created a pejorative for themselves, and handed it to the people who like to make fun of them. They aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. -- Ed Huntress |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"RAM³" wrote:
You know that once someone got a program running it would be used forever. (witness the Y2K scare in commercial circles) chuckling Some code that I wrote in the '60s is still in production. grin Every bit of code I wrote left production in 2001 on the administrative end. Some of that Clipper code was over 10 years old but was doing the job. It took a bankrupcy to kill that. Now the Karel stuff (GMF robotics) lasted a bit longer but is surely dead by now. The robot cells were sold to other vendors and continued to run product for GM for a few years until model changeovers make them obsolete. I suspect some St Lawrence 500 ton and 600 ton forming presses are still running my Allen Bradley SLC500 ladder code. Maybe the new owners wrote their own. I'm sure they didn't put the 26+ control relays and 6 or so cycleflex counter times back in to replace my upgrade. I *hated* changing how a relay logic forming press operated. That was never fun at all. Seldom something that is working gets ripped out and replaced. Even wart covered crap. ( I didn't write any of that stuff but those that know, know what I mean.) Wes |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Gunner Asch wrote:
My 9mm typically has either the 124gr JHP Golden Sabers, or 124gr FMJ Rangers. I also don't aim for CoM. If you DONT aim for center of mass, in a combat situation, you are going to have a very very nasty surprise in store for you. I hope you survive. Btw...the 9mm load you are shooting is on a par with the same load in 38 Special. Just a heads up. Gunner My mental programming is to go center of mass and work up. Back when I shot IDPA I remember the game plan was com com, head head. for two assailants. For single assailants, 2 com one in head, repeat if needed. The gent that was running our program at the club was a training officer for the local city police. Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:18:46 -0500, RBnDFW wrote:
Pete C. wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:17:37 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:25:44 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Ignoramus11443 wrote: That's a very enduring design, yes. I actually own a Beretta and love it. How does that .45 handle, is the recoil a little too much? i I prefer 9mm personally, mostly for the high capacity. I have shot friend's .45s many times during the same shooting sessions as my 9mms and really didn't notice much difference in recoil. Given my tendency for carpal tunnel issues I would think I'd notice. I do notice a difference in recoil between my two S&W 9mms, one being metal frame and one being plastic frame with about 12oz weight difference and otherwise with the same barrel length and shooting the same ammunition. The lighter plastic frame 9mm has more pronounced recoil as you would expect with the lower weight / mass. High capacity? How many people do you figure are going to be attacking you at one time? If its more than 3..doncha think a rifle would be a better tool? Zero would be my preference. I just don't want to have any real possibility of going empty in any reasonably probable scenario. Average number of rounds fired in a self defense shooting situation...2.5 G Average range, 7 yrds I think you are going to be pretty safe with a 8 rd weapon that can actually stop someone with the first round. That unfortunately cant be said of the 9mm I think the idea that a .45 is an elephant gun that will stop a subject with one shot and a 9mm is a pea shooter that couldn't stop a subject with a whole box of ammo is a bunch of nonsense just like Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge. And then there was the lawyer at the AA meeting recently that stoppedan attach with two shots ....from a Keltec P32 (.32ACP) Neither hit was COM IIRC. The BG vacated the premises promptly, died outside. The shooter was very lucky. Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:30:14 -0500, Wes wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote: My 9mm typically has either the 124gr JHP Golden Sabers, or 124gr FMJ Rangers. I also don't aim for CoM. If you DONT aim for center of mass, in a combat situation, you are going to have a very very nasty surprise in store for you. I hope you survive. Btw...the 9mm load you are shooting is on a par with the same load in 38 Special. Just a heads up. Gunner My mental programming is to go center of mass and work up. Back when I shot IDPA I remember the game plan was com com, head head. for two assailants. For single assailants, 2 com one in head, repeat if needed. The gent that was running our program at the club was a training officer for the local city police. Wes Indeed. Thats the smart way to do it. Center of mass is where most of the goodies that keep someone going are located. If he doesnt go down when you put two in the goodies..the next shot should be in the head. He may have been wearing body armor, or was on drugs so the first two didnt do much. Smashing the computer that runs the body generally does the job quickly, though its a much much harder (in more ways than one) target to hit properly. Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that Jim Stewart on or
about Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:41:50 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: pyotr filipivich wrote: And the environment on the Moon is hostile. Remember, earth plants are set up for a twenty four hour cycle, not 29 days. Isn't one side of the moon always in the sun and the other dark? Nope. One side it towards the earth, the other side is "the far side of the moon." Rotational lock on the earth. Take about 29 earth days for it to make that rotation. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
|
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Larry Jaques wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:53:45 -0500, the infamous "Pete C." scrawled the following: Larry Jaques wrote: On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:03:34 -0500, the infamous "Pete C." scrawled the following: The Rangers are NATO. But are they UN approved? dg&r Probably. You can check on the Winchester site. I thought the UN disapproved of anything which wasn't entirely touchy-feely/warm-fuzzies/Kumbaya. No, they resort to violence to try to impose that T-F/W-F/K nonsense on others from time to time. |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:33:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "RBnDFW" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: I have multiple springs for my .45; an Ace .22 conversion; a CO2 pellet conversion for shooting in the basement; and a .38 Super barrel from my short stint at shooting plates. A Co2 conversion? Never heard of such a thing, love to have one. Details? Sold by Crossman in the '70s. Made by Blazer and imported. It's a pretty rare item today. That and my original ACE .22 conversion are probably worth much more than the gun itself. It's accurate and good for target shooting, but not real quiet. Basically, it's just a .117 cal. CO2 pistol that looks like a 1911 slide. You remove the .45 slide and the pellet gun conversion screws on with a single thumb screw. You load one pellet at a time. No part of the slide moves when you shoot, unlike the ACE conversion, which is some kind of modified blowback, I think. You could inquire with Crossman; maybe they know if it's still available from Blazer. I don't think I've actually seen a ACE .22 system. Are they the ones with the floating chamber to provide the force to cycle the slide? John B. Slocomb (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom) |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message ... On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:33:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "RBnDFW" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: I have multiple springs for my .45; an Ace .22 conversion; a CO2 pellet conversion for shooting in the basement; and a .38 Super barrel from my short stint at shooting plates. A Co2 conversion? Never heard of such a thing, love to have one. Details? Sold by Crossman in the '70s. Made by Blazer and imported. It's a pretty rare item today. That and my original ACE .22 conversion are probably worth much more than the gun itself. It's accurate and good for target shooting, but not real quiet. Basically, it's just a .117 cal. CO2 pistol that looks like a 1911 slide. You remove the .45 slide and the pellet gun