Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 31 Mar 2010 01:12 On 2010-03-30 21:33:40 -0700, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> said: > Neil Harrington wrote: >> >> but it always made money for the company. > > What is your proof? Of course as a marketing tool they decided overall > having it in their lineup makes them money but you haven't proven THAT > model is a big money maker for them. You ask me for proof but then you > give nothing but an opinion. > > Stephanie That's rich, considering this automotive thread started because you expressed your opinion. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Chris H on 31 Mar 2010 09:54 In message <201003301519027987-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes > >For combat and defense give me a 1911 type 45 ACP, a Glock or S&W >4006TSW in 40 S&W, or a good wheel gun in .357 mag. Never liked a revolver in any circumstance. Trigger pull is too heavy also most of the time any jam is fatal. At least with a semi any jam is cleared in a second. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Savageduck on 31 Mar 2010 10:36 On 2010-03-31 06:54:41 -0700, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > In message <201003301519027987-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >> >> For combat and defense give me a 1911 type 45 ACP, a Glock or S&W >> 4006TSW in 40 S&W, or a good wheel gun in .357 mag. > > Never liked a revolver in any circumstance. Trigger pull is too heavy > also most of the time any jam is fatal. At least with a semi any jam is > cleared in a second. For the most part I agree, the Kimber is by far my favorite carry weapon. However there are times a revolver is a better choice. I limit that to the better quality revolvers, particularly tuned Smith & Wessons, some of which have great triggers and smooth actions. My S&W revolvers, a K38 Masterpiece & a Model 629, have much better double action triggers than the Glock, which in my opinion has one of the ugliest trigger pulls in existence. The K38 which I used for target shooting, single action, has one of the best triggers you can find. After firing thousands of rounds through both I have never experienced a malfunction with either of those revolvers. ....and the K38 is about 40 years old now, still functioning perfectly. Where revolvers work best, is in the home defense role where simplicity is beneficial. Also in calibers .357 mag and larger, as a trail, fishing or hunting sidearm, especially in areas frequented by large predators such as bear & cougar. Something some wilderness photographers might consider. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: LOL! on 31 Mar 2010 11:53 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:33:40 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Neil Harrington wrote: >> >> but it always made money for the company. > >What is your proof? Of course as a marketing tool they decided overall >having it in their lineup makes them money but you haven't proven THAT >model is a big money maker for them. You ask me for proof but then you >give nothing but an opinion. > >Stephanie The only proof you need here is that they are nothing but resident trolls. They couldn't explain why cameras which have fully-functional features that are built-in being deliberately disabled, so they have to drag this into an unending off-topic red-herring displacement fest. It's what they do, it's what they are. The only way you can stop them is by not feeding them. If only this built-in, fully functional, feature of all the local trolls could be disabled as easily as features are disabled in cameras. LOL!
From: Neil Harrington on 1 Apr 2010 02:07
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010033121522413512-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-03-31 19:53:57 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said: > >> >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >> news:2010033112505470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>> On 2010-03-31 09:57:42 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said: >>> [ . . . ] >>> >>> Exactly, the 40 S&W is a more than capable round. >>> Compare; >>> Federal 185 grain 45 ACP (+P) Tactical HYDRA-SHOK (Law Enforcement) >>> muzzle energy; 525 ft-lbs, 25 yds; 475 ft-lbs, 50 yds; 445 ft-lbs >>> Velocity; muzzle; 1130 fps, 25 yds; 1080 fps, 50 yds; 1040 fps >>> >>> Federal 155 grain 40 S&W Hi-SHOK JHP >>> muzzle energy; 445 ft-lbs, 25 yds; 400 ft-lbs, 50 yds; 365 ft-lbs >>> Velocity; muzzle; 1140 fps, 25 yds; 1080 fps, 50 yds; 1030 fps >>> >>> I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either round >> >> Nor would I, but I'm looking askance a bit at the ballistics you list for >> the .45 Auto. (I have no problem with those shown for the .40 S&W.) Now I >> have no experience with Hydra-Shoks at all, but I have to wonder what >> pressures they're using to get 1130 fps with a 185-gr bullet. The .45 >> Auto >> is basically a 15,000 psi cartridge (where the 9mm Luger in military >> loads >> is usually over 30,000 psi, and I understand 9mm ammo intended primarily >> for >> SMG use sometimes runs to 40,000). >> >> The question here is not whether the gun is strong enough, but .45 loads >> much over standard pressure reportedly have been prone to extraction >> problems, typically the case sticking in the chamber and the extractor >> overriding or tearing through the rim. I sure wouldn't want to take a >> chance >> on that happening in a pistol intended for serious social intercourse. > > The important thing is that the gun is rated for +P loads. The Kimber is, > and so is the Springfield. I would not want to run the +P loads through an > earlier Colt 1911 or A1, that could be a little problematic due to the > high pressures. Yes, but I would take "rated for" to mean the +P loads won't damage the gun -- which isn't the issue. If I'm in a serious situation and find myself with a case stuck in the chamber, I am a very unhappy fellow and it doesn't make me feel any better to know the gun is still intact. > Unless you know somebody, or a gunshow dealer who is prepared to sell them > under the counter theTactical 45 +P loads are restricted to Law > Enforcement. Even though my badge has that "Retired" ribbon across the > top, 18 U.S.C. 926B, 926C, or The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act > (LEOSA) of 2004, gives me Peace Officer firearms privileges in all 50 > States. That must be a VERY nice thing to have! > > More normal loads for the 45 are reflected in the non+P loads. > the 165 grain Federal HYDRA-SHOK will give you the following. > muzzle energy; 412 ft-lbs, 25 yds; 377 ft-lbs, 50 yds; 349 ft-lbs > Velocity; muzzle; 1060 fps, 25 yds; 1014 fps, 50 yds; 976 fps > > and if you just want to think you are throwing rocks, consider that it > gives pretty consistant performance out to 50; > The Federal 230 grain JHP > muzzle energy; 369 ft-lbs, 25 yds; 355 ft-lbs, 50 yds; 343 ft-lbs > Velocity; muzzle; 850 fps, 25 yds; 834 fps, 50 yds; 819 fps I remember that latter set of numbers (not the downrange numbers though) from the very first pistol ballistics table I ever saw, when I was in my teens. Funny the things that stick in your mind. > > The same thing is true for 38 Spec. +P loads. I cannot fire them in my old > K38, nor should they be fired in any non-rated 38. Note all current S&W 38 > Specials are +P rated. Your Model 586 being a 357 mag does not have any > issues with high pressure loads. Right. Actually I think your K-38 would be perfectly safe with +P too, even if the company won't say so for lawyerly reasons. I doubt there's been that much difference in metallurgy over those years (unless you have a REALLY old K-38), and +P pressures are not extravagantly high. Maybe 10% or so over standard .38 Special pressures, which are quite modest. I'll bet the old ..38-44 Special (made for S&W N-frame .38s like the Outdoorsman) was loaded to higher pressures than current +P. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Kimber%26Targetw.jpg >>>>> >>>>> ...and here is my Kimber along with a real tack driver my S&W Model 52 >>>>> in >>>>> .38 special. >>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-M52-CDP-LAc.jpg >>>>> >>>>> For combat and defense give me a 1911 type 45 ACP, a Glock or S&W >>>>> 4006TSW >>>>> in 40 S&W, or a good wheel gun in .357 mag. >>>> >>>> I'm with you on the .357 -- my 4" Model 586 is my house gun. Again, >>>> that >>>> is >>>> the holy bore size. ;-) >>> >>> The .357 mag has been a great round for over 70 years now. >> >> Indeed, although factory ammo now comes loaded well below the original >> 1935 >> ballistics (from the 8 3/8" barrel, a 158-gr SWC at 1510 fps, for about >> 800 >> ft-lbs, if I recall correctly). I think it was one of the Wesson men >> himself >> who proved that it could take down every species of big game on the North >> American continent (which of course is not to say it was IDEAL for that >> purpose). >> >> My first .357 was a Colt Three Fifty Seven (forerunner of the Python) >> with >> 6" barrel. Very nice piece as long as you handloaded, but factory ammo >> produced horrible leading -- there wasn't any factory jacketed stuff at >> that >> time; I used W-W ammo with "Luballoy" bullets, just copper coating over a >> soft lead semiwadcutter. HORRIBLE! I don't know what took them so long to >> bring out jacketed bullets for the .357 in factory loads -- there were >> far >> better alternatives for handloaders of course, and I only bought factory >> ammo to get the cases, which at that time they didn't sell separately. > > I know, I did quite a lot of 38 Spec Mid range wadcutter reloading for the > Model 52 & the K38. > > but for your 357; > Defense > http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/handgun.aspx?id=398 > > The Speer 125 grain is also a nice defence 357. Yes indeed, actually any 125-gr JHP is my choice in that caliber. > > and hunting: > http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/handgun.aspx?id=601 > > > -- > Regards, > > Savageduck > |