http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/

Sarah Houston wrote:
> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
> 

http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.politics.misc.html

On May 2, 11:12 pm, Sarah Houston  wrote:
> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/

Sarah this is absolutely shocking!  When we see how to easily and
cheaply construct "terrorist weapons" capable of spraying bullets all
over the innocent, it's time for the internet to be heavily censored!
The Chinese have the right idea.  Keep all political speech closely
monitored and controlled.  "Gun Control" also includes "gun
information control" as well!  I think it's about time the authorities
kicked in your door, stomped your kittens and shut down your terrorist
site for good.  Only THEN can we all be safe!

I am a bit concerned, however, that the liberals in this group had
just assured me that firearms were far too complicated to be built at
home and here we see bullet-spraying machine gun plans just using
plumbing parts... Liberals wouldn't lie to me would they?

Obviously a little taste of the old water-board over at the ministry
of Love will teach Joe public about hoarding a stock of "terrorist"
plumbing fittings!

As for me I HATE Osama and LOVE Big Brother!

"Sarah Houston"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>

"There are over 550 million firearms
in worldwide circulation; that's one
firearm for every twelve people.
The only question is;
how do I arm the other eleven?"

LOL!!

"Sarah Houston"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>
Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you 
think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?

"Colonel Colt"  wrote in message 
news:1209803281.7405.0@proxy01.news.clara.net...
> "Sarah Houston"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>
> Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you 
> think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?

The alarm bells started to ring when, under the section "Family and Friends" 
on his website, he describes his father; "Edward W. Luty (1930 - 2005) A 
clever and brave man.
Murdered by the Medical Profession"

...and his mother;

Elsie Luty (1931 - 1998) One of life's angels.
Murdered by the State

In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:

>"Sarah Houston"  wrote in message 
>news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>
>Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you 
>think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?

They would demand the tax be paid.

Sarah Houston wrote:
> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
> 

      The WEB Counter at the bottom of the page says over 500,000 people have looked at that website.
      The website is registered in West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
      A fast and loose correlation (that does not imply causation) is that Britons -> ARE <- reading it.

      Freedom freedom without knowledge is just another form of slavery.


.

On Fri, 02 May 2008 22:12:24 -0500, Sarah Houston
 wrote:

>http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/


Not yet 
But what these people always forget is how to make ammunition

"FerdinandAkin"  wrote in message 
news:26idnbFpV80f14HVnZ2dnUVZ_rGhnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Sarah Houston wrote:
>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>
>
>      The WEB Counter at the bottom of the page says over 500,000 people 
> have looked at that website.
>      The website is registered in West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
>      A fast and loose correlation (that does not imply causation) is that 
> Britons -> ARE <- reading it.
>
>      Freedom freedom without knowledge is just another form of slavery.

Unless like many "webmasters" the counter was started much higher
than 0.  (It is very common.)

On Sat, 03 May 2008 06:20:38 -0700, FerdinandAkin
 wrote:

|> A fast and loose correlation (that does not imply causation) is that Britons -> ARE <- reading it.
|>
|>      Freedom freedom without knowledge is just another form of slavery.

	That doesn't mean the CID don't fudge the webcounter with an anti
"boost" , for instance the CSIS Uniserve NNTP monitor the downloads of all
my postings to gun newsgroups.....

	If a posting questions their gang, they just delete it....remember
what happened to the x mossad/katsaas Jewish CID monitoring transmissions in
the Yookay,

	Many ppl are not happy with the Quebec cage as well, for all the
screening La Surete du Quebec is invoking in the footsteps of Red China with
redirs and hijacks, etc...
-- 
Triad Productions-Fantalla©~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
WWWeb>>  http://boblacasse.150m. com

On Sat, 3 May 2008 08:42:34 +0100, "True Blue"  wrote:

|>
|>"There are over 550 million firearms
|>in worldwide circulation; that's one
|>firearm for every twelve people.
|>The only question is;
|>how do I arm the other eleven?"
|>
|>LOL!! 

	"550 million firearms"???............more like 20x that......the
"550 million firearms" are only the so so "registered" ones...

	Hispanics have been shooting Full auto Glock18s for the 10years,
they shoot at targets like trees, and use it for self defence.....a good way
to waste a lot of ammo....

	The Glock 50 was a full auto conversion with a 50 round clip back in
1985....it looked like a plastic Berreta with less parts.....
-- 
Triad Productions-Fantalla©~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
WWWeb>>  http://boblacasse.150m. com

"Herb Martin"  wrote in message 
news:481c6086$1$30504$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "FerdinandAkin"  wrote in message 
> news:26idnbFpV80f14HVnZ2dnUVZ_rGhnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Sarah Houston wrote:
>>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>>
>>
>>      The WEB Counter at the bottom of the page says over 500,000 people 
>> have looked at that website.
>>      The website is registered in West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
>>      A fast and loose correlation (that does not imply causation) is that 
>> Britons -> ARE <- reading it.
>>
>>      Freedom freedom without knowledge is just another form of slavery.
>
> Unless like many "webmasters" the counter was started much higher
> than 0.  (It is very common.)
>

Are, the men in trench coats monitor the site to see who visits.

"Colonel Colt"  wrote in message 
news:1209803281.7405.0@proxy01.news.clara.net...
> "Sarah Houston"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>
> Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you 
> think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?
>
=============================================

You beat me to it. Yes, Luty was imprisoned for making this machine gun out 
of plumbing parts, and was turned in by the photographer who took the photos 
for his book documenting how easy it was to build a machine gun. Luty did 
this to demonstrate to the authorities, and other interested people, of the 
futility of banning such guns, since anyone with a modicum of skills and a 
little determination could make their own. However, it is dangerous to be 
right when the government is wrong.

There was another website I saw somewhere that showed a production line in 
the deep jungle somewhere where counterfeit copies of all kinds of firearms 
were being produced. I was reading about Ragnar Benson's books regarding his 
travels and home made self defense and survival items. The 30 or so photos 
showed the progressive manufacture of a semi-auto 9mm pistol. The lathes 
were powered by someone pedaling a bicycle frame, utilizing the gears, 
sprockets and chains. The gun genie (knowledge) is out of the bottle. It's 
too late to turn back time to a gunless world.

Along the lines of Luty's project, I've always wondered how they would react 
to someone bringing in a simple homemade firearm to ask for help to register 
it. Take a simple piece of 3/4" or 1" pipe, and put an endcap on one end. 
Drill a small hole in the endcap. Use baling twine or duct tape to secure 
the piece of pipe to a 3' long piece of 2X4. If you wanted to put in more 
effort to make it look more realistic, use a grinder to roughly shape the 
2X4 into something remotely resembling a stock. You now have a muzzle 
loading matchlock. The barrel should exceed 18" long. You don't want to 
break any laws! Don't laugh! Essentially, this was the first type of firearm 
ever made. Using homemade powder (such recipes abound on the internet) to 
propel rocks, nails, small pieces of glass, etc. you have a firearm capable 
of inflicting deadly force. (Did anyone see Star Trek, where Captain Kirk 
defeated the Gorn?) The muzzle end of this firearm is prethreaded for a 
homemade silencer (the construction information of which also abound all 
over the internet). I wouldn't personally fire such a contraption as it's 
possible to blow up in my face, but the theory is relevant. How would you 
register such a firearm? It is written, that the receiver is the firearm! Is 
the endcap the "receiver"? Who is going to assign and stamp a unique 
identification serial number to an endcap. What then if you walked in with a 
wheelbarrow full of various size endcaps. These are muzzle loading 
matchlocks in progress. As soon as I drill a small hole in one, it becomes a 
receiver. Hahahahahah.

You would probably go to jail for violating manufacturing an illegal firearm 
or something like that, but this also demonstrates the futility of bans. 
Anyone wanting a pistol could make a simple one, use it to disable someone 
with a better gun, like the resistance did during the last WW, and voila, a 
nice new Luger, probably with ammunition. Didn't the US government drop 
thousands of these smoothbore simple pistols with a comic book strip on how 
to use it all over France during the last WW? I seem to remember reading 
about this. These zipguns were to be used to obtain better weapons from 
their oppressors. But, that could never happen here, eh?

