gun discharge in cockpit.

On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:


Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and


Sig 229s are P rated.

On Apr 1, 10:15 am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-04-01, Dan wrote:

KE is not universally accepted as the measure of bullet effectiveness,
but it is an interesting data point.

Yes, I understand that - what I was alluding to was the original
calculation which was just mass * velocity was pretty much totally
useless in indicating anything in particular, other than mass * velocity
equals some number. To come up with a good definition of 'stopping
power', kinetic energy would make a far better starting point than a
naive calculation of simple mass times velocity.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Agreed

On Apr 1, 10:13 am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-04-01, Dan wrote:

This analysis is flawed. Kinetic energy isn't just mass x velocity.
K = 0.5 mv ^ 2

I thought Kinetic energy = 1/2 x (mass x velocity squared)...?

0.5 is the same as 1/2.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Sorry - mis-read the formula.

Dan wrote:
On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and


Sig 229s are P rated.

To get to the power level of .45 a 9mm would have had to go up to +++P
or +PPP (however they did that).

There were some people that tried it for a while about 16 or 17years ago
in IPSC and they ended up banning the practice because of some pretty
catastrophic weapons failures.

On Apr 1, 11:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and

Sig 229s are P rated.

To get to the power level of .45 a 9mm would have had to go up to +++P
or +PPP (however they did that).

There were some people that tried it for a while about 16 or 17years ago
in IPSC and they ended up banning the practice because of some pretty
catastrophic weapons failures.

Again, the "power level" is not an adequate measure of effectiveness.

Sig P229s are rated for +P 9mm ammo.

Dan wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and
Sig 229s are P rated.
To get to the power level of .45 a 9mm would have had to go up to +++P
or +PPP (however they did that).

There were some people that tried it for a while about 16 or 17years ago
in IPSC and they ended up banning the practice because of some pretty
catastrophic weapons failures.

Again, the "power level" is not an adequate measure of effectiveness.

Sig P229s are rated for +P 9mm ammo.

Well you keep saying that but then why come out with +P ammo if it isn't
going to help?

On Apr 1, 11:56 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and


Well you keep saying that but then why come out with +P ammo if it isn't
going to help?

Because you said that 9mm's can't handle the P charge.

Most of the current crop of quality 9mm's can handle +P, IF that's
something the shooter thinks is important.

I think all this talk about "power factor" ad naseum is blather - only
ONE factor counts in handguns -- shot placement.

Dan Mc

On Apr 1, 12:10 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:

For those fractions of a second, you can't beat a big, slow, heavy lump of
lead to screw up someone's plans.

The weight differences between the combat rounds (9mm, .40, and .45)
is about 50 grains.

There's NO handgun that shoots a "heavy lump of lead."


As a friend once told me about an experience in Vietnam, he "shot daylight"
through a NVA soldier with his M-16 and didn't stop him. His CO put the guy
down with one shot from a .45.

These stories have been in circulation since Sam Colt. I suppose the
daylight through the NVA didn't have any effect?

The 9mm v .40 v .45 wars won't be solved here.

Reasonable people should determine the mission profile, asses his/her
own capabilities, level of proficiency, and then choose any one of the
combat calibers and not be "wrong."

Those that claim one is "obviously superior" over the other are
typically Gun Store Commandos, who spend more time drooling over ads
than firing at the range.


Dan Mc

Dan wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:56 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and


Well you keep saying that but then why come out with +P ammo if it isn't
going to help?

Because you said that 9mm's can't handle the P charge.

No, what I said was that the 9mm legacy handguns couldn't handle the
pressure needed to be equal to a .45acp. I used the .38 Super +P as a
gun that could use the same size bullet and equal the .45.



Most of the current crop of quality 9mm's can handle +P, IF that's
something the shooter thinks is important.

I think all this talk about "power factor" ad naseum is blather - only
ONE factor counts in handguns -- shot placement.


And IPSC shooting takes that into account because a shot in the "A"
zones count the same for major and minor ammo.

Dan wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:10 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:

For those fractions of a second, you can't beat a big, slow, heavy lump of
lead to screw up someone's plans.

The weight differences between the combat rounds (9mm, .40, and .45)
is about 50 grains.

There's NO handgun that shoots a "heavy lump of lead."


Well 124 grains of the 9mm compared to the 230 of the .45 is a pretty
significant difference.



As a friend once told me about an experience in Vietnam, he "shot daylight"
through a NVA soldier with his M-16 and didn't stop him. His CO put the guy
down with one shot from a .45.

These stories have been in circulation since Sam Colt. I suppose the
daylight through the NVA didn't have any effect?


And the light weight (62 grains FMJ) of the 5.56 punches right through
and unless it hits something either directly or via the shock
cavity(which is pretty large due to the bullet's speed) it isn't going
to do much immediate damage.

But here is where the power factor comes in again the 5.56 NATO has a
Power factor of around 192,000.


The 9mm v .40 v .45 wars won't be solved here.

Reasonable people should determine the mission profile, asses his/her
own capabilities, level of proficiency, and then choose any one of the
combat calibers and not be "wrong."

Those that claim one is "obviously superior" over the other are
typically Gun Store Commandos, who spend more time drooling over ads
than firing at the range.


Dan Mc