When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: Bill Graham on 17 Nov 2009 01:21 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:DeSdncqV8PpBTZzWnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message > news:fHCx3BOf+WALFAF1(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >> In message <rs2dncQadslz9ZzWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes >>> >>>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>>news:rWFsDoKCAWALFACL(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>> In message <e4ydnf8Ny7zCwJzWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >>>> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes >>>>> >>>>>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:tvGdnSo6OsafMJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:2009111517302780278-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>>>>>> On 2009-11-15 17:24:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:2009111517220470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>>>>> Well! - Sorrrrrry. I used to have a colt auto chambered in 9 mm. It >>>>>> was >>>>>> the most reliable auto I ever had. >>>>> >>>>>You can't beat the good old 9mm, but you'll never convince .45 fanciers >>>>>of >>>>>that. They all have an abiding faith in those pumpkin rollers and are >>>>>impervious to reason. ;-) >>>> >>>> Having used both the answer is "it depends" on why you are carrying and >>>> pistol and the conditions. In the 70's when I used a pistol the .45 >>>> was >>>> a better choice for operational reasons for urban work. For battle >>>> field >>>> work a 9mm. >>> >>>If you mean because of stopping power vs. firepower, I think the >>>much-vaunted stopping power of the .45 is largely a myth. >> >> Sort of. In the 1970's body armour was not common. Certainly the >> terrorists we were up against did not have any. However there were a lot >> of civilians in the urban setting. >> >> A .45 would hit the target but not usually go through and hit anything >> else. The faster narrower 9mm tended to go through and come out the >> other side thus causing collateral damage. > > This of course depends on the load used. In the case of a "Geneva > Convention-approved" full metal jacket bullet, of course that would be > true. In the case of a jacketed hollow point, I doubt it. > >> >> So if we used a .45 it would stop the target without causing collateral >> (civilian ) damage. It also did have a lot of stopping power. We also >> only needed a few rounds. So 8 was usually plenty and in any even I >> carried 2 more magazines. > > I'm a little confused here by your use of "we." What organization were you > with at that time? I'm not aware of any British units, military or > civilian, having used the .45 auto. > >> >> In the battle filed there were not usually any civilians and the better >> penetrating power of the faster 9mm would punch through webbing and kit. >> Hitting the person behind was a bonus not a manslaughter charge :-) > > Right. :-) > >> >> >>>Several years ago, >>>two police officers wrote a book on the subject of stopping power (sorry >>>I >>>can't recall either their names or the book's title), based on their >>>extensive study of actual shooting cases. What they went by, and graded >>>their results by, was the percentage of "one-shot stops" for every >>>caliber >>>and load for which they could obtain data. Their conclusion as I recall >>>it >>>was that stopping power was much more dependent on the specific load than >>>on >>>the caliber, and the best one turned out to be a 115-grain JHP in 9mm, >>>with >>>a roughly comparable .45 load close behind. Full-jacket loads in either >>>caliber fell far behind, not surprisingly. >> >> That would be an interesting book. See if you can remember what it was. >> (I am not doubting you or the book I just want to read it :- > > I'd never have remembered it, but I just now found it via Google. The book > is "Hnadgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study," by Evan Marshall and > Edwin J. Sanow. From the description I know it to be the same book. > > Checking Amazon I see it's still available new in paperback (1992 ed.) -- > I don't know when the original handcover edition was published. The same > authors have two newer books on the subject, the latest (2001) being > "Stopping Power: A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition." > There are a few reader reviews for all these on Amazon. > >> >>>Now at the time of their survey the .40 S&W either didn't yet exist or >>>wasn't as popular as it has become. My guess is that that caliber would >>>outperform either the 9mm or .45 in a real-life situation, but probably >>>not >>>by very much. >> >> Also a lot bigger and less easy to handle in a fire fight (unless your >> name is Clint and the Director is a friend) > > What, the .40 S&W? Pistols in that caliber are no bigger than most 9mm > pistols, and in fact most are based on the latter caliber, in some cases > slightly beefed up to handle the extra recoil. For example the Beretta > Model 92 (my personal favorite, aka the M9) is practically identical to > the .40 version, the Model 96. > >> >>>My own belief is that it all comes down to kinetic energy, assuming a >>>bullet >>>so constructed as to efficiently transmit that energy to the target >>>rather >>>than wasting it on the scenery beyond, and assuming optimum placement of >>>course. >> >> I agree. >> >> >>>> SO a revolver jam is usually fatal. This is why autos have a reputation >>>> for jamming, people cleared them and lived to tell the tail. When the >>>> revolver jammed no one knew. >>> >>>Heh. That could be. >> >> Just a thought... no idea if it is right just a gut feeling. Having owned and fired side arms all of my life, I can tell you that revolvers are far and away much more reliable than autoloaders. I would never carry an autoloader concealed in my pocket, where the lint and sand could interfere with it's action/operation. But I have never had a revolver fail to fire at a range or in the woods when I took it out of my pocket and fired it at a target, which I have done many times.