"Buck Mulligan"  wrote in message 
news:e7io149avqi2tggs7hr84ebp1kcnkdcf12@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>
>>"Sarah Houston"  wrote in message
>>news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
>>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>>
>>Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you
>>think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?
>
> They would demand the tax be paid.
>
Wrong.  They'd go to Federal prison for illegal possession of a machine gun. 
And because of an amendment to the NFA enacted by Reagan, machine guns made 
after 1986 are bganned from private licensed ownership.  No tax bill, just 
jail.

In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:

>"Buck Mulligan"  wrote in message 
>news:e7io149avqi2tggs7hr84ebp1kcnkdcf12@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>>
>>>"Sarah Houston"  wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
>>>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>>>
>>>Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you
>>>think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?
>>
>> They would demand the tax be paid.
>>
>Wrong.  They'd go to Federal prison for illegal possession of a machine gun. 
>And because of an amendment to the NFA enacted by Reagan, machine guns made 
>after 1986 are bganned from private licensed ownership.  No tax bill, just 
>jail.

If I were going to build a machine gun, I'd get the tax stamp from the
BATFE and get to work.

You must be referring to a miscreant who would build one illegally.

Buck Mulligan wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
> 
>> "Buck Mulligan"  wrote in message 
>> news:e7io149avqi2tggs7hr84ebp1kcnkdcf12@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sarah Houston"  wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
>>>>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>>>>
>>>> Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you
>>>> think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?
>>> They would demand the tax be paid.
>>>
>> Wrong.  They'd go to Federal prison for illegal possession of a machine gun. 
>> And because of an amendment to the NFA enacted by Reagan, machine guns made 
>> after 1986 are bganned from private licensed ownership.  No tax bill, just 
>> jail.
> 
> If I were going to build a machine gun, I'd get the tax stamp from the
> BATFE and get to work.
> 

Only if you're going to build for a government agency [with a letter 
from such agency requesting that item] or for export to an approved 
government [no civilians allowed]

Any other building is illegal--Lautenberg amendment to the GCA of 1968.

Applies to any machine gun manufactured after 1986.

> You must be referring to a miscreant who would build one illegally.

On May 3, 10:21 pm, Magus  wrote:

> Only if you're going to build for a government agency [with a letter
> from such agency requesting that item] or for export to an approved
> government [no civilians allowed]
>
> Any other building is illegal--Lautenberg amendment to the GCA of 1968.
>
> Applies to any machine gun manufactured after 1986.
>
> > You must be referring to a miscreant who would build one illegally.

Gosh that sure sounds like an "infringement" of right of a militia to
keep and bear a soldier's standard equipment to me!  But then any law
with Lautenberg's name on it is sure to be unconstitutional one way or
another.

Benj wrote:
> On May 3, 10:21 pm, Magus  wrote:
> 
>> Only if you're going to build for a government agency [with a letter
>> from such agency requesting that item] or for export to an approved
>> government [no civilians allowed]
>>
>> Any other building is illegal--Lautenberg amendment to the GCA of 1968.
>>
>> Applies to any machine gun manufactured after 1986.
>>
>>> You must be referring to a miscreant who would build one illegally.
> 
> Gosh that sure sounds like an "infringement" of right of a militia to
> keep and bear a soldier's standard equipment to me!  But then any law
> with Lautenberg's name on it is sure to be unconstitutional one way or
> another.
> 
> 

I figure "pretty much" and "aye".

"Colonel Colt"   wrote :

> "Sarah Houston"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>
> Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you 
> think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?

Depends on if they had a class III license?

"Buck Mulligan"  wrote in message 
news:1uqp14hd6vlkpt2g2v6racouscdtg7mnk0@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>
>>"Buck Mulligan"  wrote in message
>>news:e7io149avqi2tggs7hr84ebp1kcnkdcf12@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Sarah Houston"  wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
>>>>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>>>>
>>>>Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you
>>>>think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?
>>>
>>> They would demand the tax be paid.
>>>
>>Wrong.  They'd go to Federal prison for illegal possession of a machine 
>>gun.
>>And because of an amendment to the NFA enacted by Reagan, machine guns 
>>made
>>after 1986 are bganned from private licensed ownership.  No tax bill, just
>>jail.
>
> If I were going to build a machine gun, I'd get the tax stamp from the
> BATFE and get to work.
>
You don't read too good, do you.  If you made a machine gun then it would 
manufactured after 1986.  Only machine guns made BEFORE 1986 may be 
licensed.

"Sarah Houston"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9A941C77F6DSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
> "Colonel Colt"   wrote :
>
>> "Sarah Houston"  wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
>>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>>
>> Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you
>> think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?
>
> Depends on if they had a class III license?
>
Just as in the UK, prosecution would depend on whether a person had section 
5 authority.

In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:

>"Buck Mulligan"  wrote in message 
>news:1uqp14hd6vlkpt2g2v6racouscdtg7mnk0@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>>
>>>"Buck Mulligan"  wrote in message
>>>news:e7io149avqi2tggs7hr84ebp1kcnkdcf12@4ax.com...
>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Sarah Houston"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:Xns9A92D7BFC9F8FSntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>Luty was sent to jail for building a machine gun.  What the fuck do you
>>>>>think that BATF would do to an American who did the same thing?
>>>>
>>>> They would demand the tax be paid.
>>>>
>>>Wrong.  They'd go to Federal prison for illegal possession of a machine 
>>>gun.
>>>And because of an amendment to the NFA enacted by Reagan, machine guns 
>>>made
>>>after 1986 are bganned from private licensed ownership.  No tax bill, just
>>>jail.
>>
>> If I were going to build a machine gun, I'd get the tax stamp from the
>> BATFE and get to work.
>>
>You don't read too good, do you.  If you made a machine gun then it would 
>manufactured after 1986.  Only machine guns made BEFORE 1986 may be 
>licensed.

You can make them for law enforcement. Boy, you've got to learn to
look for the loopholes.

In article ,
 Sarah Houston  wrote:

> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/

Home made "zip guns" are not legal in the US either.
But it's a cool website. :-)
-- 
--

Peace! Om

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a Bitch."
                                               -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet"  wrote in message 
news:ompomelet-27D635.07094805052008@news.giganews.com...
> In article ,
> Sarah Houston  wrote:
>
>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>
> Home made "zip guns" are not legal in the US either.

Cite.

In article <WYLTj.1520$Ve.984@trnddc08>,
 "Scout"  wrote:

> "Omelet"  wrote in message 
> news:ompomelet-27D635.07094805052008@news.giganews.com...
> > In article ,
> > Sarah Houston  wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
> >
> > Home made "zip guns" are not legal in the US either.
> 
> Cite.

Ok, correction, in Texas... I'd have to check the laws in all 50 states.

I could google for the specific statute but I'm short on time.

Trust me, it's there. ;-)
-- 
--

Peace! Om

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a Bitch."
                                               -- Jack Nicholson

In article <WYLTj.1520$Ve.984@trnddc08>,
 "Scout"  wrote:

> "Omelet"  wrote in message 
> news:ompomelet-27D635.07094805052008@news.giganews.com...
> > In article ,
> > Sarah Houston  wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
> >
> > Home made "zip guns" are not legal in the US either.
> 
> Cite.

Ok, quick google turned up this:

http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/gun-control/texas/

I'm most familiar with Texas gun law as that's what is the most 
important to me with my CCW/CHL. Apologies if this does not apply to 
other states.
-- 
--

Peace! Om

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a Bitch."
                                               -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet"  wrote in message 
news:ompomelet-4D268A.21060005052008@news.giganews.com...
> In article <WYLTj.1520$Ve.984@trnddc08>,
> "Scout"  wrote:
>
>> "Omelet"  wrote in message
>> news:ompomelet-27D635.07094805052008@news.giganews.com...
>> > In article ,
>> > Sarah Houston  wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>> >
>> > Home made "zip guns" are not legal in the US either.
>>
>> Cite.
>
> Ok, correction, in Texas... I'd have to check the laws in all 50 states.
>
> I could google for the specific statute but I'm short on time.
>
> Trust me, it's there. ;-)

Perhaps, but it certainly isn't in there for every state.

Omelet wrote:
> In article <WYLTj.1520$Ve.984@trnddc08>,
>  "Scout"  wrote:
> 
>> "Omelet"  wrote in message 
>> news:ompomelet-27D635.07094805052008@news.giganews.com...
>>> In article ,
>>> Sarah Houston  wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
>>> Home made "zip guns" are not legal in the US either.
>> Cite.
> 
> Ok, quick google turned up this:
> 
> http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/gun-control/texas/
> 
> I'm most familiar with Texas gun law as that's what is the most 
> important to me with my CCW/CHL. Apologies if this does not apply to 
> other states.


