Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 1 Apr 2010 14:27 stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Neil Harrington wrote: >> >> but it always made money for the company. > What is your proof? It stayed a production car. Any claims that it just lost money are unbelievable and need proof far more than the obvious. > Of course as a marketing tool they decided overall > having it in their lineup makes them money but you haven't proven THAT > model is a big money maker for them. That opinion needs proof. > You ask me for proof but then you > give nothing but an opinion. You demand proof but give opinions, and when asked for proof it completely contradicts your claims ... and you try to weasle out of it. -Wolfgang
From: Peter on 3 Apr 2010 13:16 "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message news:OKGdnW0M_LqhZyzWnZ2dnVY3go6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >> Your claim was that Corvette was not a profitable car in the 50s and >> 60s. You support this claim by citing information about the small >> amount of profit outlook in 2008. You do understand that there have >> been some changes in the marketplace in 40 years, don't you? > > You do understand that you are arguing with a table, don't you? > Or someone who thinks a table of contents is a piece of furniture -- Peter
From: Peter on 3 Apr 2010 14:31 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010033112505470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > > I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either round > I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of any round. (Well, except for a round of beers, with good friends.) -- Peter
From: Neil Harrington on 4 Apr 2010 21:00 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010033123561077633-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-03-31 23:07:32 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said: > >> >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >> news:2010033121522413512-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>> On 2010-03-31 19:53:57 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said: >>> >>>> >>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>>> news:2010033112505470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>>>> On 2010-03-31 09:57:42 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said: >>>>> >> >> [ . . . ] >> >>>>> >>>>> Exactly, the 40 S&W is a more than capable round. >>>>> Compare; >>>>> Federal 185 grain 45 ACP (+P) Tactical HYDRA-SHOK (Law Enforcement) >>>>> muzzle energy; 525 ft-lbs, 25 yds; 475 ft-lbs, 50 yds; 445 ft-lbs >>>>> Velocity; muzzle; 1130 fps, 25 yds; 1080 fps, 50 yds; 1040 fps >>>>> >>>>> Federal 155 grain 40 S&W Hi-SHOK JHP >>>>> muzzle energy; 445 ft-lbs, 25 yds; 400 ft-lbs, 50 yds; 365 ft-lbs >>>>> Velocity; muzzle; 1140 fps, 25 yds; 1080 fps, 50 yds; 1030 fps >>>>> >>>>> I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either round >>>> >>>> Nor would I, but I'm looking askance a bit at the ballistics you list >>>> for >>>> the .45 Auto. (I have no problem with those shown for the .40 S&W.) Now >>>> I >>>> have no experience with Hydra-Shoks at all, but I have to wonder what >>>> pressures they're using to get 1130 fps with a 185-gr bullet. The .45 >>>> Auto >>>> is basically a 15,000 psi cartridge (where the 9mm Luger in military >>>> loads >>>> is usually over 30,000 psi, and I understand 9mm ammo intended >>>> primarily >>>> for >>>> SMG use sometimes runs to 40,000). >>>> >>>> The question here is not whether the gun is strong enough, but .45 >>>> loads >>>> much over standard pressure reportedly have been prone to extraction >>>> problems, typically the case sticking in the chamber and the extractor >>>> overriding or tearing through the rim. I sure wouldn't want to take a >>>> chance >>>> on that happening in a pistol intended for serious social intercourse. >>> >>> The important thing is that the gun is rated for +P loads. The Kimber >>> is, >>> and so is the Springfield. I would not want to run the +P loads through >>> an >>> earlier Colt 1911 or A1, that could be a little problematic due to the >>> high pressures. >> >> Yes, but I would take "rated for" to mean the +P loads won't damage the >> gun -- which isn't the issue. If I'm in a serious situation and find >> myself >> with a case stuck in the chamber, I am a very unhappy fellow and it >> doesn't >> make me feel any better to know the gun is still intact. > > I just haven't experienced that problem with 45+Ps fired out of the > Kimber. The cases pretty much kick out solidly and fly. I am sure the > Springfield, any of the S&W 45xx, or SW1911's or the SIG 220 will work > just fine. I would still want to err on the side of reliability over anything else, especially in the case of a sidearm carried for serious social intercourse. Cases HAVE stuck in .45 Auto chambers when loaded to higher pressures, while I've never heard of that happening with normal-pressure loads. And I assume all .45 Autos use standard chamber dimensions. (Granted 1911s are sometimes prone to other ejection problems, such as stovepiping, but that is pretty well taken care of just by using the slightly longer Commander-type ejectors -- which is what I assume your Kimber has.) The only stuck-case I experience I can recall having was not with a .45, but with a Browning Hi-Power. My club had rented a police range a few towns away for a combat match, and the Browning worked fine the first time over the course but near the end of the second time over, the extractor overrode the rim on one round. I suspect that was because of the ammo I was using that day, some foreign military surplus stuff that left the chamber pretty dirty. The Browning was 100% reliable as long as it was clean. > It is a hot round, and there is a considerable muzzle shock wave and > fatter blast than ball. You shouldn't have too much of an issue with that, > since you use a light 357 which has its own muzzle shock and blast > signature. Well, the Model 586 isn't what I would call light. I also have a couple of Model 19s, one 4" and one 2 1/2", and those I would call light for a full-charge .357 load. Of course they're all lighter than the original .357 which was built on S&W's old .44 Triple Lock frame (the N frame). > > I normally do not qualify with the +Ps, but I will run a couple of > magazines through on visits to the range. > > I eat up a lot of the Winchester 230 Gr. FMJ budget "White Box" ammo. > > BTW. a skinny single stack 1911 Kimber Custom carry is a lot easier to > carry concealed than my fat double stack Glock 23, or a fat double stack > 9mm. That Beretta works better out of a duty holster. Yes, the Beretta 92FS (or M9) is too big and fat for carrying in a hip holster under a jacket, in my opinion, though obviously some guys do that. One of my three 92s is the shortened Centurion model, but that is so little different in size and weight I don't know why they bothered. I think I'll sell mine. At one time I had a 92 Compact, which along with the slightly shortened barrel and slide also has a shortened grip, but I don't think that did much for carry either -- I just don't think there's anything you can do with a pistol in the Model 92 line that makes it really suitable for concealed carry. Years ago when I still had .45s I occasionally carried a Gold Cup in a hip holster and that was more suitable, though heavier than I liked. At one time I had a Commander, the original light alloy frame model, and that I think was probably close to perfect for someone who wants to carry a .45 autoloader concealed and doesn't feel the need for DA. Those Colts (or other 1911s) are nice and flat compared to double-stack 9mm pistols, I've gotta give them that.
From: Neil Harrington on 4 Apr 2010 21:32
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010033123101923810-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-03-31 22:39:35 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said: > >>>>> > >> Another advantage of the 7.7s was that they were cowl-mounted, right in >> front of the pilot and therefore did not have the parallax issues that >> went >> with wing-mounted guns. I think it was Hans-Joachim Marseille, perhaps >> the >> greatest Bf-109 ace, who opined that one centrally mounted MG was worth >> several in the wings. > > ...and therein lies the beauty of the P38 arrangement. 4 fifties & a 20mm > out in front of the pilot. Yes indeed. It seems odd to me that from the beginning of that war the U.S. gave up almost entirely on cowl-mounted guns for single-engine fighters (the only exception being the P-39, which we didn't use much anyway). The British too, of course. But the Germans, Japanese, Italians and Russians continued to use them, and I've never seen complaints of synchronization problems, so . . . ? |