Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 1 Apr 2010 02:10 On 2010-03-31 22:39:35 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said: >>>> > Another advantage of the 7.7s was that they were cowl-mounted, right in > front of the pilot and therefore did not have the parallax issues that went > with wing-mounted guns. I think it was Hans-Joachim Marseille, perhaps the > greatest Bf-109 ace, who opined that one centrally mounted MG was worth > several in the wings. ....and therein lies the beauty of the P38 arrangement. 4 fifties & a 20mm out in front of the pilot. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 1 Apr 2010 02:56 On 2010-03-31 23:07:32 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said: > > "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. I just haven't experienced that problem with 45+Ps fired out of the Kimber. The cases pretty much kick out solidly and fly. I am sure the Springfield, any of the S&W 45xx, or SW1911's or the SIG 220 will work just fine. It is a hot round, and there is a considerable muzzle shock wave and fatter blast than ball. You shouldn't have too much of an issue with that, since you use a light 357 which has its own muzzle shock and blast signature. I normally do not qualify with the +Ps, but I will run a couple of magazines through on visits to the range. I eat up a lot of the Winchester 230 Gr. FMJ budget "White Box" ammo. BTW. a skinny single stack 1911 Kimber Custom carry is a lot easier to carry concealed than my fat double stack Glock 23, or a fat double stack 9mm. That Beretta works better out of a duty holster. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: J. Clarke on 1 Apr 2010 09:44 On 4/1/2010 2:10 AM, Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-03-31 22:39:35 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said: > >>>>> > >> Another advantage of the 7.7s was that they were cowl-mounted, right in >> front of the pilot and therefore did not have the parallax issues that >> went >> with wing-mounted guns. I think it was Hans-Joachim Marseille, perhaps >> the >> greatest Bf-109 ace, who opined that one centrally mounted MG was worth >> several in the wings. > > ...and therein lies the beauty of the P38 arrangement. 4 fifties & a > 20mm out in front of the pilot. Or the Mosquito F--4 20mm and four .30 cal. Or its descendant the Hornet that dropped the .30s and all excess baggage to make a purpose-designed fighter--too late for the war though.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 1 Apr 2010 14:22 stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Neil Harrington wrote: >> When did "BIG profit item" suddenly become the only alternative to your >> claim it "was NOT a profitable car"? > Well normal people might be able to see that a "small profit margin" > item sold in small quantities is not a profitable car to produce. Ah, yes, I remember --- a few percent of $100.000 times 10.000 or more is a money loss, since they could always build more mass market cars they could not sell to the market, which would be as good as printing money. What's next? Paper makers loosing money as they make far less than a single cent per sheet? -Wolfgang
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 1 Apr 2010 14:09
stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >> stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> In the 50's/60's a corvette was NOT a profitable car, it was to sell >>> their other products. The same for those Acura NSX and the toyota Supra. >>> Those were all to show their engineering expertise not to make money >>> selling that specific model. >> Provide proof they lost money. > "Garish or not, the '58 Corvette was a hit and Chevy built 9,168 > examples. For the first time, say some sources, GM made a profit with > the Corvette." So they made a profit. No lost money. And 'some sources' could be anyone without any factual knowledge, for example your pet canary. > "The Chevrolet Corvette is GM's highest quality car, costs more than > $50,000, and has a very small margin of profit. With such a large > financial loss in 2007, GM can no longer afford the small profit margin > and declining sales on such a high priced product." So they made a profit. No lost money. > Yeah that sounds like a big profit item for chevy.. *rolls eyes* Oh, shifting goalposts, is it? *rolls eyes at your inability to read "Provide proof they lost money"* -Wolfgang |