From: Neil Harrington on 17 Nov 2009 01:28 "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote in message news:dvj3g5lgdrjhqv3bpvl2uvj4erb2o0r6vg(a)4ax.com... > > http://users.telenet.be/worldstandards/driving%20on%20the%20left.htm > > "In addition, the French Revolution of 1789 gave a huge impetus to > right-hand travel in Europe. The fact is, before the Revolution, > the aristocracy travelled on the left of the road, forcing the > peasantry over to the right, but after the storming of the > Bastille and the subsequent events, aristocrats preferred to keep > a low profile and joined the peasants on the right. An official > keep-right rule was introduced in Paris in 1794, more or less > parallel to Denmark, where driving on the right had been made > compulsory in 1793. > > Later, Napoleon's conquests spread the new rightism to the Low > Countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), Switzerland, > Germany, Poland, Russia and many parts of Spain and Italy. The > states that had resisted Napoleon kept left - Britain, the > Austro-Hungarian Empire and Portugal. This European division, > between the left- and right-hand nations would remain fixed for > more than 100 years, until after the First World War." Very interesting. Napoleon accomplished a number of things that have long survived him. Made me wonder when and why driving on the right became standard in the U.S. Wikipedia gives some whens, but no whys: "The first keep-right law in the United States, passed in 1792, applied to the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike, between Lancaster and Philadelphia. New York (in 1804) and New Jersey (in 1813) also enacted keep-right rules. "Early American motor vehicles were produced in RHD, following the practice established by horse-drawn buggies. This changed in the early years of the 20th century: Ford changed to LHD production in 1908 with the Model T, and Cadillac in 1916." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_on_the_left_or_right
From: Bill Graham on 17 Nov 2009 01:28 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:V6adnUsegoEAQpzWnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2009111615045779149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2009-11-16 14:23:21 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> >> said: >> >>> >>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>> news:fHCx3BOf+WALFAF1(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>> In message <rs2dncQadslz9ZzWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >>>> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes >>>>> >>>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>>>> news:rWFsDoKCAWALFACL(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>>>> In message <e4ydnf8Ny7zCwJzWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >>>>>> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:tvGdnSo6OsafMJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:2009111517302780278-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>>>>>>>> On 2009-11-15 17:24:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> >>>>>>>>> said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:2009111517220470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>>>>>>> Well! - Sorrrrrry. I used to have a colt auto chambered in 9 mm. It >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> the most reliable auto I ever had. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can't beat the good old 9mm, but you'll never convince .45 >>>>>>> fanciers >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> that. They all have an abiding faith in those pumpkin rollers and >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> impervious to reason. ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Having used both the answer is "it depends" on why you are carrying >>>>>> and >>>>>> pistol and the conditions. In the 70's when I used a pistol the .45 >>>>>> was >>>>>> a better choice for operational reasons for urban work. For battle >>>>>> field >>>>>> work a 9mm. >>>>> >>>>> If you mean because of stopping power vs. firepower, I think the >>>>> much-vaunted stopping power of the .45 is largely a myth. >>>> >>>> Sort of. In the 1970's body armour was not common. Certainly the >>>> terrorists we were up against did not have any. However there were a >>>> lot >>>> of civilians in the urban setting. >>>> >>>> A .45 would hit the target but not usually go through and hit anything >>>> else. The faster narrower 9mm tended to go through and come out the >>>> other side thus causing collateral damage. >>> >>> This of course depends on the load used. In the case of a "Geneva >>> Convention-approved" full metal jacket bullet, of course that would be >>> true. >>> In the case of a jacketed hollow point, I doubt it. >> >> Talking from a Law enforcement point of view, a hollow point round such >> as a Hydra-Shok