> On Jun 5, 12:43 am, veritas yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Jun 2, 10:00 pm, PhaedraCeleste yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> On May 26, 11:53 pm, veritas yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>> On May 26, 7:40 pm, "Mike Painter" sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>

>>>>> Michael Price wrote:

>

>>>>>  >>> He is wrong. A musician can play great music and not know much

>

>>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>> A shooter can be a great shot and not know the physics involved.

>

>>>>>>>> He is NOT a ballistics expert as the people on the site I posted
>>>>>>>> are. Mathematics does not use theory, it uses proof and somebody
>>>>>>>> who actually was what you claim him to be would know and be able to
>>>>>>>> use the right words. It's worse than saying a weapon has a clip
>>>>>>>> when it has a magazine or not knowing why teh colt revolvers click
>>>>>>>> four times.
>>>>>>>> It is easy to demonstrate that those diagrams are right.
>>>>>>>> Bore sight on a target at your 100 yards and fire at it. Use a
>>>>>>>> laser. Mark the spot.
>>>>>>>> Your flat trajectory for 100 yard bullit with a 3000 fps muzzle
>>>>>>>> velocity will be about 3 inches below the mark.

>

>>>>>>   I make it 1/2 * 32 f/s^2 * (300f / 3000f/s)^2 = 16f/s^2 * (.01s^2)
>>>>>> =. 16f *12 in/f= 1.92 inches.

>

>>>>> Yep. I used a large value of one when I rounded it up. I was supposed to
>>>>> write about 2"

>

>>>>>>> No, I talked with the co-owner, he said, "Who the hell have you been
>>>>>>> talking to? First of all that is not how the formula works, and the
>>>>>>> answer is 1.2". Drop a 5 lb ball from a building, and a 2 lb ball.
>>>>>>> They hit the ground at the same time. Everybody knows that. Well,
>>>>>>> those are "dropped" not fired.

>

>>>>>>   This is irrevelent, things fall if they are not supported and things
>>>>>> fired
>>>>>> are not supported.

>

>>>>> I posted a story about this from my high school days. A ball is released by
>>>>> a magnet as a projectile leaves the barrel of a "gun" on the other side of
>>>>> the room.
>>>>> The gun is bore sighted on the ball. Both projectile and ball drop at the
>>>>> same rate so the ball gets hit every time. The (Jesuit priest) physics
>>>>> instructor used objects big enough and velicities slow enough so you could
>>>>> see it happen.

>

>>>>> Not however that the "formula" mentioned may have included drag and 1.2 is
>>>>> closer to 1.92 than the "zero drop for 100 yards claimed"

>

>>>>>>> They are not different bullet calibers and shapes, and different
>>>>>>> powder charges.

>

>>>>>>   So what, they're not on a different planet and therefore they fall
>>>>>> at the same rate (less air resistance which is insignificant for falls
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> a few seconds).

>

>>>>>>> I don't know why you would have a conversation with someone like
>>>>>>> that, but he is wrong, and doesn't know what the hell he is talkng
>>>>>>> about. Don't shoot with him, as he doesn't know "squat" about
>>>>>>> guns, and obviously doesn't shoot.

>

>>>>>>   Why because he disagrees with someone who you think knows physics
>>>>>> but doesn't?

>

>>>>>>> If you shoot with him, keep an eye on him, because that doesn't even
>>>>>>> make any sense. You would have to make a .170 to come up with that
>>>>>>> velocity, or a varmit .22 with your own powder charge to come up with
>>>>>>> that a 3000 fps speed. What the hell are you doing now to ask those
>>>>>>> kind of questions?"

>

>>>>>>   What the hell does that have to do with it?

>

>>>>>>> I explained, and he said, "Well, the guy doesn't
>>>>>>> know squat about guns, stay away from him until some one gives him
>>>>>>> some instruction. He doesn't know anything about guns, he'll just get
>>>>>>> you hurt"

>

>>>>>>   And why should we believe him?  Why should we even believe he
>>>>>> exists?