conversion screws on with a single thumb screw. You load one pellet at a time. No part of the slide moves when you shoot, unlike the ACE conversion, which is some kind of modified blowback, I think. You could inquire with Crossman; maybe they know if it's still available from Blazer. I don't think I've actually seen a ACE .22 system. Are they the ones with the floating chamber to provide the force to cycle the slide? John B. Slocomb (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom) Yeah, something like that. I used to know exactly how it works but now I just shoot it. g It is really good for practice. It's accurate, it's cheap to shoot, and the recoil is greater than for a normal .22, so it gives a good feel for .45 practice, within its limits. That's why it's designed the way it is -- however that is. It's on my .45 now, because I've been cheap lately. Curious aside: In Tom Clancy's novel _Without Remorse_, he makes a suppressor for an ACE-equipped 1911. Knowing Clancy's penchant for accurate detail with weapons, I thought about this and realized it probably is real, because the ACE has two advantages for suppressor use. First, it has a slightly delayed blowback, so it probably doesn't extract the shell case until the blast is out of the gun. Second, the barrel itself doesn't drop down, or move at all, because it's a blowback action. The weight of a suppressor won't interfere with the action. -- Ed Huntress |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "RBnDFW" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: I have multiple springs for my .45; an Ace .22 conversion; a CO2 pellet conversion for shooting in the basement; and a .38 Super barrel from my short stint at shooting plates. A Co2 conversion? Never heard of such a thing, love to have one. Details? Sold by Crossman in the '70s. Made by Blazer and imported. It's a pretty rare item today. That and my original ACE .22 conversion are probably worth much more than the gun itself. It's accurate and good for target shooting, but not real quiet. Basically, it's just a .117 cal. CO2 pistol... Correction. Of course, I meant .177 cal. -- Ed Huntress |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:21:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote: (snip) I don't think I've actually seen a ACE .22 system. Are they the ones with the floating chamber to provide the force to cycle the slide? John B. Slocomb (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom) Yes; and the ideal training setup for new shooters. Unlike many .22s, there is significant felt recoil, but "It's only a .22". Makes an easy transition to a .45! Bob |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:48:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:18:27 -0500, "Don Foreman" wrote: "Gunner Asch" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:17:37 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:25:44 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Ignoramus11443 wrote: That's a very enduring design, yes. I actually own a Beretta and love it. How does that .45 handle, is the recoil a little too much? i I prefer 9mm personally, mostly for the high capacity. I have shot friend's .45s many times during the same shooting sessions as my 9mms and really didn't notice much difference in recoil. Given my tendency for carpal tunnel issues I would think I'd notice. I do notice a difference in recoil between my two S&W 9mms, one being metal frame and one being plastic frame with about 12oz weight difference and otherwise with the same barrel length and shooting the same ammunition. The lighter plastic frame 9mm has more pronounced recoil as you would expect with the lower weight / mass. High capacity? How many people do you figure are going to be attacking you at one time? If its more than 3..doncha think a rifle would be a better tool? Zero would be my preference. I just don't want to have any real possibility of going empty in any reasonably probable scenario. Average number of rounds fired in a self defense shooting situation...2.5 G Average range, 7 yrds I think you are going to be pretty safe with a 8 rd weapon that can actually stop someone with the first round. That unfortunately cant be said of the 9mm Gunner That can't be said of the .40 or .45 either. It can, 98% of the time...but only 61% of the time with a 9mikemike. The probability of a one-shot stop is higher with the more powerful rounds, but it's far from a certainty. Shot placement is far more important than caliber or power. A .22 rimfire hollowpoint is a one-shot drop if the shot is perfectly placed. Ask any assassin. My dad was killed with one shot from a .22 rimfire. A shotgun with #4 buck gets 'er done because of the high probability of one of the coupla dozen little 24-caliber (6 mm) balls hitting something that will result in instant incapacitation. 6mm is smaler than 9mm. Bigger ammo does more damage per wound channel but instant drop requires that damage be done to very specific locations. Handgun ammo, unlike much higher velocity smaller caliber 5.62 mm (.223 caliber) rifle ammo, does not deliver sufficent hydrostatic shock to matter, so a stop/drop hit must impact spine, brain, heart, or other organ that will result in instant shock, or pelvis that can result in incapacitating pain but that's iffy with drug-crazed assailants who feel no pain. Indeed. Though packing a shotgun in a shoulder rig is problematic. Hitting such key small locations, short of head shots, is well beyond the marksmanship capability of most shooters, perhaps all shooters in a stress sit. I can repeatedly hit the face of an assailant at 7 yards but there's no way I'd bet I could hit his spine when we're both moving, in dark or low light, stoked with adrenaline. As I told Pete C. Though center of mass is relatively easy based on my experience with amatures who had to shoot in self defense. Ability to accurately place several shots very rapidly is much more likely to drop an assailant than having a bigger gun. I did say accurately, but I'm not talking bullseye here but several rounds to COM and a couple to head at short range. Self defense is a dynamic, adrenaline-charged scared-****less short-range activity, not a military activity done by young men in a high state of training. I assert that the best tactic is to use a weapon/caliber that the individual, young or old, male or female, big or small, strong or weak, liberal or conservative, can best deliver most fire with workable accuracy in a very few seconds of time. That's why nobody disputes the effectiveness of a shotgun or a full auto rifle. Most occasional shooters can deliver accurate rapid fire much better with a 9mm than they can with a .40 or .45, and the nines hold more ammo. Occasional shooters? Oh..you mean people who shouldnt be carrying a deadly weapon? Good point. Most of the men and women I shoot with shoot more often (and more skillfully) than most cops. Laura shoots a .40 compact every bit as well as she does a 9mmp. I do a little better with both 9mmp and .45ACP than with .40S&W. A .380 is a one-shot drop if shot placement is right. A .380 with 7 rounds fired rapidly enough to hit at point blank range has far higher probability of stop than one hit from a .45ACP. The objective is to stop, no bonus for doing it in one shot. Get it done with as many shots as it takes, accurately delivered to drop the assailant. The problem with that is..he may not let you shoot him a bunch of times before he crushes your skull with a rock. That's absurd. He needs to be within arm's length to hit me with a rock or cut me with a blade. I don't need sights to hit a face-sized target at 5 feet, and even a .380 has considerably more energy than a rock swung or thrown by hand. His problem is that I'll shoot his face off before he can crush my skull with a rock. That's why I assert that the .380 one might carry is far more defense than a .45 one leaves at home. It's a moot point for those who routinely carry a .45 and can shoot it well. I do shoot a .45 respectably but I don't care to pack one though I do have a holster for my Colt Officer's and my instructor in the CQB (close quarters battle) training I did with that pistol thought I shot it respectably. I don't even pack a .380 most days. We've had this joust before, Gunner. Not saying you're wrong , just sayin' that the solution you find right for you may not be right for others. True enough. You stick to the mouse guns and Ill stick to the man stoppers I dont have to shoot a guy 9 times with. Deal? Deal. And I'll stipulate that if I went some of the places you go, I'd probably want my Colt Officer's .45 with me. |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:45:50 