About the only thing illegal in Kentucky is armor piercing ammo or a gun 
with the serial number filed off--home made firearm aren't illegal.

On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:23:36 -0400, Magus  wrote:

|>> I'm most familiar with Texas gun law as that's what is the most 
|>> important to me with my CCW/CHL. Apologies if this does not apply to 
|>> other states.
|>
	You ever wonder why they have all these different laws for the same
USA, all the same guns and guns and clients, but all different laws to tie
you up in Bubba's jail till he figures it out....

|>
|>About the only thing illegal in Kentucky is armor piercing ammo or a gun 
|>with the serial number filed off--home made firearm aren't illegal.
	
	What's wrong with "armor piercing ammo", a lot of home invaders wear
TII/V+++ to dragon  skin armor if they know your armed.....

	"armor piercing ammo" is rendered quite useless in a handgun since
it over penetrate in a DGU, and has no spin/internal pressure in a
handgun...

	No gun is "all that" right out of the box, so most are somewhat
modified, usually at home unless your real rich and can afford a
"professional gunsmith" to do the work

On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:24:55 -0700 Robert LaCasse wrote:

> On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:23:36 -0400, Magus  wrote:
> 
> |>> I'm most familiar with Texas gun law as that's what is the most 
> |>> important to me with my CCW/CHL. Apologies if this does not apply to 
> |>> other states.
> |>
> 	You ever wonder why they have all these different laws for the same
> USA, all the same guns and guns and clients, but all different laws to tie
> you up in Bubba's jail till he figures it out....
> 
Maybe because the "same USA" is more akin to the EU rather than to Blighty?  
Just as Germany, France and England have different laws concerning firearms, 
so do New York, Texas and California.

> |>
> |>About the only thing illegal in Kentucky is armor piercing ammo or a gun 
> |>with the serial number filed off--home made firearm aren't illegal.
> 	
> 	What's wrong with "armor piercing ammo", a lot of home invaders wear
> TII/V+++ to dragon  skin armor if they know your armed.....
> 
I've yet to hear of body armor that will keep a home invader on his feet when 
hit center mass with a .45 ACP round.

> 	"armor piercing ammo" is rendered quite useless in a handgun since
> it over penetrate in a DGU, and has no spin/internal pressure in a
> handgun...
> 
Over-penetration is the problem.

> 	No gun is "all that" right out of the box, so most are somewhat
> modified, usually at home unless your real rich and can afford a
> "professional gunsmith" to do the work 
> 
How so?  The most I've had to do to a new gun is to adjust the sights and fire 
about 100 rounds through it.
-- 
Ernie B.

Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the 
difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from 
a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

"Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
news:MPG.228f9e67dc6b916a98b66a@127.0.0.1...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:24:55 -0700 Robert LaCasse wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:23:36 -0400, Magus  wrote:
>>
>> |>> I'm most familiar with Texas gun law as that's what is the most
>> |>> important to me with my CCW/CHL. Apologies if this does not apply to
>> |>> other states.
>> |>
>> You ever wonder why they have all these different laws for the same
>> USA, all the same guns and guns and clients, but all different laws to 
>> tie
>> you up in Bubba's jail till he figures it out....
>>
> Maybe because the "same USA" is more akin to the EU rather than to 
> Blighty?
> Just as Germany, France and England have different laws concerning 
> firearms,
> so do New York, Texas and California.

Except that unlike the EU we do have an overriding set of law that applies 
to all. Specifically federal law.

>> |>
>> |>About the only thing illegal in Kentucky is armor piercing ammo or a 
>> gun
>> |>with the serial number filed off--home made firearm aren't illegal.
>>
>> What's wrong with "armor piercing ammo", a lot of home invaders wear
>> TII/V+++ to dragon  skin armor if they know your armed.....
>>
> I've yet to hear of body armor that will keep a home invader on his feet 
> when
> hit center mass with a .45 ACP round.

Or use the Mozambique drill.


>> "armor piercing ammo" is rendered quite useless in a handgun since
>> it over penetrate in a DGU, and has no spin/internal pressure in a
>> handgun...
>>
> Over-penetration is the problem.

Besides being illegal.


>> No gun is "all that" right out of the box, so most are somewhat
>> modified, usually at home unless your real rich and can afford a
>> "professional gunsmith" to do the work
>>
> How so?  The most I've had to do to a new gun is to adjust the sights and 
> fire
> about 100 rounds through it.

Well, there is a bit more I would do for dedicated self defense firearm, but 
nothing you need a gunsmith for unless you are the type that finds changing 
a car tire to be beyond you.

:-)

On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:58:55 GMT, Ernie B. <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net>
wrote:

|>> 	What's wrong with "armor piercing ammo", a lot of home invaders wear
|>> TII/V+++ to dragon  skin armor if they know your armed.....
|>> 
|>I've yet to hear of body armor that will keep a home invader on his feet when 
|>hit center mass with a .45 ACP round.
|>

	A .45 ACP won't go through a simple T2A, do the research it's out
there....the purpose of a .45 ACP "ball" is limited to 800fps at 400ft/lbs,
and that does not bother a police vest...it may cause a bruise, it may
penetrate if you can shoot 3 rounds in 1 ragged hole only....but 1 shot is a
joke..
 
|>> 	"armor piercing ammo" is rendered quite useless in a handgun since
|>> it over penetrate in a DGU, and has no spin/internal pressure in a
|>> handgun...
|>> 
|>Over-penetration is the problem.
|>

	Yeah it is,...... it looses stopping power unless you hit a huge
bone...

|>> 	No gun is "all that" right out of the box, so most are somewhat
|>> modified, usually at home unless your real rich and can afford a
|>> "professional gunsmith" to do the work 
|>> 
|>How so?  The most I've had to do to a new gun is to adjust the sights and fire 
|>about 100 rounds through it.
|>-- 

	I'm fussy, I customize everything except for the limits of my
tools...

	"100 rounds" hmmmmm, I'm at 60,000rds+ and I still seem not to be
getting much better.....

On Sat, 10 May 2008 18:07:10 GMT Scout wrote:

> > Maybe because the "same USA" is more akin to the EU rather than to 
> > Blighty?
> > Just as Germany, France and England have different laws concerning 
> > firearms,
> > so do New York, Texas and California.
> 
> Except that unlike the EU we do have an overriding set of law that applies 
> to all. Specifically federal law.
> 
Yeah, advantage US.  My point is that local laws differ from place-to-place.
> >>
> > I've yet to hear of body armor that will keep a home invader on his feet 
> > when
> > hit center mass with a .45 ACP round.
> 
> Or use the Mozambique drill.
> 
That too, if necessary.  A heavy slug to the chest usually ends the fight, 
body armor or not.
> >>
> > Over-penetration is the problem.
> 
> Besides being illegal.
> 
;-)
> >>
> > How so?  The most I've had to do to a new gun is to adjust the sights and 
> > fire
> > about 100 rounds through it.
> 
> Well, there is a bit more I would do for dedicated self defense firearm, but 
> nothing you need a gunsmith for unless you are the type that finds changing 
> a car tire to be beyond you.
> 
Yep.
-- 
Ernie B.

Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the 
difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from 
a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:00:08 -0700 Robert LaCasse wrote:

> 	A .45 ACP won't go through a simple T2A, do the research it's out
> there....the purpose of a .45 ACP "ball" is limited to 800fps at 400ft/lbs,
> and that does not bother a police vest...it may cause a bruise, it may
> penetrate if you can shoot 3 rounds in 1 ragged hole only....but 1 shot is a
> joke..
>  
I'm not interested in penetration, just in knocking the intruder onto his 
butt.  The penetration comes with the round between the eyes, if necessary.
> 
> 	Yeah it is,...... it looses stopping power unless you hit a huge
> bone...
> 
... or goes through the intruder, through the wall behind him, through the 
wall of the house across the street.  The "clang" as the round hits a pot 
hanging in the kitchen scares the neighbors.
> |>> 
> |>How so?  The most I've had to do to a new gun is to adjust the sights and fire 
> |>about 100 rounds through it.
> |>-- 
> 
> 	I'm fussy, I customize everything except for the limits of my
> tools...
> 
> 	"100 rounds" hmmmmm, I'm at 60,000rds+ and I still seem not to be
> getting much better.....
> 
Yeah, well...  I'll tinker with the action if it hasn't smoothed out in 100 
rounds.
-- 
Ernie B.

Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the 
difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from 
a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

"Robert LaCasse"  wrote in message 
news:l6mb24ps8lvccjaf18j2na1rormmrch1l4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:23:36 -0400, Magus  wrote:
>
> |>> I'm most familiar with Texas gun law as that's what is the most
> |>> important to me with my CCW/CHL. Apologies if this does not apply to
> |>> other states.
> |>
> You ever wonder why they have all these different laws for the same
> USA, all the same guns and guns and clients, but all different laws to tie
> you up in Bubba's jail till he figures it out....
>

NO it's because the US is a more true "federation" than Canada
In Canada, there is ONLY ONE Criminal Code, the Federal one
In the US there are 51 Criminal Codes, the Federal one and the ones for EACH 
of the 50 States


> |>
> |>About the only thing illegal in Kentucky is armor piercing ammo or a gun
> |>with the serial number filed off--home made firearm aren't illegal.
>
> What's wrong with "armor piercing ammo", a lot of home invaders wear
> TII/V+++ to dragon  skin armor if they know your armed.....
>

And you have proof to support that claim ?


> "armor piercing ammo" is rendered quite useless in a handgun since
> it over penetrate in a DGU, and has no spin/internal pressure in a
> handgun...
>

More nonsense


> No gun is "all that" right out of the box, so most are somewhat
> modified, usually at home unless your real rich and can afford a
> "professional gunsmith" to do the work

More ignorant cant
Read up on 80% receivers

"Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
news:MPG.228f9e67dc6b916a98b66a@127.0.0.1...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:24:55 -0700 Robert LaCasse wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:23:36 -0400, Magus  wrote:
>>
>> |>> I'm most familiar with Texas gun law as that's what is the most
>> |>> important to me with my CCW/CHL. Apologies if this does not apply to
>> |>> other states.
>> |>
>> You ever wonder why they have all these different laws for the same
>> USA, all the same guns and guns and clients, but all different laws to 
>> tie
>> you up in Bubba's jail till he figures it out....
>>
> Maybe because the "same USA" is more akin to the EU rather than to 
> Blighty?
> Just as Germany, France and England have different laws concerning 
> firearms,
> so do New York, Texas and California.
>
>> |>
>> |>About the only thing illegal in Kentucky is armor piercing ammo or a 
>> gun
>> |>with the serial number filed off--home made firearm aren't illegal.
>>
>> What's wrong with "armor piercing ammo", a lot of home invaders wear
>> TII/V+++ to dragon  skin armor if they know your armed.....
>>
> I've yet to hear of body armor that will keep a home invader on his feet 
> when
> hit center mass with a .45 ACP round.
>

And the getting hit center of Mass on body armor will NOT automatically 
knock you one your can.
Otherwise a person shooting a .45 would also be knocked on their ass every 
time they pulled the triffer
    (Try to study Newton's 2nd Law to understand why)
    See also demo video of a guy who regularly gets shot in the chest to 
demonstrate his confidence in his product


>> "armor piercing ammo" is rendered quite useless in a handgun since
>> it over penetrate in a DGU, and has no spin/internal pressure in a
>> handgun...
>>
> Over-penetration is the problem.
>

But slow bullets that only drill through the target as just as useless


>> No gun is "all that" right out of the box, so most are somewhat
>> modified, usually at home unless your real rich and can afford a
>> "professional gunsmith" to do the work
>>
> How so?  The most I've had to do to a new gun is to adjust the sights and 
> fire
> about 100 rounds through it.

Case in point, Savage rifles are quite accurate straight out of the box

Robert LaCasse wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:23:36 -0400, Magus  wrote:
> 
> |>> I'm most familiar with Texas gun law as that's what is the most 
> |>> important to me with my CCW/CHL. Apologies if this does not apply to 
> |>> other states.
> |>
> 	You ever wonder why they have all these different laws for the same
> USA, all the same guns and guns and clients, but all different laws to tie
> you up in Bubba's jail till he figures it out....
> 

I don't have to wonder. It's called "separation of powers". The Federal 
government is not an all-in-one uber government for the union.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:56:35 -0500 SaPeIsMa wrote:

> > I've yet to hear of body armor that will keep a home invader on his feet 
> > when
> > hit center mass with a .45 ACP round.
> >
> 
> And the getting hit center of Mass on body armor will NOT automatically 
> knock you one your can.
> Otherwise a person shooting a .45 would also be knocked on their ass every 
> time they pulled the triffer
>     (Try to study Newton's 2nd Law to understand why)

I understand Newton's Second Law.  I also understand the part that recoil 
springs play.

>     See also demo video of a guy who regularly gets shot in the chest to 
> demonstrate his confidence in his product
> 
Thoroughly braced and expecting it, no doubt, along with some padding under 
the vest to cut down on the bruises.  Not the case with the usual home 
invader.
> 
> > Over-penetration is the problem.
> >
> 
> But slow bullets that only drill through the target as just as useless
> 
Slow heavy bullets usually don't penetrate, therefore they deliver all of 
their energy to the target.  Check out the Moro uprising in the Philippines to 
find out why the S&W .38 was replaced by the .45.
> 
> Case in point, Savage rifles are quite accurate straight out of the box
> 
They usually have smooth actions also.
-- 
Ernie B.

Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the 
difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from 
a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:52:48 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:

|>
|>"Robert LaCasse"  wrote in message 
|>news:l6mb24ps8lvccjaf18j2na1rormmrch1l4@4ax.com...
|>> On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:23:36 -0400, Magus  wrote:
|>>
|>> |>> I'm most familiar with Texas gun law as that's what is the most
|>> |>> important to me with my CCW/CHL. Apologies if this does not apply to
|>> |>> other states.
|>> |>
|>> You ever wonder why they have all these different laws for the same
|>> USA, all the same guns and guns and clients, but all different laws to tie
|>> you up in Bubba's jail till he figures it out....
|>>
|>
|>NO it's because the US is a more true "federation" than Canada
|>In Canada, there is ONLY ONE Criminal Code, the Federal one
|>In the US there are 51 Criminal Codes, the Federal one and the ones for EACH 
|>of the 50 States
|>
|>
|>> |>
|>> |>About the only thing illegal in Kentucky is armor piercing ammo or a gun
|>> |>with the serial number filed off--home made firearm aren't illegal.
|>>
|>> What's wrong with "armor piercing ammo", a lot of home invaders wear
|>> TII/V+++ to dragon  skin armor if they know your armed.....
|>>
|>
|>And you have proof to support that claim ?
|>
|>
|>> "armor piercing ammo" is rendered quite useless in a handgun since
|>> it over penetrate in a DGU, and has no spin/internal pressure in a
|>> handgun...
|>>
|>
|>More nonsense
|>
|>
|>> No gun is "all that" right out of the box, so most are somewhat
|>> modified, usually at home unless your real rich and can afford a
|>> "professional gunsmith" to do the work
|>
|>More ignorant cant
|>Read up on 80% receivers


	Ahhhhh........ you gotta be joking, do you know anything about
handgun/ballistics at all......???

	Hell you can even google search this rhetoric stuff.....it's common
knowledge that I am right.

