From: Chris H on
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.

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.

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 :-)


>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 :-

>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)

>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.

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



From: Chris H on
In message <2009111606474899097-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>On 2009-11-16 06:07:32 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <2009111605502095335-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>> On 2009-11-16 01:00:35 -0800, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> said:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:25:50 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>><weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:DOydnQgIzaeZCmLXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:t28uf5hjm52ous6p5d4sren7rv8k86agfo(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:03:47 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>> <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Blame Napoleon. He laid down the law for France and at the
>>>>>>> beginning
>>>>>>> of the 20th century France dominated the automobile industry.
>>>>>> But sans Napoleon.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hummmm.....I wonder if France had stagecoaches before their
>>>>> automobiles, and
>>>>> if so, were they operated from the left or right sides?
>>>> Where ever they were operated from, ever since Napoleon they drove
>>>> on
>>>> the right.
>>> Cite. You authority is in as much doubt as ours.
>> I would be interested too... though it sounds plausible. Napoleon
>>was
>> into Standards and making France the Centre Of The World.
>
>Napoleon might have set the French standard just to be different to the
>English.

Shirley not? :-)

Mind you The US did it just to be different to Europe. It was all
political

>The bottom line is, one way or another we are all stuck in history.

And doomed to repeat it!

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



From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-16 07:31:45 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said:

> In message <2009111606474899097-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>> On 2009-11-16 06:07:32 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said:
>>
>>> In message <2009111605502095335-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>>> On 2009-11-16 01:00:35 -0800, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:25:50 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>> <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:DOydnQgIzaeZCmLXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:t28uf5hjm52ous6p5d4sren7rv8k86agfo(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:03:47 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>> <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Blame Napoleon. He laid down the law for France and at the
>>>>>>>> beginning
>>>>>>>> of the 20th century France dominated the automobile industry.
>>>>>>> But sans Napoleon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hummmm.....I wonder if France had stagecoaches before their
>>>>>> automobiles, and
>>>>>> if so, were they operated from the left or right sides?
>>>>> Where ever they were operated from, ever since Napoleon they drove
>>>>> on
>>>>> the right.
>>>> Cite. You authority is in as much doubt as ours.
>>> I would be interested too... though it sounds plausible. Napoleon
>>> was
>>> into Standards and making France the Centre Of The World.
>>
>> Napoleon might have set the French standard just to be different to the
>> English.
>
> Shirley not? :-)

Don't call me Shirley!

>
> Mind you The US did it just to be different to Europe. It was all
> political

If that were true we would all be riding pogo sticks, and who knows we
might be soon enough.
>
>> The bottom line is, one way or another we are all stuck in history.
>
> And doomed to repeat it!

Actually Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it." Santayana's Law of Repetitive Consequences.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:19:43 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In message <pcq2g5lvb9cibin55fnructdunko0sr6ls(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:04:02 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The US will have to use the International systems when talking to the
>>>rest of the world. This means doing lots of conversions, holding dual
>>>stock etc
>>>
>>>For example the whole world uses ISO A4 and the US uses US letter.... so
>>>when the US want to communicate with the rest of the world it has to use
>>>A4 and for internal use uses Letter.
>>
>>Are you saying that if an American - individual or corporate entity -
>>wants to send a letter to a foreign entity that the letter must be on
>>A4 paper for the foreign entity to read it?
>
>No. That would be silly
>
>> That non-Americans are
>>unable to understand something because it is written on paper that is
>>8.5" x 11"?
>>You've said some stupid things because of your anti-American bias, but
>>this tops most of them.
>
>If you want to send a paper to a conference, to a standards organisation
>etc or an official document to a Government etc then Yes it will have
>to go on A4 paper.

Why would that be a problem for us? Anyone in the position of sending
things to an international conference or standards organization would
be able to format their word processing to A4 and slip A4 paper in
their printer. I doubt, though, that another government entity would
refuse a paper on US letter stock. Our government would not refuse a
letter from your government because the paper size was not the same as
ours.

Do you seriously think that we would scrap billions of dollars worth
of filing cabinets, file folders, and paper stock because twits like
you have their knickers in a twist because we don't march to your
drummer?

By the way, was Gordon Brown's "hastily scrawled note", spelling the
name incorrectly, to Jamie's mother on the proper paper?

We don't refuse your sales literature because it doesn't fit our
racks. Although, that's not really a salient point because their
aren't that many UK-made products that we're interested in buying.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:29:38 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In message <cnq2g5tp8hnehc3iu4i36m5p4i932deuse(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:21:54 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>So they had a brush with death?
>>
>>(I'm sure that pun is over your head, so I'll explain that a fox's
>>tail is called a "brush".)
>
>I used to live in Gloucestershire.

They didn't teach you about homonyms, and when to use "tale" and when
to use "tail", there?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida