From: Chris H on
In message <S_qdnTb0x94AwJ_WnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
Harrington <not(a)> writes
>"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?

No. But trained and assisted them way back in the 1970's

>>>> 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.

HM Armed Forces.

\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/

From: Neil Harrington on
Twibil wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:14 pm, J�rgen Exner <jurge...(a)> 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.

Exner counts years in some unusual way that he thinks is metric, and
therefore must be correct.

First he converts days to kilograms, then he divides by ten, then adds ten
times as many centimeters as there are months in a metric ton, then . . .
well, it's really complicated.

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

There wouldn't have been any tumbling *in flight*, only after striking and
entering some substantial target such as a body. Assuming your targets were
heavy paper (as ours were in the U.S. Army), the bullets would have passed
straight through leaving only a neat round hole.

Also, the .303 ammunition made that way was the Mark VII if I recall
correctly. I have no idea whether that method of manufacturer was still used
with the Mark VIII type.

From: J�rgen Exner on
Twibil <nowayjose6(a)> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 9:14�pm, J�rgen Exner <jurge...(a)> 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.

Sorry, that happens when you slip one key to the right on the keyboard
and don't double check, my mistake.

From: Neil Harrington on
Chris H wrote:
> In message <AJKdneSaSKhHIpzWnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
> Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>> Now there you have a point. On the other hand, a term like
>> "Greenwich time" can have different meanings too depending on where
>> you are. To many it would mean GMT; to some it might mean the time
>> in Greenwich, Connecticut for example.
> Only to Americans. As you say it is context. To many Boston is in
> Lincolnshire. However GMT or Greenwich Mean Time has only one meaning.
> Greenwich time could have other connotations. I understand they march
> to a different beat in Greenwich [Village]
>>>> MM/DD/YY is our standard civilian form, but our military has
>>>> used DD/MM/YY for many years.
>>> It had to as the US military needed to talk to people other than US
>>> civilians.
>> There are other differences. The U.S. military uses the 24-hour
>> clock, while civilians use a 12-hour clock just as I believe they
>> still do in the UK, Canada and other English-speaking places. Why
>> don't the Brits use a 24-hour clock, if consistency with what the
>> rest of the world is doing is so important?
> The UK DOES use a 24 hour clock. All time tables, trains ships,
> aricraft etc and many signs for shops and offices are in 24hours.
> Most civilians use 12 hour clocks but since the digital watches and
> mobile phones many use the 24 hour clock.

But you yourself say "Most civilians use 12 hour clocks."

>>> As I said it is only a problem where the US wants to talk to
>>> the rest of the world. If having the worlds largest army does not
>>> help then eventually you will have to change.... BTW that is why
>>> the US now uses 9mm rather than .45 and NATO uses 556 rather than
>>> 7.62
>> Not exactly. The U.S. adopted the 9mm Parabellum cartridge because
>> it's half the weight of the .45 Auto, and therefore a soldier can
>> carry twice as many rounds. The decision was to go to a lighter but
>> still powerful cartridge, and the 9mm P was *there* and was
>> commonplace among other militaries; there would have been no point
>> in developing a new cartridge when a perfectly satisfactory one
>> already existed and was in general use.
> True. Also the US needed compatibility with the other militaries it
> worked with. IT is the same reason why the UK went ot 556... lighter,
> you can carry more and everyone else uses it. Much easier on
> logistics.
>>>> It never has so far, that I know of. You are straining mightily to
>>>> produce an argument for an insupportable position.
>>> It is the reason why until very recently no one knew what had
>>> happened to Glen Miller.
>> No one really seems to know "what had happened to Glen (sic)
>> Miller," though there are plenty of stories and theories, none of
>> them having anything to do with metric as far as I'm aware.
> They do know what happened. The problem was due to standards. The US
> military used a different time to the rest of us (ie the UK which is
> where he flew from) . There was a 1 hour difference. This was not
> realised in the initial investigations.
> His aircraft was seen just before it went into the sea but as it was
> not on the route and an hour out it was discarded.
> When the hour time difference was taken in to account and the position
> checked it was realised that it was the only possible option. His
> aircraft was spotted by a Canadian in an RAF bomber. The Canadian had
> trained on the rather distinctive American aircraft Glenn miller was
> flying in.
> They had gone a little south from their route. The winds at the time
> and in that area accounted for it. They flew into a bomb dump zone
> as some aircraft were returning to the UK. They ditched their bombs
> as required.
> As they did so the Canadian gunner saw the aircraft a long way below.
> It was hit by a falling bomb.
> Recently last 5 years they did find some wreckage for that type of
> aircraft in the position indicated by the gunner. They did not find
> any serial numbers or bodies.
> However Glen millers aircraft was the only one if it's type flying
> over the English Channel that day. The wreckage was found where the
> the gunner said he saw it as his squadron ditched it's bombs. BTW it
> was a clearly marked drop zone on the maps.
> Whilst there is no 100% positive proof it is a very strong case and
> all the pieces bar a positive ID fit.

All that is probably true. There are several other stories and theories
about how Glenn Miller died, and no one knows for sure. The version you
describe does seem to be the most likely one. The only correction I would
suggest is that the aircraft supposedly carrying Miller was not "hit by a
falling bomb," but flying at low altitude was damaged and/or sent out of
control by the bomb dump hitting the water close to it. It was a very large
load of bombs, of course.

But what on earth does any of that have to do with metric vs. English units
of measure?