From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> On 2009-11-16 22:28:55 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>> news:V6adnUsegoEAQpzWnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d(a)
> <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> 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.
> The interesting thing is the '08 Luger had it's foundation in basic toggle
> action design with a German-American Hugo Borchard.

Das ist "Borchardt" -- mit ein "t." :-)

> Borchard had immigrated to the US and originally worked for Singer Sewing
> Machine Company, before working for Winchester and Sharps. He then
> returned to Europe and produced his C-93 which pioneered the toggle
> action. He was also a consultant for Remington in the development of the
> Lee rifle.
> The '08 Luger was a refined and simplified redesign of the Borchard C-93.

They misspelled his name too, at least in the title.

It's amazing how such an ugly beast as the Borchardt pistol could be
developed into the beautiful Luger. I've seen exactly one Borchardt in my
life, in a big gun store, and it was about the price of a mid-sized car.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
> In message <DeSdncqV8PpBTZzWnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
> Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>>"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
>>> In message <rs2dncQadslz9ZzWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)>, Neil
>>> Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>>>>"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> In message <e4ydnf8Ny7zCwJzWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
>>>>> Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>>>>>>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:2009111517302780278-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>>>>> On 2009-11-15 17:24:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)>
>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> 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
>>>>>>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
>>In the case of a jacketed hollow point, I doubt it.
> We were using FMJ Though if JHP were used for 9mm we would also have
> used them for the .45. BTW the Geneva convention did not apply. IT
> only applies to use against military forces.

I know.

> The Met used some rather nice jacketed Hollow points.

You were in the (London) Metropolitan Police?

>>> 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
>>having used the .45 auto.
> Really? The secret(a) is not aware :-) there is much you do
> not know I think.

Undoubtedly. The name of the organization would have been a great help.

> Many unusual weapons were used at many times that
> were not standard issue to all troops. We used to use Beretta .32's a
> lot too.

I once owned an ex-Metropolitan Police Webley .32 automatic. Nice little
pistol, and I had a thing for .32s at that time, had a small collection of
'em. Wish I'd kept them. <sigh>

>>>>Several years ago,
>>>>two police officers wrote a book on the subject of stopping power (sorry
>>>>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
>>>>and load for which they could obtain data. Their conclusion as I recall
>>>>was that stopping power was much more dependent on the specific load
>>>>the caliber, and the best one turned out to be a 115-grain JHP in 9mm,
>>>>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.
> Thanks.
>>Checking Amazon I see it's still available new in paperback (1992 ed.) --
>>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.
> I will see it I can get one for Christmas.

You're welcome. I'll probably get one of the later editions myself.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> On 2009-11-16 23:00:07 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>> "Neil Harrington" <not(a)> wrote in message
>> news:BIydndIRzdLn2p_WnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d(a)
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:TLSdnSSh4oDtqp_WnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d(a)
>>>> I had a S & W 22 caliber revolver that would jam after firing about a
>>>> dozen rounds through it. The clearance between the rear of the cylinder
>>>> and the frame was too small, and I was never able to get it
>>>> fixed......If I cleaned it after a couple of cylinder full's, then it
>>>> would work for another two, but cleaning it that often was a PITA, so I
>>>> never used it.
>>> That's interesting, but between the *rear* of the cylinder and the
>>> frame? Are you sure?
>>> I've seen revolvers that would develop that problem at the *front* of
>>> the cylinder, as leading built up between that part and the rear of the
>>> barrel. But I can't see what could cause interference at the rear of the
>>> cylinder, unless leading at the front of the chambers prevented new
>>> cartridges from being inserted fully.
>> Yes. this was a stainless steel 22 caliber 6 shot revolver with a 4 or 5
>> inch barrel. (I forget) Powder would get in between the ridge on the
>> cases and the cylinder, which would make the cases extend slightly too
>> far to the rear, and the cylinder would refuse to turn, causing the gun
>> to jam......I was unable to get anyone to fix it, although I didn't
>> really try too hard. (I had too many other guns to worry about it)
> I find that difficult to believe of a S&W 22. The K-22 was a great
> revolver and you could fire hundreds of accurate rounds out of it at the
> range. The Model 17 chambered for 22 LR is very reliable and accurate.

From his description of frame size and barrel length it sounds like a
..22/.32 Kit Gun, not a K-22.

From: Eric Stevens on
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:40:29 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <not(a)>

>Note that the same reason has been suggested for the fact that British .303
>service rifle ammunition was made with bullets having an aluminum nose cone
>under the jacket, making the bullet somewhat tail-end-heavy. Thus the
>ammunition met the Geneva Conventions requirements for full jacketed
>(theoretically "humane") bullets, but because it was somewhat likely to
>topple passing through the target it could actually be more destructive than
>if it had been soft-nosed.

Many years ago I was involved in military target shooting with the
British No4 rifle and also Bren guns using the more powereful Mk VIII
amunition. We were shooting at ranges between 100 and 800 yards at
6'x6' targets. I saw the holes left by many thousands of 303 ounds and
as far as I know they all went straight through the target unless they
had first clipped the top of the butt. I never saw any other evidence
of a tumbling round.

Eric Stevens
From: Bob Larter on
tony cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:00:02 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)>
> wrote:
>>>> still drives on the left. However
>>>> it is a real mess and unlike the A4/Letter change the UK with it's
>>>> modern road systems will find it impossible to change to the right...
>>> I see. The UK can't change their driving habits,
>> Not possible now. Too many purpose designed roads
>>> but you expect the
>>> US to change their measurement system to conform to yours.
>> No not to mine but the whole world except the US
> The point is that you say it's impossible for one little island to
> change from driving on the left to driving on the right, but expect
> the entire US - which dwarfs that island in size and population - to
> change their entire system of weights and measures.

By that logic, the USA should switch everything to what the Chinese use.

. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est