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:48:41 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:18:27 -0500, "Don Foreman" wrote: "Gunner Asch" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:17:37 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:25:44 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Ignoramus11443 wrote: That's a very enduring design, yes. I actually own a Beretta and love it. How does that .45 handle, is the recoil a little too much? i I prefer 9mm personally, mostly for the high capacity. I have shot friend's .45s many times during the same shooting sessions as my 9mms and really didn't notice much difference in recoil. Given my tendency for carpal tunnel issues I would think I'd notice. I do notice a difference in recoil between my two S&W 9mms, one being metal frame and one being plastic frame with about 12oz weight difference and otherwise with the same barrel length and shooting the same ammunition. The lighter plastic frame 9mm has more pronounced recoil as you would expect with the lower weight / mass. High capacity? How many people do you figure are going to be attacking you at one time? If its more than 3..doncha think a rifle would be a better tool? Zero would be my preference. I just don't want to have any real possibility of going empty in any reasonably probable scenario. Average number of rounds fired in a self defense shooting situation...2.5 G Average range, 7 yrds I think you are going to be pretty safe with a 8 rd weapon that can actually stop someone with the first round. That unfortunately cant be said of the 9mm Gunner That can't be said of the .40 or .45 either. It can, 98% of the time...but only 61% of the time with a 9mikemike. The probability of a one-shot stop is higher with the more powerful rounds, but it's far from a certainty. Shot placement is far more important than caliber or power. A .22 rimfire hollowpoint is a one-shot drop if the shot is perfectly placed. Ask any assassin. My dad was killed with one shot from a .22 rimfire. A shotgun with #4 buck gets 'er done because of the high probability of one of the coupla dozen little 24-caliber (6 mm) balls hitting something that will result in instant incapacitation. 6mm is smaler than 9mm. Bigger ammo does more damage per wound channel but instant drop requires that damage be done to very specific locations. Handgun ammo, unlike much higher velocity smaller caliber 5.62 mm (.223 caliber) rifle ammo, does not deliver sufficent hydrostatic shock to matter, so a stop/drop hit must impact spine, brain, heart, or other organ that will result in instant shock, or pelvis that can result in incapacitating pain but that's iffy with drug-crazed assailants who feel no pain. Indeed. Though packing a shotgun in a shoulder rig is problematic. Hitting such key small locations, short of head shots, is well beyond the marksmanship capability of most shooters, perhaps all shooters in a stress sit. I can repeatedly hit the face of an assailant at 7 yards but there's no way I'd bet I could hit his spine when we're both moving, in dark or low light, stoked with adrenaline. As I told Pete C. Though center of mass is relatively easy based on my experience with amatures who had to shoot in self defense. Ability to accurately place several shots very rapidly is much more likely to drop an assailant than having a bigger gun. I did say accurately, but I'm not talking bullseye here but several rounds to COM and a couple to head at short range. Self defense is a dynamic, adrenaline-charged scared-****less short-range activity, not a military activity done by young men in a high state of training. I assert that the best tactic is to use a weapon/caliber that the individual, young or old, male or female, big or small, strong or weak, liberal or conservative, can best deliver most fire with workable accuracy in a very few seconds of time. That's why nobody disputes the effectiveness of a shotgun or a full auto rifle. Most occasional shooters can deliver accurate rapid fire much better with a 9mm than they can with a .40 or .45, and the nines hold more ammo. Occasional shooters? Oh..you mean people who shouldnt be carrying a deadly weapon? Good point. Most of the men and women I shoot with shoot more often (and more skillfully) than most cops. Laura shoots a .40 compact every bit as well as she does a 9mmp. I do a little better with both 9mmp and .45ACP than with .40S&W. A .380 is a one-shot drop if shot placement is right. A .380 with 7 rounds fired rapidly enough to hit at point blank range has far higher probability of stop than one hit from a .45ACP. The objective is to stop, no bonus for doing it in one shot. Get it done with as many shots as it takes, accurately delivered to drop the assailant. The problem with that is..he may not let you shoot him a bunch of times before he crushes your skull with a rock. That's absurd. He needs to be within arm's length to hit me with a rock or cut me with a blade. I don't need sights to hit a face-sized target at 5 feet, and even a .380 has considerably more energy than a rock swung or thrown by hand. His problem is that I'll shoot his face off before he can crush my skull with a rock. That's why I assert that the .380 one might carry is far more defense than a .45 one leaves at home. It's a moot point for those who routinely carry a .45 and can shoot it well. I do shoot a .45 respectably but I don't care to pack one though I do have a holster for my Colt Officer's and my instructor in the CQB (close quarters battle) training I did with that pistol thought I shot it respectably. I don't even pack a .380 most days. We've had this joust before, Gunner. Not saying you're wrong , just sayin' that the solution you find right for you may not be right for others. True enough. You stick to the mouse guns and Ill stick to the man stoppers I dont have to shoot a guy 9 times with. Deal? Deal. And I'll stipulate that if I went some of the places you go, I'd probably want my Colt Officer's .45 with me. http://detnews.com/article/20071205/...mes-saving-mom 7 yr old takes 6 hits at point blank range from a 9mm..and lives. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...otsue0318.html http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/0...r_Shooting.htm Innocent man shot 6 times by police and survives And so forth. http://www.wgal.com/news/22960516/detail.html http://www.greatamericans.com/video/...ficer-Jeff-Deg http://www.nowpublic.com/woman_shot_..._in_head_lives http://www.news4jax.com/news/10529143/detail.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6873bb1258 http://articles.sfgate.com/2000-04-0...oakland-police http://www.10news.com/news/22244416/detail.html http://www2.wjtv.com/jtv/news/state_..._16_0009/9466/ http://cbs5.com/local/fremont.robber...2.1287789.html Just a heads up for those who believe in the 9mm..... And of course..one of my favorites... G http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp VBG Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:34:24 -0700, Bob wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:21:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: (snip) I don't think I've actually seen a ACE .22 system. Are they the ones with the floating chamber to provide the force to cycle the slide? John B. Slocomb (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom) Yes; and the ideal training setup for new shooters. Unlike many .22s, there is significant felt recoil, but "It's only a .22". Makes an easy transition to a .45! Bob I sold my ACE conversion back in the 90s to help pay for one of my sons many surgeries. It was a VERY nice addition to anyone who owns a .45 and it trained a lot of shooters who then graduated to the regular .45 Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that cavelamb on or about
Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:31:50 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: It's about the depth of the gravity well, p. Low Earth Orbit is half way to the universe. The moon (IMHO) was put there as a useful resource. Aluminum galore. LOTS of solar power. For two weeks out of the month - and the next two weeks? And - damit - water! So, you DON'T have to take every thing with you. You mine, refine, and manufacture - on the moon. All you need to do is bring your food. Your air. Your water. Your space suit. But it is doable. Just realize that solar energy is only available 14 days a month. The rest of the time you're going to be on batteries, or imported nuclear power plants. (And good luck getting those, the green weenies will pitch hissy fits at the very idea of polluting the pristine Lunar Surface with nuclear pollution and waste.) Unless, of course, you want to go straight to Mars. (Which I doubt it really do-able) According tot he book, it was doable in 1990. Or doable starting in 1990, within ten years. With existing technology. We NEED a moon base... Heck, check the escape velocity numbers. You can THROW stuff up to orbit from the moon. (solar powered linear accelerators) But you have to pilot a space craft all the way to touch down. There is no "free" negative acceleration on the moon. Now, one of the nifty things about the moon is that because there is no atmosphere, there is nothing to prevent you from orbiting a meter from the surface. But you can orbit there forever, because there is nothing to slow you down for a reentry/landing. Had we set up a moon base back in the 70s - 80s, I'd bet we'd be ON Mars by now. But without that "tree house in the sky"? We aren't going anywhere. The saying it of old, earth orbit is half way to the universe. And the difference in Delta V between going to and landing on the moon (remember, you can't trade speed for heat on the moon, as you can with a reentry to planet with an atmosphere), and going to Mars is "minor" (on the order of a couple meters/sec if I recall correctly). Ever. The guys argument is basically, if you want a project which would have cost 450 billion dollars in 1990, take 20 years, and requires development of many new technologies, then the "BattleStar Galactica" approach to a mission to mars (LEO station, a moon base, and then the construction in pace of a ship to transport an away team to Mars for a thirty day ground mission.) - then go for it. You just have to make sure that you can convince Congress to keep up such a program, though several election cycles. But with what we had, on the shelf so to speak, and 20 billion dollars to start, starting in 1990 we would have several years of data and the potential for a self supporting base/colony on mars. One that does not have to import food, oxygen, fuel, or raw materials. When I get the book back, I'll dig up the numbers. While any planetary exploration/base project is not necessary a bad one, IMHO, the Mars Direct is the better goal. One of the things he mentions as a reason for this is the whole need for a "Frontier" - particularly as Americans. There is a need for someplace to go, where the emphasis is on getting things done, not filling out the forms and holding meetings in order to get approval to approach the next circle of hoops to jump through. Much of the technological innovation which drove the American expansion was driven by the relative lack of labor and the need to "get 'er done!" Mars would provide just such an environment, far more than the moon would. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:46:03 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:45:50 -0500, Don Foreman wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:48:41 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:18:27 -0500, "Don Foreman" wrote: "Gunner Asch" wrote in message m... On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:17:37 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:25:44 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Ignoramus11443 wrote: That's a very enduring design, yes. I actually own a Beretta and love it. How does that .45 handle, is the recoil a little too much? i I prefer 9mm personally, mostly for the high capacity. I have shot friend's .45s many times during the same shooting sessions as my 9mms and really didn't notice much difference in recoil. Given my tendency for carpal tunnel issues I would think I'd notice. I do notice a difference in recoil between my two S&W 9mms, one being metal frame and one being plastic frame with about 12oz weight difference and otherwise with the same barrel length and shooting the same ammunition. The lighter plastic frame 9mm has more pronounced recoil as you would expect with the lower weight / mass. High capacity? How many people do you figure are going to be attacking you at one time? If its more than 3..doncha think a rifle would be a better tool? Zero would be my preference. I just don't want to have any real possibility of going empty in any reasonably probable scenario. Average number of rounds fired in a self defense shooting situation...2.5 G Average range, 7 yrds I think you are going to be pretty safe with a 8 rd weapon that can actually stop someone with the first round. That unfortunately cant be said of the 9mm Gunner That can't be said of the .40 or .45 either. It can, 98% of the time...but only 61% of the time with a 9mikemike. The probability of a one-shot stop is higher with the more powerful rounds, but it's far from a certainty. Shot placement is far more important than caliber or power. A .22 rimfire hollowpoint is a one-shot drop if the shot is perfectly placed. Ask any assassin. My dad was killed with one shot from a .22 rimfire. A shotgun with #4 buck gets 'er done because of the high probability of one of the coupla dozen little 24-caliber (6 mm) balls hitting something that will result in instant incapacitation. 6mm is smaler than 9mm. Bigger ammo does more damage per wound channel but instant drop requires that damage be done to very specific locations. Handgun ammo, unlike much higher velocity smaller caliber 5.62 mm (.223 caliber) rifle ammo, does not deliver sufficent hydrostatic shock to matter, so a stop/drop hit must impact spine, brain, heart, or other organ that will result in instant shock, or pelvis that can result in incapacitating pain but that's iffy with drug-crazed assailants who feel no pain. Indeed. Though packing a shotgun in a shoulder rig is problematic. Hitting such key small locations, short of head shots, is well beyond the marksmanship capability of most shooters, perhaps all shooters in a stress sit. I can repeatedly hit the face of an assailant at 7 yards but there's no way I'd bet I could hit his spine when we're both moving, in dark or low light, stoked with adrenaline. As I told Pete C. Though center of mass is relatively easy based on my experience with amatures who had to shoot in self defense. Ability to accurately place several shots very rapidly is much more likely to drop an assailant than having a bigger gun. I did say accurately, but I'm not talking bullseye here but several rounds to COM and a couple to head at short range. Self defense is a dynamic, adrenaline-charged scared-****less short-range activity, not a military activity done by young men in a high state of training. I assert that the best tactic is to use a weapon/caliber that the individual, young or old, male or female, big or small, strong or weak, liberal or conservative, can best deliver most fire with workable accuracy in a very few seconds of time. That's why nobody disputes the effectiveness of a shotgun or a full auto rifle. Most occasional shooters can deliver accurate rapid fire much better with a 9mm than they can with a .40 or .45, and the nines hold more ammo. Occasional shooters? Oh..you mean people who shouldnt be carrying a deadly weapon? Good point. Most of the men and women I shoot with shoot more often (and more skillfully) than most cops. Laura shoots a .40 compact every bit as well as she does a 9mmp. I do a little better with both 9mmp and .45ACP than with .40S&W. A .380 is a one-shot drop if shot placement is right. A .380 with 7 rounds fired rapidly enough to hit at point blank range has far higher probability of stop than one hit from a .45ACP. The objective is to stop, no bonus for doing it in one shot. Get it done with as many shots as it takes, accurately delivered to drop the assailant. The problem with that is..he may not let you shoot him a bunch of times before he crushes your skull with a rock. That's absurd. He needs to be within arm's length to hit me with a rock or cut me with a blade. I don't need sights to hit a face-sized target at 5 feet, and even a .380 has considerably more energy than a rock swung or thrown by hand. His problem is that I'll shoot his face off before he can crush my skull with a rock. That's why I assert that the .380 one might carry is far more defense than a .45 one leaves at home. It's a moot point for those who routinely carry a .45 and can shoot it well. I do shoot a .45 respectably but I don't care to pack one though I do have a holster for my Colt Officer's and my instructor in the CQB (close quarters battle) training I did with that pistol thought I shot it respectably. I don't even pack a .380 most days. We've had this joust before, Gunner. Not saying you're wrong , just sayin' that the solution you find right for you may not be right for others. True enough. You stick to the mouse guns and Ill stick to the man stoppers I dont have to shoot a guy 9 times with. Deal? Deal. And I'll stipulate that if I went some of the places you go, I'd probably want my Colt Officer's .45 with me. http://detnews.com/article/20071205/...mes-saving-mom 7 yr old takes 6 hits at point blank range from a 9mm..and lives. Tillie is going to have a real fun time in prison after that, isn't he? http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...otsue0318.html http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/0...r_Shooting.htm Innocent man shot 6 times by police and survives And so forth. http://www.wgal.com/news/22960516/detail.html http://www.greatamericans.com/video/...ficer-Jeff-Deg http://www.nowpublic.com/woman_shot_..._in_head_lives http://www.news4jax.com/news/10529143/detail.