with +P loads in 38SP, 9mm, 40 S&W or 45 ACP give an >> enormous transmission of energy into the target. As a double tap into >> that target is more likely than not, going to eliminate that particular >> threat. >> >> Indoors in urban situations where there might be over penetration issues, >> frangible ammo such as Glaser or MagSafe rounds are very effective. They >> actually have a far more effective energy transmission and stopping power >> than some hollow points, as they expend all their energy on contact, >> rather than using that energy to penetrate. >> >> Naturally Frangibles and hollow points are not Geneva Convention >> friendly. >> >> I use both Federal Premium Law Enforcement +P Tactical Hydro-Shok and >> COR-BON +P Glaser, in 40 S&W and 45 ACP. >> >> When just burning up brass and punching paper I go through a lot of >> Winchester "White box" FMJ and reloads. > > Probably 95% of everything I've ever fired (except rimfires of course) has > been my own handloads. I handloaded for everything I owned -- except a > French Model 1935A automatic that I never could figure out what to do with > and finally sold. I even handloaded for a French Mle. 1892 8mm revolver, > using .32-20 cases trimmed back to suit and sized in a .30 Carbine die, > then loaded with lubed but unsized bullets from an ancient Lyman mould > made for the .32-44 target revolver. Now that was interesting! No loading > data for that round of course, and the Mle. 1892 was actually a black > powder cartridge (almost certainly the very last black powder round still > in service use in World War II), but I just winged it with about 2 gr. of > Bullseye and it worked fine. > > I'm sorry I sold that Mle. 1892. Perfectly useless of course, but an > interesting piece. Cylinder swung out to the right. Odd people, the > French. > Yes.....They like gadgets, which is exactly the wrong thing you would want in a reliable firearm......Auto loading pistols are lots of fun to play with, and sometimes very well made, like the German Lugar, but they aren't anything you would want to bet your life on.
From: Bill Graham on 17 Nov 2009 01:37 "Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> wrote in message news:DbydnWauBrt3qZ_WnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2009111615403258821-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2009-11-16 15:26:17 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> >> said: >> >>> >>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>> news:2009111615045779149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>>> On 2009-11-16 14:23:21 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> >>>> said: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>>>> news:fHCx3BOf+WALFAF1(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>>>> In message <rs2dncQadslz9ZzWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >>>>>> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:rWFsDoKCAWALFACL(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>>>>>>> In message <e4ydnf8Ny7zCwJzWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >>>>>>>> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:tvGdnSo6OsafMJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:2009111517302780278-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>>>>>>>>>> On 2009-11-15 17:24:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> >>>>>>>>>>> said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:2009111517220470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>>>>>>>>> Well! - Sorrrrrry. I used to have a colt auto chambered in 9 mm. >>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> the most reliable auto I ever had. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can't beat the good old 9mm, but you'll never convince .45 >>>>>>>>> fanciers >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> that. They all have an abiding faith in those pumpkin rollers and >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> impervious to reason. ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Having used both the answer is "it depends" on why you are carrying >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> pistol and the conditions. In the 70's when I used a pistol the >>>>>>>> .45 >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> a better choice for operational reasons for urban work. For battle >>>>>>>> field >>>>>>>> work a 9mm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you mean because of stopping power vs. firepower, I think the >>>>>>> much-vaunted stopping power of the .45 is largely a myth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sort of. In the 1970's body armour was not common. Certainly the >>>>>> terrorists we were up against did not have any. However there were a >>>>>> lot >>>>>> of civilians in the urban setting. >>>>>> >>>>>> A .45 would hit the target but not usually go through and