>

>>>>>>> Sorry Mike, but this guy is a little blunter, and 3000 fps
>>>>>>> is awfully high. Better luck next time, I can't argue with them.
>>>>>>> They are experts, and we are not. Ken Hogan

>

>>>>>>   You are not.  We however are expert enough to know high school
>>>>>> physics which you evidently flunked.

>

>>>>> I picked 3000 fps because It worked nicely with the 300 feet in 100 yards
>>>>> and I could do the math in my head.
>>>>> Had I use the .45 at 850 fps or so and a distance of 100 feet teh drop would
>>>>> have been about 2.66 inches.
>>>>> Backlit by jeep headlights at night you can actually watch the .45  and see
>>>>> the arch  it travels over relatrively short distances. I've fired hundreds
>>>>> of rounds doing this.- Hide quoted text -

>

>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

>>>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>>>> Every day I strap on a Glock .45 loaded with Gold Dot Personal
>>>> Pertection 230 grain bulllets, bullet type GDHP.

>

>>> as I'm not familiar with guns and the like thus I'm not sure of the
>>> specs of what you described but if you do that every morning I find
>>> that to be very interesting (if not a bit erotic ;) I really have
>>> little knowledge of guns, munitions and the like, haven't had contact
>>> with such since my college days when I used to go to skeet shoots-
>>> PULL! lol (and skeet never seems to be in season around here anyhow!
>>> lol) my most recent involvement with any sort of guns was with in a
>>> literary writing "Before You Know Kindness" not a great book but
>>> entertaining beach fare

>

>>> seriously though, I was looking into a Kimber-any insight...?- Hide quoted text -

>

>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>> No, it depends on what you are going to use it for as to what you get.
>> First, have you handled automatic pistols before?  If not, and still
>> want one, my suggestion is a Glock .45, either a 30 or I think the new
>> one is a 36.  The recoil is something you can handle, and it will have
>> plenty of knock down power.  Use .230 grain hollow points, I use
>> Speer, but most of the hollow points are good.  The only thing about a
>> Kimber is that it is delicate, and will jam, you have to clean it
>> often.  It is pretty, and a Glock is ugly, but you can drop a Glock in
>> mud, leave it, and pick it up and fire it.  A Kimber will jam easily.
>> As Tommy Lee Jones said, "Get rid of the sissy silver gun and get a
>> Glock."  But if you are not willing to practice once a month, learn
>> how to break it down and clean it and become it's buddy, you don't
>> need an automatic at all.  A revolver, a .38 special or a .357 magnum
>> is your best bet.  It is simple to use, if you get a .357 magnum,
>> which I recommend, don't get a really short barrel.  A 4" barrel will
>> give you a kick you can handle.  I have a collector's model of a .357
>> magnum with a 2-1/2" barrel and it sounds like a .44 magnum going
>> off.  You can reduce the kick even more by shooting .38 specials in
>> the .357, and it's cheaper to shoot.  That is what I would get if you
>> have little experience with pistols.  If it is strictly for home
>> defense, and you never intend to take it out of the house, the best
>> weapon to have is a 12 ga. pump shotgun with .000 buckshot in the
>> shells.  When you jack that pump and a person keeps coming, there is
>> no doubt they are crazy.  Nobody can mistake the sound of a 12 ga.
>> having a shell pumped into the chamber.  The sound is unmistakable.
>> So, what are you planning to use this weapon for?  To take with you,
>> or home defense, or both?  It all depends.  Let's hear back on that.
>> Ken Hogan- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> Trying to get me all hot and bothered with your gun talk, eh?  but if
> Tommy Lee Jones wants to recommend a Glock, count me in! I've heard he
> can be a bit of a pompous ass at times but with his combination of
> looks and intellengence I'd be willing to put up with a bit of
> arrogance from time to time! lol I don't really have a need of a gun,
> have never pulled on an automatic, but I did want something I might be
> able to take out on the firing range from time to time when I need to
> vent off a bit of steam-my motive behind the Kimber isn't as much it's
> utilitarianism and ease of use as much as I just like the name! ;)