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6873bb1258 http://articles.sfgate.com/2000-04-0...oakland-police Oops, you got this one bass ackwards, G. The perp had a 9mm and the cop a .45. The PERP was hit 6 times and lived. Most of the others don't discuss caliber and one was a .32. "The googlefu in this one is weak." Just a heads up for those who believe in the 9mm..... How about stories of .45 shooting survival? Nothing is certain. http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-man-sur...,4228109.story http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.ph...;topic=20431.0 http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uni...16mmshoot.html http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Filipino...tion_at tempt (Wow, lots of .45 shooting stories from the Phillipines! It's more dangerous over there since they kicked us out. Too bad for them.) Cop shoots 4x with .357 Silvertips but is killed by a single .22 shot. http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm More .22 kills: http://www.buffalonews.com/2009/05/2...rvivor-of.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/19/...ide/index.html http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkiller...ckey_henry.php So, there you have it. Bullets are capable of killing people, no matter what caliber or power. I own a 9mm and don't see any overwhelming reason to replace it. Sure, I'd happily take a .45 to keep in the house or truck. During a home invasion, I'd still hope I could get to my rifle first, though. ;) And of course..one of my favorites... G http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp VBG Oh, I hadn't known that the perp was such a wonderful fellow, but I liked the article in Snopes better than the email which went around. It was almost as good as what Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio did with his tent jail with pink convict uniforms. Perps won't want to do anything to get sent back THERE. That's fer sher! -- May those who love us, love us; And may those that don't love us, May God turn their hearts; And if he doesn't turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles, So we'll know them by their limping. --old Gaelic blessing |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:01:11 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:46:03 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch scrawled the following: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:45:50 -0500, Don Foreman wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:48:41 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:18:27 -0500, "Don Foreman" wrote: "Gunner Asch" wrote in message om... On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:17:37 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Gunner Asch wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:25:44 -0500, "Pete C." wrote: Ignoramus11443 wrote: That's a very enduring design, yes. I actually own a Beretta and love it. How does that .45 handle, is the recoil a little too much? i I prefer 9mm personally, mostly for the high capacity. I have shot friend's .45s many times during the same shooting sessions as my 9mms and really didn't notice much difference in recoil. Given my tendency for carpal tunnel issues I would think I'd notice. I do notice a difference in recoil between my two S&W 9mms, one being metal frame and one being plastic frame with about 12oz weight difference and otherwise with the same barrel length and shooting the same ammunition. The lighter plastic frame 9mm has more pronounced recoil as you would expect with the lower weight / mass. High capacity? How many people do you figure are going to be attacking you at one time? If its more than 3..doncha think a rifle would be a better tool? Zero would be my preference. I just don't want to have any real possibility of going empty in any reasonably probable scenario. Average number of rounds fired in a self defense shooting situation...2.5 G Average range, 7 yrds I think you are going to be pretty safe with a 8 rd weapon that can actually stop someone with the first round. That unfortunately cant be said of the 9mm Gunner That can't be said of the .40 or .45 either. It can, 98% of the time...but only 61% of the time with a 9mikemike. The probability of a one-shot stop is higher with the more powerful rounds, but it's far from a certainty. Shot placement is far more important than caliber or power. A .22 rimfire hollowpoint is a one-shot drop if the shot is perfectly placed. Ask any assassin. My dad was killed with one shot from a .22 rimfire. A shotgun with #4 buck gets 'er done because of the high probability of one of the coupla dozen little 24-caliber (6 mm) balls hitting something that will result in instant incapacitation. 6mm is smaler than 9mm. Bigger ammo does more damage per wound channel but instant drop requires that damage be done to very specific locations. Handgun ammo, unlike much higher velocity smaller caliber 5.62 mm (.223 caliber) rifle ammo, does not deliver sufficent hydrostatic shock to matter, so a stop/drop hit must impact spine, brain, heart, or other organ that will result in instant shock, or pelvis that can result in incapacitating pain but that's iffy with drug-crazed assailants who feel no pain. Indeed. Though packing a shotgun in a shoulder rig is problematic. Hitting such key small locations, short of head shots, is well beyond the marksmanship capability of most shooters, perhaps all shooters in a stress sit. I can repeatedly hit the face of an assailant at 7 yards but there's no way I'd bet I could hit his spine when we're both moving, in dark or low light, stoked with adrenaline. As I told Pete C. Though center of mass is relatively easy based on my experience with amatures who had to shoot in self defense. Ability to accurately place several shots very rapidly is much more likely to drop an assailant than having a bigger gun. I did say accurately, but I'm not talking bullseye here but several rounds to COM and a couple to head at short range. Self defense is a dynamic, adrenaline-charged scared-****less short-range activity, not a military activity done by young men in a high state of training. I assert that the best tactic is to use a weapon/caliber that the individual, young or old, male or female, big or small, strong or weak, liberal or conservative, can best deliver most fire with workable accuracy in a very few seconds of time. That's why nobody disputes the effectiveness of a shotgun or a full auto rifle. Most occasional shooters can deliver accurate rapid fire much better with a 9mm than they can with a .40 or .45, and the nines hold more ammo. Occasional shooters? Oh..you mean people who shouldnt be carrying a deadly weapon? Good point. Most of the men and women I shoot with shoot more often (and more skillfully) than most cops. Laura shoots a .40 compact every bit as well as she does a 9mmp. I do a little better with both 9mmp and .45ACP than with .40S&W. A .380 is a one-shot drop if shot placement is right. A .380 with 7 rounds fired rapidly enough to hit at point blank range has far higher probability of stop than one hit from a .45ACP. The objective is to stop, no bonus for doing it in one shot. Get it done with as many shots as it takes, accurately delivered to drop the assailant. The problem with that is..he may not let you shoot him a bunch of times before he crushes your skull with a rock. That's absurd. He needs to be within arm's length to hit me with a rock or cut me with a blade. I don't need sights to hit a face-sized target at 5 feet, and even a .380 has considerably more energy than a rock swung or thrown by hand. His problem is that I'll shoot his face off before he can crush my skull with a rock. That's why I assert that the .380 one might carry is far more defense than a .45 one leaves at home. It's a moot point for those who routinely carry a .45 and can shoot it well. I do shoot a .45 respectably but I don't care to pack one though I do have a holster for my Colt Officer's and my instructor in the CQB (close quarters battle) training I did with that pistol thought I shot it respectably. I don't even pack a .380 most days. We've had this joust before, Gunner. Not saying you're wrong , just sayin' that the solution you find right for you may not be right for others. True enough. You stick to the mouse guns and Ill stick to the man stoppers I dont have to shoot a guy 9 times with. Deal? Deal. And I'll stipulate that if I went some of the places you go, I'd probably want my Colt Officer's .45 with me. http://detnews.com/article/20071205/...mes-saving-mom 7 yr old takes 6 hits at point blank range from a 9mm..and lives. Tillie is going to have a real fun time in prison after that, isn't he? http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...otsue0318.html http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/0...r_Shooting.htm Innocent man shot 6 times by police and survives And so forth. http://www.wgal.com/news/22960516/detail.html http://www.greatamericans.com/video/...ficer-Jeff-Deg http://www.nowpublic.com/woman_shot_..._in_head_lives http://www.news4jax.com/news/10529143/detail.