	I find it odd that anybody who is in the gunworld, would refute the
statements I posted here....
-- 
Triad Productions-Fantalla©~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
WWWeb>>  http://boblacasse.150m. com

"Bob"  wrote in message 
news:jabc24h5rcp7a9f7l7k64nt0hqemcgq4sm@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:52:48 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"  
> wrote:
>
> |>
> |>"Robert LaCasse"  wrote in message
> |>news:l6mb24ps8lvccjaf18j2na1rormmrch1l4@4ax.com...
> |>> On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:23:36 -0400, Magus  wrote:
> |>>
> |>> |>> I'm most familiar with Texas gun law as that's what is the most
> |>> |>> important to me with my CCW/CHL. Apologies if this does not apply 
> to
> |>> |>> other states.
> |>> |>
> |>> You ever wonder why they have all these different laws for the same
> |>> USA, all the same guns and guns and clients, but all different laws to 
> tie
> |>> you up in Bubba's jail till he figures it out....
> |>>
> |>
> |>NO it's because the US is a more true "federation" than Canada
> |>In Canada, there is ONLY ONE Criminal Code, the Federal one
> |>In the US there are 51 Criminal Codes, the Federal one and the ones for 
> EACH
> |>of the 50 States
> |>
> |>
> |>> |>
> |>> |>About the only thing illegal in Kentucky is armor piercing ammo or a 
> gun
> |>> |>with the serial number filed off--home made firearm aren't illegal.
> |>>
> |>> What's wrong with "armor piercing ammo", a lot of home invaders wear
> |>> TII/V+++ to dragon  skin armor if they know your armed.....
> |>>
> |>
> |>And you have proof to support that claim ?
> |>
> |>
> |>> "armor piercing ammo" is rendered quite useless in a handgun since
> |>> it over penetrate in a DGU, and has no spin/internal pressure in a
> |>> handgun...
> |>>
> |>
> |>More nonsense
> |>
> |>
> |>> No gun is "all that" right out of the box, so most are somewhat
> |>> modified, usually at home unless your real rich and can afford a
> |>> "professional gunsmith" to do the work
> |>
> |>More ignorant cant
> |>Read up on 80% receivers
>
>
> Ahhhhh........ you gotta be joking, do you know anything about
> handgun/ballistics at all......???
>
> Hell you can even google search this rhetoric stuff.....it's common
> knowledge that I am right.
>
> I find it odd that anybody who is in the gunworld, would refute the
> statements I posted here....
>

Probably because we've been around long enough to recognize fermenting 
bullshit when it's being shoveled.

"Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
news:MPG.228fe644393ed13a98b66e@127.0.0.1...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:56:35 -0500 SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>> > I've yet to hear of body armor that will keep a home invader on his 
>> > feet
>> > when
>> > hit center mass with a .45 ACP round.
>> >
>>
>> And the getting hit center of Mass on body armor will NOT automatically
>> knock you one your can.
>> Otherwise a person shooting a .45 would also be knocked on their ass 
>> every
>> time they pulled the triffer
>>     (Try to study Newton's 2nd Law to understand why)
>
> I understand Newton's Second Law.  I also understand the part that recoil
> springs play.
>

LOL
    The 2nd phrase negates the claim in the first


>>     See also demo video of a guy who regularly gets shot in the chest to
>> demonstrate his confidence in his product
>>
> Thoroughly braced and expecting it, no doubt, along with some padding 
> under
> the vest to cut down on the bruises.  Not the case with the usual home
> invader.

You again disprove your claim without realizsing it


>>
>> > Over-penetration is the problem.
>> >
>>
>> But slow bullets that only drill through the target as just as useless
>>
> Slow heavy bullets usually don't penetrate, therefore they deliver all of
> their energy to the target.  Check out the Moro uprising in the 
> Philippines to
> find out why the S&W .38 was replaced by the .45.

Which has since been replaced byt the 9mm which has small fast bullets
    What was you point again ?

On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:30:38 -0500 SaPeIsMa wrote:

> > I understand Newton's Second Law.  I also understand the part that recoil
> > springs play.
> >
> 
> LOL
>     The 2nd phrase negates the claim in the first
> 
Not so far as the shooter is concerned.  I also understand why the Colt SAA is 
called the "thumb buster" and why a double-barrel shotgun kicks like a mule.
> >>
> > Thoroughly braced and expecting it, no doubt, along with some padding 
> > under
> > the vest to cut down on the bruises.  Not the case with the usual home
> > invader.
> 
> You again disprove your claim without realizsing it
> 
How so?
> >>
> > Slow heavy bullets usually don't penetrate, therefore they deliver all of
> > their energy to the target.  Check out the Moro uprising in the 
> > Philippines to
> > find out why the S&W .38 was replaced by the .45.
> 
> Which has since been replaced byt the 9mm which has small fast bullets
>     What was you point again ? 
> 
A dumb decision imo, and I note that special forces troops use the Kimber 
version of the M1911A1.  

I read a news article about a guy who absorbed a full magazine from a TEC9, 
the doctor commented that he'd never taken that many bullets out of someone 
before, and left the hospital under his own power two weeks later.  Sorry I 
don't have a link handy but you could look it up.

The point is that a slow heavy bullet will usually stop an attacker in his 
tracks while a small fast bullet can pass through him and just make him 
*really* angry.  We're talking about handguns here of course.
-- 
Ernie B.

Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the 
difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from 
a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

"Ernie B." <> wrote

<snip>

>> Which has since been replaced byt the 9mm which has small fast bullets
>>     What was you point again ?
>>
> A dumb decision imo, and I note that special forces troops use the Kimber
> version of the M1911A1.

Yes, some do.

Why wouldn't you give highly trained, small, semi-autonomous groups of 
soldiers one of the most accurate pistols available? Also, there is a 
certain "mystique" in arming such troops so.

Special forces have *always* gotten "special" weapons.

Do they actually make them more effective, though?

> I read a news article about a guy who absorbed a full magazine from a 
> TEC9,
> the doctor commented that he'd never taken that many bullets out of 
> someone
> before, and left the hospital under his own power two weeks later.  Sorry 
> I
> don't have a link handy but you could look it up.

Statistically, "I read a news article..." doesn't really cut it.

What do actual stats say about such encounters?

> The point is that a slow heavy bullet will usually stop an attacker in his
> tracks while a small fast bullet can pass through him and just make him
> *really* angry.  We're talking about handguns here of course.

Really - what do actual stats say about such encounters?

"Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
news:MPG.2290f4616cce26a398b679@127.0.0.1...
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:30:38 -0500 SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>> > I understand Newton's Second Law.  I also understand the part that 
>> > recoil
>> > springs play.
>> >
>>
>> LOL
>>     The 2nd phrase negates the claim in the first
>>
> Not so far as the shooter is concerned.  I also understand why the Colt 
> SAA is
> called the "thumb buster" and why a double-barrel shotgun kicks like a 
> mule.

Still totally confused about the matter I see
Too bad that you're education of Physics 101 is so sadly lacking




>> >>
>> > Thoroughly braced and expecting it, no doubt, along with some padding
>> > under
>> > the vest to cut down on the bruises.  Not the case with the usual home
>> > invader.
>>
>> You again disprove your claim without realizsing it
>>
> How so?

Because the presence, or not,  of a recoil spring has NOTHING to do with the 
TOTAL force pusshing back on the pistol which is EQUAL to the total force 
pushing forward on the bullet
The recoil spring only takes some of that energy, to push the slide forward. 
It does NOTHING to diminish ANY PORTION of the total force pushing the gun 
backwards against the shooter



>> >>
>> > Slow heavy bullets usually don't penetrate, therefore they deliver all 
>> > of
>> > their energy to the target.  Check out the Moro uprising in the
>> > Philippines to
>> > find out why the S&W .38 was replaced by the .45.
>>
>> Which has since been replaced byt the 9mm which has small fast bullets
>>     What was you point again ?
>>
> A dumb decision imo, and I note that special forces troops use the Kimber
> version of the M1911A1.
>
> I read a news article about a guy who absorbed a full magazine from a 
> TEC9,
> the doctor commented that he'd never taken that many bullets out of 
> someone
> before, and left the hospital under his own power two weeks later.  Sorry 
> I
> don't have a link handy but you could look it up.
>
> The point is that a slow heavy bullet will usually stop an attacker in his
> tracks while a small fast bullet can pass through him and just make him
> *really* angry.  We're talking about handguns here of course.
>

A "news article" just doesn't count as a bit of "Scientific research" that 
can be reproduced by other INDEPENDENT researchers

On Sun, 11 May 2008 06:58:52 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:

|>> I find it odd that anybody who is in the gunworld, would refute the
|>> statements I posted here....
|>>
|>
|>Probably because we've been around long enough to recognize fermenting 
|>bullshit when it's being shoveled. 

	About how long is that son....50-->76 years.....no Son, you cannot
refute what I posted in Message-ID:
, you just go OT and skulk with
snide personal remarks....

	You didn't even google the facts I posted, you just wanna get
popular the Usenet or Something..... 

