-----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 behind, then one more between the eyes to finish things. The only real drawback is the muzzle flash would be a problem in the dark. With the standard 6 inch barrel, the flame is about a foot in diameter and 2-3 feet long with some loads. Now when I attach the 14" barrel with the scope, I can put 5 shots in about 2 inches at 50 yards, and the muzzle flash is greatly reduced due to the increased barrel length. It is definitely on the heavy and bulky side for concealed carry, but I wouldn't agree that it is impractical. - -----Original Message----- From: David Honig [mailto:honig@sprynet.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:43 PM To: Jonathan Wienke; 'Morris Allen'; cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: RE: Automatic's At 11:53 AM 6/7/01 -0700, Jonathan Wienke wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
They used I.M.I. Desert Eagles chambered for .50 Action Express. I have one in .44 Magnum, made in Israel, imported by Magnum Research, Inc.
Those are typical Hollywood guns, largely impractical. Cool looking, certainly. Now a Barrett in .50... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOyFa0Rj6oMyeDxZoEQJnwwCfcSW9Uy885ukVnPtmduGtuGJNcnoAoLfQ 9+36TGdjCG/QooJ4FDhHCgos =IbCV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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.
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.
First of all, turn off your stinking HTML. -----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 behind, then one more between the eyes to finish things. The only Secondly, if you think *ANY* firearm you can fire standing up will "Knock them on their behind", take a high school physics class. Short version: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Shorter version: Not going to happen with a cartridge pistol. Try doing it in the dark, engaging multiple opponents and holding a flashlight. The only good use for a pistol is to fight your way to a rifle. -- -- 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.
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
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.
Pistols are *handy*, but that doesn't mean they are a good tool for the job. They are, at best adequate.
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?
I would, were I in Washington State, or any one of the 8 states that it has reciprocity with, carry my HK-p7. As it is, I live in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, one of a minority of states whose citizens are too ignorant and untrustworthy to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. -- -- 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.
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. [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.] ........ 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. Cheers, dh
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.
----- Original Message ----- From: "petro" <petro@bounty.org> To: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> 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.... Jon
At 1:45 AM -0500 6/11/01, Jon Beets wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "petro" <petro@bounty.org> To: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> 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
From: "petro" <petro@bounty.org>
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.
This is a load of total crap. My ex-partner's ex-partner (he decided he'd had enough after this one), was shot point blank with a .380: the projectile literally followed the course around the back of the skull, exiting very close to the opposing eye. Total damage was some loss of sight in the eye whose socket was penetrated (mostly from burns), and a really nervous disposition from then on in... And no, he's not on life support. Although, according to popular stories, he *is* lucky it was a .380. These slugs have an almost mythical reputation for doing this kind of weird shit. Of course they are just as strange for the shooter, what with all the jamming and whatnot (personally, I think the cartridge is simply too short to feed reliably as an automatic, but I realize that YMMV. -- 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... --------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: "petro" <petro@bounty.org> To: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> 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 10:16 AM 6/11/01 -0700, you wrote:
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.
BFD!! SWAT members and instructers are no more reliable as a source for such information than anyone else. Very few will ever fire an on duty shot and fewer still will actually hit anyone. IWBA membership is available for any full time LEO and if I remember correctly, for just about anyone else who wants it bad enough to write a letter. Only one survivor of a gun shot to an eye is bullshit.
("Automatic's" in thread name changed to "Automatics" for obvious reasons.) At 7:33 PM -0700 6/10/01, David Honig wrote:
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.
[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.]
........
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.
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! Once the flakes (or whatever) are propelled backward, it doesn't matter whether they flutter in the wind or fly to China. (This is all very similar to the common misconception that rockets "push" on the atmosphere as they expel exhaust particles. They don't.) And KE (kinetic energy, for anyone just joining in and wondering) is not what matters for recoil calculations. Momentum, MV, is what matters. 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. --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
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.
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Bill Stewart wrote:
The military recoilless rifles are more or less bazookas -
Hardly. A bazooka is a shoulder-held tube from which you fire a missile, the fuel in the missile burning as it goes through the air. When the missile is gone, you put another one in. A recoilless rifle fires a conventional artillery round. The motive force is supplied by fuel which burns in the barrel of the gun. When you have fired, you open the little door at the back, pull out the empty shell casing, and put in another one.
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.
Depends on the war. I believe that in Vietnam it was common to mix beehive and HEAT 50:50. Beehive rounds contain zillions of little darts about half an inch long. HEAT is what you are talking about - High Explosive Anti Tank.
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.
Yes. The gas comes out of the back of a recoilless rifle a lot faster than the shell goes out the front. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
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
On 10 Jun 2001, at 19:33, David Honig wrote:
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.
They'll actually deliver more energy to the target if MORE mass goes out the back than the front. I can't see any particular advantage to the masses being equal.
The reacting countermass is a bunch of flakes which dissipate the KE against the atmosphere.
This is a particularly efficient design for cypherpunks, since we've got plenty of extra flakes! George
participants (12)
-
Bill Stewart -
cubic-dog -
David Honig -
georgemw＠speakeasy.net -
Harmon Seaver -
Jim Dixon -
Jon Beets -
Jonathan Wienke -
me＠myplace.to -
measl＠mfn.org -
petro -
Tim May