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6873bb1258 http://articles.sfgate.com/2000-04-0...oakland-police Oops, you got this one bass ackwards, G. The perp had a 9mm and the cop a .45. The PERP was hit 6 times and lived. Most of the others don't discuss caliber and one was a .32. "The googlefu in this one is weak." Just a heads up for those who believe in the 9mm..... How about stories of .45 shooting survival? Nothing is certain. http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-man-sur...,4228109.story http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.ph...;topic=20431.0 http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uni...16mmshoot.html http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Filipino...tion_at tempt (Wow, lots of .45 shooting stories from the Phillipines! It's more dangerous over there since they kicked us out. Too bad for them.) Lots of FMJ bullets were fired from the looks of it. No hollow points. Cop shoots 4x with .357 Silvertips but is killed by a single .22 shot. http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm More .22 kills: http://www.buffalonews.com/2009/05/2...rvivor-of.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/19/...ide/index.html One wonders how many times the kid shot them. Probably a bunch http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkiller...ckey_henry.php Seems that he finished em off with the .22 after strangulation etc etc. So, there you have it. Bullets are capable of killing people, no matter what caliber or power. I own a 9mm and don't see any overwhelming reason to replace it. Sure, I'd happily take a .45 to keep in the house or truck. During a home invasion, I'd still hope I could get to my rifle first, though. ;) And of course..one of my favorites... G http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp VBG Oh, I hadn't known that the perp was such a wonderful fellow, but I liked the article in Snopes better than the email which went around. It was almost as good as what Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio did with his tent jail with pink convict uniforms. Perps won't want to do anything to get sent back THERE. That's fer sher! G And the Leftwingers simply Hate! Arpaio, dont they? VBG Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on or
about Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:48:41 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: A .380 is a one-shot drop if shot placement is right. A .380 with 7 rounds fired rapidly enough to hit at point blank range has far higher probability of stop than one hit from a .45ACP. The objective is to stop, no bonus for doing it in one shot. Get it done with as many shots as it takes, accurately delivered to drop the assailant. The problem with that is..he may not let you shoot him a bunch of times before he crushes your skull with a rock. Properly places, a .22 shortly will kill someone. But you can't always get that kind of cooperation from people who deserve being shot. And never plan on your enemy doing everything you need him to do, in order for you to be victorious. That's not a plan, nor even taking a risk, that's a gamble from the git go. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on or
about Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:40:54 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:40:41 -0400, "Steve W." wrote: Larry Jaques wrote: On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:27:00 -0500, the infamous "Pete C." scrawled the following: Gunner Asch wrote: --snip of answer to question I asked earlier-- Carry what you want. If you carry a round that has minimal "stopping power", with luck, he might let you shoot him until he actually does go down. If not..he might simply kill you. Something to consider when carrying a firearm in the Real World Gunner 45acp with 230gr Golden Sabres 357 Mag with 125gr JHP .41 Mag with 210gr Golden Sabres My 9mm typically has either the 124gr JHP Golden Sabers, or 124gr FMJ Rangers. I also don't aim for CoM. Mine has Remington UMC 115gr JHP, 'cuz they were cheap for practice. I should buy some real ammo some time, huh? I guess that in the extra 0.4 secs it takes to put 2 more 9mm rounds in a bad guy, he won't be doing too much to stop us...IF we get off the first shot, or make our first shot count. So, you make headshots, just in case they're wearing armor? Good show, Pete. ;) -- Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for. -- Earl Warren One thing with a head shot, usually ONE is enough to stop the perp... Pretty much. Though I did see a guy get hit in the head with a .45 hardball. It hit just above the hairline and bounced straight up. Knocked his dick in the dirt however. He lived with no complications. I did hear of a guy who flinched when trying to shoot himself in the forehead with a 32. Tore open his scalp, left him with a headache, but he answered the door when the paramedics arrived. Scalp wounds bleed a lot. B) - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote: Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on or about Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:48:41 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: A .380 is a one-shot drop if shot placement is right. A .380 with 7 rounds fired rapidly enough to hit at point blank range has far higher probability of stop than one hit from a .45ACP. The objective is to stop, no bonus for doing it in one shot. Get it done with as many shots as it takes, accurately delivered to drop the assailant. The problem with that is..he may not let you shoot him a bunch of times before he crushes your skull with a rock. Properly places, a .22 shortly will kill someone. But you can't always get that kind of cooperation from people who deserve being shot. And never plan on your enemy doing everything you need him to do, in order for you to be victorious. That's not a plan, nor even taking a risk, that's a gamble from the git go. - Very very well said Sir...well said indeed! pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
pyotr filipivich wrote:
But you have to pilot a space craft all the way to touch down. There is no "free" negative acceleration on the moon. Now, one of the nifty things about the moon is that because there is no atmosphere, there is nothing to prevent you from orbiting a meter from the surface. But you can orbit there forever, because there is nothing to slow you down for a reentry/landing. I think the pressure the sun exerts on your craft will cause it to deorbit eventually. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Num...s_pressure.htm Wes |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that Wes on or about Thu, 01
Apr 2010 17:23:17 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: pyotr filipivich wrote: But you have to pilot a space craft all the way to touch down. There is no "free" negative acceleration on the moon. Now, one of the nifty things about the moon is that because there is no atmosphere, there is nothing to prevent you from orbiting a meter from the surface. But you can orbit there forever, because there is nothing to slow you down for a reentry/landing. I think the pressure the sun exerts on your craft will cause it to deorbit eventually. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Num...s_pressure.htm That is a distinct possibility. But probably not for quite some time, and ordinary mortals count time. Still, it is much more possible to have something orbit the moon at a minimum pero-luna of 1 meter, than to have something with a perogee of 1 meter. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