-- 
Triad Productions-Fantalla©~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
WWWeb>>  http://boblacasse.150m. com

"Bob"  wrote in message 
news:i9gf24p5t9og52mrti7nvj9ln402hhcrlo@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 06:58:52 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"  
> wrote:
>
> |>> I find it odd that anybody who is in the gunworld, would refute the
> |>> statements I posted here....
> |>>
> |>
> |>Probably because we've been around long enough to recognize fermenting
> |>bullshit when it's being shoveled.
>
> About how long is that son....50-->76 years.....no Son, you cannot
> refute what I posted in Message-ID:
> , you just go OT and skulk 
> with
> snide personal remarks....
>
> You didn't even google the facts I posted, you just wanna get
> popular the Usenet or Something.....
>

LOL
    Still shoveling nonsense
Bt hey, that's your right

On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:34:55 +1200 BTMO wrote:

Sorry to be tardy, I've been busy...

> > A dumb decision imo, and I note that special forces troops use the Kimber
> > version of the M1911A1.
> 
<snip>
> Do they actually make them more effective, though?
> 
I think so, YMMV.
<more snippage>
> 
> Statistically, "I read a news article..." doesn't really cut it.
> 
> What do actual stats say about such encounters?
> 
I've no idea, do your own research.  I know what I read, that's all.

> > The point is that a slow heavy bullet will usually stop an attacker in his
> > tracks while a small fast bullet can pass through him and just make him
> > *really* angry.  We're talking about handguns here of course.
> 
> Really - what do actual stats say about such encounters? 
> 
Let's do a little back-of-the-envelope arithmetic just for grins and you 
decide what it says.

Force = Mass x Acceleration = Mass x dv/dt

Assume that:
1.) The bullet strikes the target at 98% of its muzzle velocity.
2.) The bullet doesn't penetrate through the target; i.e., all of the energy 
is absorbed by the target.*
3.) The impact pulse is .1 second, iow the bullet delivers its energy to the 
target in a blow lasting .1 second.

That being the case:

For the .45 ACP**690

M = 15 grams
dv = .98(250) meters/sec = 245 m/s
dt = .1 sec

F = M(dv/dt) = 15(245/.1) = 15(2450) = 36,750 gram-meters/sec² = 3,675,000 
dynes.

and for the 9mm Parabellum**684

M = 5.75 to 8.9 grams.  Use 7.32 grams as median
dv = 345 to 475 m/s.  Use 410 m/s as median
dv = .98(410) = 401.8 m/s
dt = .1 sec

F = 7.32(401.8/.1) = 7.32(4018) = 2,941,176 dynes.

Unless I've slipped a decimal point, that's quite a difference in energy 
delivered to the target.

*This is a little different from above since a bullet which goes through the 
target carries some energy with it.
**ISBN 0-88029-618-6 "Handguns of the World" _Edward C. Ezell pages 684 and 
690.
-- 
Ernie B.

Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the 
difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from 
a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:38:50 -0500 SaPeIsMa wrote:

> > Not so far as the shooter is concerned.  I also understand why the Colt 
> > SAA is
> > called the "thumb buster" and why a double-barrel shotgun kicks like a 
> > mule.
> 
> Still totally confused about the matter I see
> Too bad that you're education of Physics 101 is so sadly lacking
> 
Or your education...
> >>
> >> You again disprove your claim without realizsing it
> >>
> > How so?
> 
> Because the presence, or not,  of a recoil spring has NOTHING to do with the 
> TOTAL force pusshing back on the pistol which is EQUAL to the total force 
> pushing forward on the bullet

That's true enough.

> The recoil spring only takes some of that energy, to push the slide forward. 
> It does NOTHING to diminish ANY PORTION of the total force pushing the gun 
> backwards against the shooter
> 
Here's where you're wrong.  The recoil spring absorbs a portion of the energy 
in unlocking the slide and pushing it back, therefore that energy isn't 
absorbed by the shooter.  A Colt SAA or double-barrel shotgun doesn't have 
recoil springs so the shooter gets full "benefit" of the recoil.
> 
> A "news article" just doesn't count as a bit of "Scientific research" that 
> can be reproduced by other INDEPENDENT researchers
> 
No it doesn't.  So?  You either belive what you read or you don't.
-- 
Ernie B.

Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the 
difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from 
a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

Ernie B. wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:34:55 +1200 BTMO wrote:
> 
> Sorry to be tardy, I've been busy...
> 
>>> A dumb decision imo, and I note that special forces troops use the Kimber
>>> version of the M1911A1.
> <snip>
>> Do they actually make them more effective, though?
>>
> I think so, YMMV.
> <more snippage>
>> Statistically, "I read a news article..." doesn't really cut it.
>>
>> What do actual stats say about such encounters?
>>
> I've no idea, do your own research.  I know what I read, that's all.
> 
>>> The point is that a slow heavy bullet will usually stop an attacker in his
>>> tracks while a small fast bullet can pass through him and just make him
>>> *really* angry.  We're talking about handguns here of course.
>> Really - what do actual stats say about such encounters? 
>>
> Let's do a little back-of-the-envelope arithmetic just for grins and you 
> decide what it says.
> 
> Force = Mass x Acceleration = Mass x dv/dt
> 
> Assume that:
> 1.) The bullet strikes the target at 98% of its muzzle velocity.
> 2.) The bullet doesn't penetrate through the target; i.e., all of the energy 
> is absorbed by the target.*
> 3.) The impact pulse is .1 second, iow the bullet delivers its energy to the 
> target in a blow lasting .1 second.
> 
> That being the case:
> 
> For the .45 ACP**690
> 
> M = 15 grams
> dv = .98(250) meters/sec = 245 m/s
> dt = .1 sec
> 
> F = M(dv/dt) = 15(245/.1) = 15(2450) = 36,750 gram-meters/sec² = 3,675,000 
> dynes.
> 
> and for the 9mm Parabellum**684
> 
> M = 5.75 to 8.9 grams.  Use 7.32 grams as median
> dv = 345 to 475 m/s.  Use 410 m/s as median
> dv = .98(410) = 401.8 m/s
> dt = .1 sec
> 
> F = 7.32(401.8/.1) = 7.32(4018) = 2,941,176 dynes.
> 
> Unless I've slipped a decimal point, that's quite a difference in energy 
> delivered to the target.
> 
> *This is a little different from above since a bullet which goes through the 
> target carries some energy with it.
> **ISBN 0-88029-618-6 "Handguns of the World" _Edward C. Ezell pages 684 and 
> 690.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy
Use high velocity hollowpoints

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

Ernie B. wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:38:50 -0500 SaPeIsMa wrote:
> 
>>> Not so far as the shooter is concerned.  I also understand why the Colt 
>>> SAA is
>>> called the "thumb buster" and why a double-barrel shotgun kicks like a 
>>> mule.
>> Still totally confused about the matter I see
>> Too bad that you're education of Physics 101 is so sadly lacking
>>
> Or your education...
>>>> You again disprove your claim without realizsing it
>>>>
>>> How so?
>> Because the presence, or not,  of a recoil spring has NOTHING to do with the 
>> TOTAL force pusshing back on the pistol which is EQUAL to the total force 
>> pushing forward on the bullet
> 
> That's true enough.
> 
>> The recoil spring only takes some of that energy, to push the slide forward. 
>> It does NOTHING to diminish ANY PORTION of the total force pushing the gun 
>> backwards against the shooter
>>
> Here's where you're wrong.  The recoil spring absorbs a portion of the energy 
> in unlocking the slide and pushing it back, therefore that energy isn't 
> absorbed by the shooter.  A Colt SAA or double-barrel shotgun doesn't have 
> recoil springs so the shooter gets full "benefit" of the recoil.
>> A "news article" just doesn't count as a bit of "Scientific research" that 
>> can be reproduced by other INDEPENDENT researchers
>>
> No it doesn't.  So?  You either belive what you read or you don't.

Nothing to do with absorbing energy, or not.
It is to do with spreading the recoil over a longer period resulting in 
less perceived recoil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

"Ernie B." <> wrote

>
> Sorry to be tardy, I've been busy...

Me too... Life is like that.

>
>> > A dumb decision imo, and I note that special forces troops use the 
>> > Kimber
>> > version of the M1911A1.
>>
> <snip>
>> Do they actually make them more effective, though?
>>
> I think so, YMMV.

This is kind of why I asked about stats....

