From: Chris H on
In message <4b02a037$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> writes
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:00:02 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
>> 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.

It will do given time.... about 2 decades :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: Chris H on
In message <S_qdnTb0x94AwJ_WnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil
Harrington <not(a)home.today> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:vWEtTgEFmlALFAyf(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <DeSdncqV8PpBTZzWnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil
>> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes
>>>
>>>"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.
>>
>> 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
>>>civilian,
>>>having used the .45 auto.
>>
>> Really? The secret(a)illumnati.net 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)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.

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)home.today>
> 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)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 9:14�pm, J�rgen 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.

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

jue