On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, David Honig wrote:

At 04:07 PM 6/8/01 -0700, Jonathan Wienke wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

I can fire 9 shots in about 4 seconds and stay in the 9 ring of a B-27 silhouette at 10 yards, and slow fire I can neatly remove the X-ring at the same distance...I don't think it would be a bad option against an armored opponent--2 in the body to knock them on their

Yawn. Take off your glasses, shoot with your off-hand, at pigs in flak, then talk to me.

I'ma M1911 man myself. I have fired this weapon in question and found it quite agreeable. I was pretty amazed. I thought they were just toys for rich kids. However, if you need a rifle, take a rifle. For the bulk of that thing, might was well carry a carbine.

petro wrote:

The only good use for a pistol is to fight your way to a rifle. --

True, except that it's not a good idea in most cities and towns to walk around carrying a rifle. Or, maybe it is a *good* idea, but some people don't like it. And then you're much more likely to have to use it when you really didn't want to. Trust me, carry a pistol -- concealed --- everything will go much better. And trying to carry something like a Desert Eagle concealed, in the Summer wearing shorts and tanktop ain't easy. Life is full of conflicts like this. Should I, or shouldn't I? -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver@cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@ameritech.net

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote:

Trust me, carry a pistol -- concealed --- everything will go much better. And trying to carry something like a Desert Eagle concealed, in the Summer wearing shorts and tanktop ain't easy. Life is full of conflicts like this. Should I, or shouldn't I?

You *should*. But you should also lose the shorts and tank: it's much easier to properly CCW in slightly heavier clothes ;-) -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 05:11 PM 6/10/01 -0700, petro wrote:

...

Secondly, if you think *ANY* firearm you can fire standing up will "Knock them on their behind", take a high school physics class.

Well said, but: In _The Irish War_ there's a description of IRA improvised recoilless 'rifles' which, like their .mil-industrial analogues, toss an equal mass out the back end. The reacting countermass is a bunch of flakes which dissipate the KE against the atmosphere.

Sure, but that isn't a cartridge based pistol, which is what we were talking about. There are also "gyro-jet" type munitions, which aren't all that accurate, but can pack a greater punch because they do some or all of their accelerating post-barrel.

[Ie, consider a barrel open at both ends. Put missile, charge, countermass flakes in that order. Point missile at thing you don't like, and keep friendlies a few meters away from the countermass ejection end of the barrel.]

Given that your average pistol fight takes place inside 3 or 4 meters, that could prove tough.

That said, an (e.g.) hip or knee shot on a biped will cause it to fall approximately back if the posture is right. That also is just the physics of actively balanced inverted pendula, biomechanics.

Knee shots, yes. But if you are that good, might as well go for the triangle formed by the top center of the lip and the eyebrow ridges. That *WILL* cause the target to collapse with anything over a .22LR, and if you get an eye will 100% guarenteed stop the fight (with that individual) now. Only one person has survived a shot (by a firearm) to the eye, and she's been on life support since she was hit by a .22. As for the hip, it's a large and relatively porus bone. There have been a few cases where hip shots have failed to drop an attacker because the bullet just punched a hole, failing to fracture the hip. Heart/lung shots and brain shots tend to be your best bet with a pistol. -- -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.

At 1:45 AM -0500 6/11/01, Jon Beets wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: "petro" To: Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 10:19 PM Subject: RE: Automatic's

...

That *WILL* cause the target to collapse with anything over a .22LR, and if you get an eye will 100% guarenteed stop the fight (with that individual) now. Only one person has survived a shot (by a firearm) to the eye, and she's been on life support since she was hit by a .22.

Where did this statistic come from? I find it fairly hard to believe....

"98.73% of all facts reported on the Net are simply made up." Many people have survived gunshots to the eyes. They may be blind in the eye hit, but they survived. That Petro would repeat some bizarre claim he's heard that only person has ever survived a gunshot wound to the eye--"and she's been on life support since she was hit by a .22"--reminds me of why I tend to ignore most of what Petro posts. Maybe it's just summer vacation. I have suddenly seen a burst of posts from Reese and Petro. At least they're not Choate. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

----- Original Message ----- From: "petro" To: Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 10:19 PM Subject: RE: Automatic's

...

That *WILL* cause the target to collapse with anything over a .22LR, and if you get an eye will 100% guarenteed stop the fight (with that individual) now. Only one person has survived a shot (by a firearm) to the eye, and she's been on life support since she was hit by a .22.

Where did this statistic come from? I find it fairly hard to believe....

Someone who is a member of the Wound Ballistics Association, a SWAT member and instructor. It's not hard to believe when you think about it, the skull in that area is trivially thin, so even a .22 can punch through the eye and get back to the important stuff. -- -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.

At 08:19 PM 6/10/01 -0700, petro wrote:

Heart/lung shots and brain shots tend to be your best bet with a pistol.

The brain moves too much. The farther you are from the CG the more the parts move.

At 12:46 AM 06/11/2001 -0700, Tim May replied:

...

Well said, but: In _The Irish War_ there's a description of IRA improvised recoilless 'rifles' which, like their .mil-industrial analogues, toss an equal mass out the back end. The reacting countermass is a bunch of flakes which dissipate the KE against the atmosphere.

How this Irish makeshift recoilless rifle actually works is unknown to me, but the dissipation of KE by the chaff is not germane. The expulsions of some mass (M) at some velocity (V) is germane, as above, but not the way the mass behaves once it has been propelled backward.

The military recoilless rifles are more or less bazookas - their objective is to fire a relatively large and usually explosive shell to blow up tanks, trucks, and other big hard targets, while still being conveniently portable. I'm also puzzled by the "flakes" comments - rapidly expanding gasses are plenty of reaction mass, though perhaps there's some sort of wadding to provide increased gas pressure that gets flaked in the explosion.

At 12:46 AM 6/11/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:

At 7:33 PM -0700 6/10/01, David Honig wrote:

...

In _The Irish War_ there's a description of IRA improvised recoilless 'rifles' which, like their .mil-industrial analogues, toss an equal mass out the back end. The reacting countermass is a bunch of flakes which dissipate the KE against the atmosphere.

Speaking of physics, your physics is out of whack.

For the recoilless rifle described above, there is no need to "dissipate the KE" of the flakes or anything else!

My physics is fine. I assume the reader can tell that I'm explaining the reason for using *individually lightweight flakes* separately from the trivial symmetric-reaction-mass part of the rifle. After all, a reader would be asking themselves, why not just use a slug of the same mass, or even some ball bearings (shot), since he indicates (by saying "equal mass") that this would work? And I explain the safe dissipation of the flakes' *energy*, not momentum (which as you point out is what matters for the recoilless-ness) because the flakes dissipate their motion as *heat* via viscous drag through the atmosphere.

How this Irish makeshift recoilless rifle actually works is unknown to me, but the dissipation of KE by the chaff is not germane.

Picture yourself using one in cramped quarters. The chaff 'flying off to China' is a practical concern. Or read the book. Plus, you can learn how to turn common household objects into mortars. dh