My experience, your experience, the bloke in the pub's experience don't 
really tell us much.

What happens in lots of encounters, in lots of situations, with lots of data 
points, tells us a great deal about what might happen, and allows us some 
possibility to predict with some certainty what to expect.

> <more snippage>
>>
>> Statistically, "I read a news article..." doesn't really cut it.
>>
>> What do actual stats say about such encounters?
>>
> I've no idea, do your own research.  I know what I read, that's all.
>

I wasn't making a claim. I was challenging yours....

>> > The point is that a slow heavy bullet will usually stop an attacker in 
>> > his
>> > tracks while a small fast bullet can pass through him and just make him
>> > *really* angry.  We're talking about handguns here of course.
>>
>> Really - what do actual stats say about such encounters?
>>
> Let's do a little back-of-the-envelope arithmetic just for grins and you
> decide what it says.

Well, if you like - but that actually wasn't what I asked.

I asked what the stats (ie, the real world encounters)

> Force = Mass x Acceleration = Mass x dv/dt
>
> Assume that:
> 1.) The bullet strikes the target at 98% of its muzzle velocity.
> 2.) The bullet doesn't penetrate through the target; i.e., all of the 
> energy
> is absorbed by the target.*
> 3.) The impact pulse is .1 second, iow the bullet delivers its energy to 
> the
> target in a blow lasting .1 second.
>
> That being the case:
>
> For the .45 ACP**690
>
> M = 15 grams
> dv = .98(250) meters/sec = 245 m/s
> dt = .1 sec
>
> F = M(dv/dt) = 15(245/.1) = 15(2450) = 36,750 gram-meters/sec² = 3,675,000
> dynes.
>
> and for the 9mm Parabellum**684
>
> M = 5.75 to 8.9 grams.  Use 7.32 grams as median
> dv = 345 to 475 m/s.  Use 410 m/s as median
> dv = .98(410) = 401.8 m/s
> dt = .1 sec
>
> F = 7.32(401.8/.1) = 7.32(4018) = 2,941,176 dynes.
>
> Unless I've slipped a decimal point, that's quite a difference in energy
> delivered to the target.

That is gorgeous, and without bothering to check it, looks fine.

Now, the *important* factor you missed in your calculations - how much 
energy is enough?

And what does bullet construction add to the mix?

And point of impact?

And physiological differences between targets?

And mass of target?

And clothing / other barriers worn?

And number of hits on target?

And... well, you get the idea...

My personal take on it is that hitting a target where you intend to, and 
being able to follow up and hit the same point as many times as required is 
far more important than a simple (and theoretical, under ideal 
circumstances) calculation of muzzle energy.

> *This is a little different from above since a bullet which goes through 
> the
> target carries some energy with it.
> **ISBN 0-88029-618-6 "Handguns of the World" _Edward C. Ezell pages 684 
> and
> 690.
> -- 
> Ernie B.
>
> Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the
> difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from
> a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 20:32:59 +0100 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy

Good site, thanks.

> Use high velocity hollowpoints
> 
Or hand load some wad-cutters.
-- 
Ernie B.

Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the 
difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from 
a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 20:36:39 +0100 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> Nothing to do with absorbing energy, or not.
> It is to do with spreading the recoil over a longer period resulting in 
> less perceived recoil.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil
> 
That too.  Still, work is being done in unlocking the action and compressing 
the recoil spring as the slide moves rearward.  This energy, however much it 
is, is returned in moving the slide forward and re-locking the action, 
neglecting the small portion lost as heat.  In any case the shooter doesn't 
absorb this energy.

Do you know of any study comparing the recoil of revolvers and semi-automatic 
pistols with equal loads?  I don't but I suspect that the semi-auto would show 
a measurably lighter recoil.
-- 
Ernie B.

Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the 
difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from 
a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:05:14 +1200 BTMO wrote:

> > I think so, YMMV.
> 
> This is kind of why I asked about stats....
> 
Who was it who said something about lies, damned lies and statistics?

> My experience, your experience, the bloke in the pub's experience don't 
> really tell us much.
> 
Comparison of muzzle energies of various ammunition tells us a lot though, 
supposing that the shooter can hit his target.  That's the first requirement.

> What happens in lots of encounters, in lots of situations, with lots of data 
> points, tells us a great deal about what might happen, and allows us some 
> possibility to predict with some certainty what to expect.
> 
I don't know of any such data.  Do you?
> >>
> > I've no idea, do your own research.  I know what I read, that's all.
> 
> I wasn't making a claim. I was challenging yours....
> 
... and I answered the challenge.
> >>
> >> Really - what do actual stats say about such encounters?
> >>
> > Let's do a little back-of-the-envelope arithmetic just for grins and you
> > decide what it says.
> 
> Well, if you like - but that actually wasn't what I asked.
> 
> I asked what the stats (ie, the real world encounters)
> 
See above about lies, etc.
> 
> My personal take on it is that hitting a target where you intend to, and 
> being able to follow up and hit the same point as many times as required is 
> far more important than a simple (and theoretical, under ideal 
> circumstances) calculation of muzzle energy.
> 
Maybe so but it's a starting point.  My personal take is that hitting the 
attacker with a .45 ACP is better than hitting him with a .22 short.  Hitting 
him with a round that delivers all of its energy to him is better than hitting 
him with a round that will go straight through.  That's why I use .45 ACP or 
.38 wad-cutters for defense.
-- 
Ernie B.

Anarchist:  Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the 
difference between right and wrong.  _U. Utah Phillips, taken from 
a remark by Ammon Hennecy.

Ernie B. wrote:

>>
> Maybe so but it's a starting point.  My personal take is that hitting the 
> attacker with a .45 ACP is better than hitting him with a .22 short.  Hitting 
> him with a round that delivers all of its energy to him is better than hitting 
> him with a round that will go straight through.  That's why I use .45 ACP or 
> .38 wad-cutters for defense.

The combination is energy dumped into the target and the size of the 
resulting wound channel. A .45 makes a bigger hole. But probably not as 
big as a .223 frangible.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

"Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
news:MPG.229237ac36c42c3498b67f@127.0.0.1...
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:34:55 +1200 BTMO wrote:
>
> Sorry to be tardy, I've been busy...
>
>> > A dumb decision imo, and I note that special forces troops use the 
>> > Kimber
>> > version of the M1911A1.
>>
> <snip>
>> Do they actually make them more effective, though?
>>
> I think so, YMMV.
> <more snippage>
>>
>> Statistically, "I read a news article..." doesn't really cut it.
>>
>> What do actual stats say about such encounters?
>>
> I've no idea, do your own research.  I know what I read, that's all.
>
>> > The point is that a slow heavy bullet will usually stop an attacker in 
>> > his
>> > tracks while a small fast bullet can pass through him and just make him
>> > *really* angry.  We're talking about handguns here of course.
>>
>> Really - what do actual stats say about such encounters?
>>
> Let's do a little back-of-the-envelope arithmetic just for grins and you
> decide what it says.
>
> Force = Mass x Acceleration = Mass x dv/dt
>
> Assume that:
> 1.) The bullet strikes the target at 98% of its muzzle velocity.
> 2.) The bullet doesn't penetrate through the target; i.e., all of the 
> energy
> is absorbed by the target.*
> 3.) The impact pulse is .1 second, iow the bullet delivers its energy to 
> the
> target in a blow lasting .1 second.
>
> That being the case:
>
> For the .45 ACP**690
>
> M = 15 grams
> dv = .98(250) meters/sec = 245 m/s
> dt = .1 sec
>
> F = M(dv/dt) = 15(245/.1) = 15(2450) = 36,750 gram-meters/sec² = 3,675,000
> dynes.
>
> and for the 9mm Parabellum**684
>
> M = 5.75 to 8.9 grams.  Use 7.32 grams as median
> dv = 345 to 475 m/s.  Use 410 m/s as median
> dv = .98(410) = 401.8 m/s
> dt = .1 sec
>
> F = 7.32(401.8/.1) = 7.32(4018) = 2,941,176 dynes.
>
> Unless I've slipped a decimal point, that's quite a difference in energy
> delivered to the target.
>
> *This is a little different from above since a bullet which goes through 
> the
> target carries some energy with it.
> **ISBN 0-88029-618-6 "Handguns of the World" _Edward C. Ezell pages 684 
> and
> 690.
> -- 

The numbers may be big, but compare them to something else
Like a whack to the chest with a baseball bat

"Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
news:MPG.22923eb7d29fe3a898b680@127.0.0.1...
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:38:50 -0500 SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>> > Not so far as the shooter is concerned.  I also understand why the Colt
>> > SAA is
>> > called the "thumb buster" and why a double-barrel shotgun kicks like a
>> > mule.
>>
>> Still totally confused about the matter I see
>> Too bad that you're education of Physics 101 is so sadly lacking
>>
> Or your education...