hit >>>>>> anything >>>>>> else. The faster narrower 9mm tended to go through and come out the >>>>>> other side thus causing collateral damage. >>>>> >>>>> This of course depends on the load used. In the case of a "Geneva >>>>> Convention-approved" full metal jacket bullet, of course that would be >>>>> true. >>>>> In the case of a jacketed hollow point, I doubt it. >>>> >>>> Talking from a Law enforcement point of view, a hollow point round such >>>> as >>>> a Hydra-Shok with +P loads in 38SP, 9mm, 40 S&W or 45 ACP give an >>>> enormous >>>> transmission of energy into the target. As a double tap into that >>>> target >>>> is more likely than not, going to eliminate that particular threat. >>>> >>>> Indoors in urban situations where there might be over penetration >>>> issues, >>>> frangible ammo such as Glaser or MagSafe rounds are very effective. >>>> They >>>> actually have a far more effective energy transmission and stopping >>>> power >>>> than some hollow points, as they expend all their energy on contact, >>>> rather than using that energy to penetrate. >>>> >>>> Naturally Frangibles and hollow points are not Geneva Convention >>>> friendly. >>>> >>>> I use both Federal Premium Law Enforcement +P Tactical Hydro-Shok and >>>> COR-BON +P Glaser, in 40 S&W and 45 ACP. >>>> >>>> When just burning up brass and punching paper I go through a lot of >>>> Winchester "White box" FMJ and reloads. >>> >>> Probably 95% of everything I've ever fired (except rimfires of course) >>> has >>> been my own handloads. I handloaded for everything I owned -- except a >>> French Model 1935A automatic that I never could figure out what to do >>> with >>> and finally sold. I even handloaded for a French Mle. 1892 8mm revolver, >>> using .32-20 cases trimmed back to suit and sized in a .30 Carbine die, >>> then >>> loaded with lubed but unsized bullets from an ancient Lyman mould made >>> for >>> the .32-44 target revolver. Now that was interesting! No loading data >>> for >>> that round of course, and the Mle. 1892 was actually a black powder >>> cartridge (almost certainly the very last black powder round still in >>> service use in World War II), but I just winged it with about 2 gr. of >>> Bullseye and it worked fine. >>> >>> I'm sorry I sold that Mle. 1892. Perfectly useless of course, but an >>> interesting piece. Cylinder swung out to the right. Odd people, the >>> French. >> >> I haven't reloaded in years, and then it was mainly 38 SP target loads. I >> am still sitting on several 100 plastic 38 boxes and 1000s of cases, >> primers, etc, etc. > > I haven't done any loading for years either, chiefly because I've done > very little shooting in the last several years. I still have my Dillon > press and all components in my walk-in closet, and I'll get around to > doing some sooner or later. I still have a pretty good stock of handloads. > > My problem now will probably be finding a good place to shoot. I have > "lifetime" privileges (because I was one of those who helped finance it) > to the state association's pistol range, which is next to (and on land > leased from) a commercial range which is within 10 miles of me. The > problem there is that the lease has long expired, and the last time I was > out there the commercial range owner was already getting grumpy about > shooters using that range for free instead of paying to shoot at his > range. And the range was originally intended just for competition shooters > in registered matches and tournaments, which I have not been one of since > the '70s. And that range owner is already facing legal and financial > problems because of homeowners' complaints about bullets arriving on their > property, even though there's probably at least a mile and a good-sized > hill between the range and their homes. It's hard to imagine anyone at the > range shooting over the hill, but who knows. Since I haven't been out > there for a few years I don't know what the situation is now, but my guess > is my "lifetime" privileges have expired. > If you want to continue shooting fine weapons at a very reasonable price, consider buying yourself an air pistol. They are extremely well made, the ammo is very cheap, and you can fire them in your living room and/or basement without disturbing the neighbors. They are also more accurate than firearms. Their initial expense is greater. (a good one will run you over a thousand dollars) but after that, the ammo is very cheap. (around a penny each round)
From: Twibil on 17 Nov 2009 01:39
On Nov 16, 9:14 pm, Jürgen Exner <jurge...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't even know why I bother. Celsius replaced centigrade in 1948, > because there were too many terminology conficts even at that time. That > was over 70 years(!!!) ago. Er, 1948 was *61* years ago the way the rest of us count things. Perhaps this explains why your numerical arguments are gaining so little traction. |