... Let the Record show that Wes on or about Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:23:17 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: pyotr filipivich wrote: But you have to pilot a space craft all the way to touch down. There is no "free" negative acceleration on the moon. Now, one of the nifty things about the moon is that because there is no atmosphere, there is nothing to prevent you from orbiting a meter from the surface. But you can orbit there forever, because there is nothing to slow you down for a reentry/landing. I think the pressure the sun exerts on your craft will cause it to deorbit eventually. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Num...s_pressure.htm That is a distinct possibility. But probably not for quite some time, and ordinary mortals count time. Still, it is much more possible to have something orbit the moon at a minimum pero-luna of 1 meter, than to have something with a perogee of 1 meter. The "1 meter orbit" is impractical: there are too many mountain ranges that would get in the way and, if you're willing to stipulate "1 meter above the mountain peaks" then you're talking about a 2-mile high orbit.grin |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that "RAM³" on or
about Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:26:12 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message .. . Let the Record show that Wes on or about Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:23:17 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: pyotr filipivich wrote: But you have to pilot a space craft all the way to touch down. There is no "free" negative acceleration on the moon. Now, one of the nifty things about the moon is that because there is no atmosphere, there is nothing to prevent you from orbiting a meter from the surface. But you can orbit there forever, because there is nothing to slow you down for a reentry/landing. I think the pressure the sun exerts on your craft will cause it to deorbit eventually. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Num...s_pressure.htm That is a distinct possibility. But probably not for quite some time, and ordinary mortals count time. Still, it is much more possible to have something orbit the moon at a minimum pero-luna of 1 meter, than to have something with a perogee of 1 meter. The "1 meter orbit" is impractical: there are too many mountain ranges that would get in the way and, if you're willing to stipulate "1 meter above the mountain peaks" then you're talking about a 2-mile high orbit.grin I think it might be possible to set up an orbit which avoids the Luna mountain ranges for the most part., skimming over the mares on the earthside, and then farther out on the Farside. But still, even it is all no more than 1 meter over the highest mountain on the moon, can you set up an orbit around the earth which at it's closest is at 29,003.3 feet above mean sea level? (One meter over Mt Everest?) - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
pyotr filipivich wrote:
But you have to pilot a space craft all the way to touch down. There is no "free" negative acceleration on the moon. Now, one of the nifty things about the moon is that because there is no atmosphere, there is nothing to prevent you from orbiting a meter from the surface. But you can orbit there forever, because there is nothing to slow you down for a reentry/landing. I think the pressure the sun exerts on your craft will cause it to deorbit eventually. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Num...s_pressure.htm That is a distinct possibility. But probably not for quite some time, and ordinary mortals count time. Still, it is much more possible to have something orbit the moon at a minimum pero-luna of 1 meter, than to have something with a perogee of 1 meter. The "1 meter orbit" is impractical: there are too many mountain ranges that would get in the way and, if you're willing to stipulate "1 meter above the mountain peaks" then you're talking about a 2-mile high orbit.grin I think it might be possible to set up an orbit which avoids the Luna mountain ranges for the most part., skimming over the mares on the earthside, and then farther out on the Farside. But still, even it is all no more than 1 meter over the highest mountain on the moon, can you set up an orbit around the earth which at it's closest is at 29,003.3 feet above mean sea level? (One meter over Mt Everest?) - Of course not, pyotr. A meter above the top of Everest is deep inside the atmosphere. That's note a free orbit, but hypersonic flight... pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! -- Richard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that cavelamb on or about
Fri, 02 Apr 2010 22:35:07 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: pyotr filipivich wrote: But you have to pilot a space craft all the way to touch down. There is no "free" negative acceleration on the moon. Now, one of the nifty things about the moon is that because there is no atmosphere, there is nothing to prevent you from orbiting a meter from the surface. But you can orbit there forever, because there is nothing to slow you down for a reentry/landing. I think the pressure the sun exerts on your craft will cause it to deorbit eventually. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Num...s_pressure.htm That is a distinct possibility. But probably not for quite some time, and ordinary mortals count time. Still, it is much more possible to have something orbit the moon at a minimum pero-luna of 1 meter, than to have something with a perogee of 1 meter. The "1 meter orbit" is impractical: there are too many mountain ranges that would get in the way and, if you're willing to stipulate "1 meter above the mountain peaks" then you're talking about a 2-mile high orbit.grin I think it might be possible to set up an orbit which avoids the Luna mountain ranges for the most part., skimming over the mares on the earthside, and then farther out on the Farside. But still, even it is all no more than 1 meter over the highest mountain on the moon, can you set up an orbit around the earth which at it's closest is at 29,003.3 feet above mean sea level? (One meter over Mt Everest?) - Of course not, pyotr. A meter above the top of Everest is deep inside the atmosphere. That's note a free orbit, but hypersonic flight... Which is part of the illustration. When you go to Mars or Earth,you can use "low tech" means to de-orbit and land "for free" (for certain values of "free".) In those cases, you do not need to be under power all the way to the surface. (I have a story which involves a "dead stick" (no power) from orbit... it is weird.) But to land on the Moon, you need to power all the way down. On the Moon, you can "almost miss" the ground and get away with it. "orbit one meter above the surface" - but not on Mars or Earth. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that cavelamb on or about
Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:31:50 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: pyotr filipivich wrote: Should we go back? I wish I had taken notes, because I loaned the book. "Mars Direct" is the program, which figured that using the technology available in 1994, it was possible to put men on Mars for about 20 billion dollars. No need to invent space stations, moon bases, or "battle star galactica" multi-tonne Space Cruisers (you know the ones - a thousand meter long monsters with a crew of 5,000.). Two Saturn rocket (or equivalent) launches and the project is underway. Why not the Moon? Because, in short, you have to take everything with you, there's nothing there readily exploitable. Fuel for a return trip can be made on Mars - it's evidentially 1890s technology. Secondly in terms of delta V, the moon is almost as far as Mars. That is you have to spend money (fuel) all the way to the surface. On Mars, you can aero brake into orbiter, and land by parachute. And the environment on the Moon is hostile. Remember, earth plants are set up for a twenty four hour cycle, not 29 days. Personally, I don't care which way we go, but I'm more enthusiastic for a Mars mission. OTOH, Obama care will mean that there will be no money for any space program. Or any other future. pyotr I got the book back, now I have numbers. Bewahahaha - I have Numbers! _The Case for Mars_, Robert Zubrin, c 1996 ISBN 0-684-82757-3 It's about the depth of the gravity well, p. It starts there. It is also the amount of delta V required to get from low earth orbit to the