Nope
Unlike you, I don't mix my fruits and vegetables to make a salad of 
ignorance


>> >>
>> >> You again disprove your claim without realizsing it
>> >>
>> > How so?
>>
>> Because the presence, or not,  of a recoil spring has NOTHING to do with 
>> the
>> TOTAL force pusshing back on the pistol which is EQUAL to the total force
>> pushing forward on the bullet
>
> That's true enough.
>
>> The recoil spring only takes some of that energy, to push the slide 
>> forward.
>> It does NOTHING to diminish ANY PORTION of the total force pushing the 
>> gun
>> backwards against the shooter
>>
> Here's where you're wrong.  The recoil spring absorbs a portion of the 
> energy
> in unlocking the slide and pushing it back, therefore that energy isn't
> absorbed by the shooter.  A Colt SAA or double-barrel shotgun doesn't have
> recoil springs so the shooter gets full "benefit" of the recoil.


BZZZT
The force that compresses the recoil spring ALSO acts THROUGH the spring 
against the RESISTANCE from the shooter.
Therefore the shooter is actually feeling the recoil force that compresses 
the spring
    That's why the abreviation is EQUAL AND OPPOSITE
If there was NO resistance, there would be NO compression






>>
>> A "news article" just doesn't count as a bit of "Scientific research" 
>> that
>> can be reproduced by other INDEPENDENT researchers
>>
> No it doesn't.  So?  You either belive what you read or you don't.
> -- 

I verify what I read
    You apparently do not

"Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
news:MPG.2292653035c92398b682@127.0.0.1...
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 20:36:39 +0100 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
>> Nothing to do with absorbing energy, or not.
>> It is to do with spreading the recoil over a longer period resulting in
>> less perceived recoil.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil
>>
> That too.  Still, work is being done in unlocking the action and 
> compressing
> the recoil spring as the slide moves rearward.  This energy, however much 
> it
> is, is returned in moving the slide forward and re-locking the action,
> neglecting the small portion lost as heat.  In any case the shooter 
> doesn't
> absorb this energy.
>
> Do you know of any study comparing the recoil of revolvers and 
> semi-automatic
> pistols with equal loads?  I don't but I suspect that the semi-auto would 
> show
> a measurably lighter recoil.
>

Recoil is a force pushing backward
Just because a spring is being compressed in the process does NOT diminish 
the TOTAL force of the recoil
    It is ALL applied toward to shooter
If the shooter did NOT resist the force that is compressing the spring, 
there would be NO COMPRESSION

SaPeIsMa wrote:
> 
> "Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.2292653035c92398b682@127.0.0.1...
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 20:36:39 +0100 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing to do with absorbing energy, or not.
>>> It is to do with spreading the recoil over a longer period resulting in
>>> less perceived recoil.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil
>>>
>> That too.  Still, work is being done in unlocking the action and 
>> compressing
>> the recoil spring as the slide moves rearward.  This energy, however 
>> much it
>> is, is returned in moving the slide forward and re-locking the action,
>> neglecting the small portion lost as heat.  In any case the shooter 
>> doesn't
>> absorb this energy.
>>
>> Do you know of any study comparing the recoil of revolvers and 
>> semi-automatic
>> pistols with equal loads?  I don't but I suspect that the semi-auto 
>> would show
>> a measurably lighter recoil.
>>
> 
> Recoil is a force pushing backward
> Just because a spring is being compressed in the process does NOT 
> diminish the TOTAL force of the recoil
>    It is ALL applied toward to shooter
> If the shooter did NOT resist the force that is compressing the spring, 
> there would be NO COMPRESSION
> 

True. But putting a shock absorber in the way significantly reduces felt 
recoil. BTW, it is momentum that is equally split between bullet and 
gun/hand/body etc

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
news:68s5lrF2usjoaU1@mid.individual.net...
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
>> news:MPG.2292653035c92398b682@127.0.0.1...
>>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 20:36:39 +0100 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with absorbing energy, or not.
>>>> It is to do with spreading the recoil over a longer period resulting in
>>>> less perceived recoil.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil
>>>>
>>> That too.  Still, work is being done in unlocking the action and 
>>> compressing
>>> the recoil spring as the slide moves rearward.  This energy, however 
>>> much it
>>> is, is returned in moving the slide forward and re-locking the action,
>>> neglecting the small portion lost as heat.  In any case the shooter 
>>> doesn't
>>> absorb this energy.
>>>
>>> Do you know of any study comparing the recoil of revolvers and 
>>> semi-automatic
>>> pistols with equal loads?  I don't but I suspect that the semi-auto 
>>> would show
>>> a measurably lighter recoil.
>>>
>>
>> Recoil is a force pushing backward
>> Just because a spring is being compressed in the process does NOT 
>> diminish the TOTAL force of the recoil
>>    It is ALL applied toward to shooter
>> If the shooter did NOT resist the force that is compressing the spring, 
>> there would be NO COMPRESSION
>>
>
> True. But putting a shock absorber in the way significantly reduces felt 
> recoil. BTW, it is momentum that is equally split between bullet and 
> gun/hand/body etc
>

Just because there is a delay in application does not mean that there is NO 
application of said force

SaPeIsMa wrote:
> 
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
> news:68s5lrF2usjoaU1@mid.individual.net...
>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
>>> news:MPG.2292653035c92398b682@127.0.0.1...
>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 20:36:39 +0100 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to do with absorbing energy, or not.
>>>>> It is to do with spreading the recoil over a longer period 
>>>>> resulting in
>>>>> less perceived recoil.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil
>>>>>
>>>> That too.  Still, work is being done in unlocking the action and 
>>>> compressing
>>>> the recoil spring as the slide moves rearward.  This energy, however 
>>>> much it
>>>> is, is returned in moving the slide forward and re-locking the action,
>>>> neglecting the small portion lost as heat.  In any case the shooter 
>>>> doesn't
>>>> absorb this energy.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know of any study comparing the recoil of revolvers and 
>>>> semi-automatic
>>>> pistols with equal loads?  I don't but I suspect that the semi-auto 
>>>> would show
>>>> a measurably lighter recoil.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Recoil is a force pushing backward
>>> Just because a spring is being compressed in the process does NOT 
>>> diminish the TOTAL force of the recoil
>>>    It is ALL applied toward to shooter
>>> If the shooter did NOT resist the force that is compressing the 
>>> spring, there would be NO COMPRESSION
>>>
>>
>> True. But putting a shock absorber in the way significantly reduces 
>> felt recoil. BTW, it is momentum that is equally split between bullet 
>> and gun/hand/body etc
>>
> 
> Just because there is a delay in application does not mean that there is 
> NO application of said force

True, but when it comes to shooting a gun it matters whether it 
dislocates your shoulder when fired without a shock absorber.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
news:68sbigF2tmmhkU1@mid.individual.net...
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
>> news:68s5lrF2usjoaU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Ernie B." <ebaresch_REMOVE_@cox._THIS_net> wrote in message 
>>>> news:MPG.2292653035c92398b682@127.0.0.1...
>>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 20:36:39 +0100 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing to do with absorbing energy, or not.
>>>>>> It is to do with spreading the recoil over a longer period resulting 
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> less perceived recoil.
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil
>>>>>>
>>>>> That too.  Still, work is being done in unlocking the action and 
>>>>> compressing
>>>>> the recoil spring as the slide moves rearward.  This energy, however 
>>>>> much it
>>>>> is, is returned in moving the slide forward and re-locking the action,
>>>>> neglecting the small portion lost as heat.  In any case the shooter 
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> absorb this energy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know of any study comparing the recoil of revolvers and 
>>>>> semi-automatic
>>>>> pistols with equal loads?  I don't but I suspect that the semi-auto 
>>>>> would show
>>>>> a measurably lighter rec