surface. To get to the surface of the Moon requires a total delta V of 6 km/s. That's 3.2 for trans lunar insertion, 0.9 km/s for low lunar orbit capture, and 1.9 km/s to land on the surface. To get to the surface of Mars requires 4.5. km/s (4 for trans Mars injection, 0.1 km/s for a post aero capture orbit adjustment, and 0.4 km/s to land using an aerosheild but no parachute. The moon (IMHO) was put there as a useful resource. As a good first goal, to get us off the planet. Aluminum galore. LOTS of solar power. Two weeks of the month. The rest of the time, you're going to have to run on batteries, or nuclear power. And - damit - water! But no carbon. Which means that you have to import that. Even for making Aluminum, you need Carbon. And without carbon, you have to import it for any other manufacturing. Like steel, plastics, or fuel. So, you DON'T have to take every thing with you. You mine, refine, and manufacture - on the moon. But, and this seems to be a constraint, there is no Carbon on the moon. Mars has lots of Carbon Dioxide. Import six tonnes of Hydrogen, run it through an automated 19th century level technology gasification plant, and you can produce a hundred and eight tonnes of methane and oxygen. Thus you can have an Earth Returned Vehicle ready and fueled on Mars, before the humans leave Earth. Prying Oxygen out of the Moon requires a much more complex installation. So the first several expeditions will have to carry their fuel, oxygen, water and food with them. Unless, of course, you want to go straight to Mars. (Which I doubt it really do-able) It is do able, and it was do able in 1990. We NEED a moon base... As a science outpost, yes. As a future habitat for humanity, it lacks certain advantages that Mars does. Atmosphere. Carbon. Twenty four hour days. I'm not saying Mars will be a walk in the park. It's going to be like living in Tibet, but you can go outside in Tibet and not need a space suit. Greenhouses work on Tibet, will work on Mars, not a real option on the Moon. Heck, check the escape velocity numbers. You can THROW stuff up to orbit from the moon. (solar powered linear accelerators) Yep. Of course, there is the small problem that you're working in a very small gravitational field. One of the regular issue of space exploration is shipping costs. What can the Moon produce which can't be done on earth for less, including transportation costs? You can't really grow crops on the moon - the power requirements are excessive. And you are going to have to use grow lights, because no plant that we know of can handle a 672 hour cycle. On the moon, you are going to have to import the carbon dioxide to make the plants grow, too. Had we set up a moon base back in the 70s - 80s, I'd bet we'd be ON Mars by now. That is possible. But a Moon base is going to be a high tech operation all the way. What I'm now thinking is that the difficulties of operating on the Moon will make people think that going to Mars is going to be even more difficult. Secondly, the technologies necessary for a base on the moon are not going to be easily transferred for a Mars base. But without that "tree house in the sky"? We aren't going anywhere. Ever. If only Christopher Columbus had waited until he had had available steam powered iron ships ... The point of the book, and the author, is that the technology existed (in 1990) to go to Mars, without first having to build a monster Space Ship, invent ways of transferring liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen in Zero G, develop the techniques for orbital assembly of components, and wait for the perfection of nuclear thermal rocket on the scale to move the 'Battlestar Galactica' sized ship necessary to carry all the food, fuel, parts, materials and crew necessary to build a Mars orbital facility in order to land an expeditionary team for a brief deployment before returning to Earth. It is the Massive, high tech, Starship Enterprise vision of space travel which is killing the space program. When I get finished with grinding the numbers, I'll post a more coherent article. tschus pyotr - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
On 4/6/2010 4:58 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Should we go back? I'm all for everything you said, pytor. All I'm trying to point out is that the 1970's technology that took us to the moon - has been lost. We don't _have_ that capability any more. And without it, Mars is just another bright dot in the sky. It's is the base technology needed for any further exploration. Have you figured out the trip time that comes along with that minimum delta-V profile? For how many people? If we can't live comfortably on the moon for that long, how can we expect to survive and interplanetary trip? And come back! -- Richard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
cavelamb" ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net wrote:
On 4/6/2010 4:58 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: Should we go back? I'm all for everything you said, pytor. All I'm trying to point out is that the 1970's technology that took us to the moon - has been lost. Not just yet it hasn't. We don't _have_ that capability any more. Sure we do, or we could build it. -- John R. Carroll |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
On 4/6/2010 8:52 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
cavelamb"""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net wrote: On 4/6/2010 4:58 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: Should we go back? I'm all for everything you said, pytor. All I'm trying to point out is that the 1970's technology that took us to the moon - has been lost. Not just yet it hasn't. We don't _have_ that capability any more. Sure we do, or we could build it. No, John, respectfully, it's gone. The tooling to build Saturn Vs was broken up decades ago. The people who could do it - gone to ground, retired, or long dead. ALL of that will have to be re-invented. And - if you can't lift to the moon (which is where I came in), how the hell do you lift to Mars??? -- Richard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
cavelamb ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote in
m: On 4/6/2010 8:52 PM, John R. Carroll wrote: cavelamb"""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net wrote: On 4/6/2010 4:58 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: Should we go back? I'm all for everything you said, pytor. All I'm trying to point out is that the 1970's technology that took us to the moon - has been lost. Not just yet it hasn't. We don't _have_ that capability any more. Sure we do, or we could build it. No, John, respectfully, it's gone. The tooling to build Saturn Vs was broken up decades ago. The people who could do it - gone to ground, retired, or long dead. ALL of that will have to be re-invented. In far too many cases even the Companies involved are gone, too! :( And - if you can't lift to the moon (which is where I came in), how the hell do you lift to Mars??? |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
I'd like to think that the technology from the moon shot is
probably still out there. The various wisdom needed to manufacture rockets is likely archived in a government building, stored safely on IBM punch cards. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "cavelamb" ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote in message m... The tooling to build Saturn Vs was broken up decades ago. The people who could do it - gone to ground, retired, or long dead. ALL of that will have to be re-invented. And - if you can't lift to the moon (which is where I came in), how the hell do you lift to Mars??? -- Richard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Somewhere, there are probably a couple old guys who remember
how. If they get thier daily Metamucil and fed properly, with plenty of naps. They could probably direct another missile shot. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "Eregon" wrote in message ... The tooling to build Saturn Vs was broken up decades ago. The people who could do it - gone to ground, retired, or long dead. ALL of that will have to be re-invented. In far too many cases even the Companies involved are gone, too! :( |
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
On 4/6/2010 10:50 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd like to think that the technology from the moon shot is probably still out there. The various wisdom needed to manufacture rockets is likely archived in a government building, stored safely on IBM punch cards. It was all done with slide rules... -- Richard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter