HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Gattling principle, Minigun
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:15:45 GMT


I have a copy of an article about air-to-air weaponary somewhere. Anyway 
I remember, the Gatling were revived because, due to the increase of speed
into the transonic/supersonic ranges, aircraft skins were getting thicker.
F-86 Sabre pilots found that their 50 Cal. would often just bounce off the
tail quarter of the MiG-15, which incidentally has a 23 mm cannon. The US
wanted a larger calibre cannon but also a high cyclic rate. The recoil and,
hence the weight, of a conventional cannon goes up like the third or fourth
power of the calibre because of the large reciprocate mass needed and, by
the same token, the cyclic rate has to go down. The Gatling Principle turns
reciprocation into rotating which is far more manageable, except that now
there is a hugh rotational inertia which has to be over come in starting
up. However, the sustained rate of fire is awesome, provided that the
ammo feeding mecahnism can catch up. Thus the Drum magazine and Chain feed
are essential and the all up weight is heavy. But then such design is very
reliable and free of jams. A hangfire will not even be noticed until the
gun is reloaded at base. (What happened to the relaiblity of the Apachi
Chain Gun I don't know).

The Europeans opted for larger calibre at the expense of lower rate by
compromising to the rotating chambers. Thus they can have a simpler, lighter
and more flexible ammo supply. They argued, since the time a pilot can hold
his opponent in his gun sight is very short anyway, the high sustain rate
of the Gatling is greatly offset by its slow start up, and for the first
0.5s, the throw weight from their cannons is comparable to the Gatling.
Theoretically the European designs should be more prone to stoppage, but
may be other netters can shed light on this since it seems their cannons
are just as reliable.

Recently, the Europeans are moving down in their calibre, like the Mauser 27mm,
from their traditional 30mm, while the US up to 25mm from their trusted 20mm. 
The corresponding trends in cyclic rate and weight also converges. So finally
it may just end up as a matter of taste.

That was the story in aircarft cannons, the rationale for the Minigun follows
a similar line and it was a scaled down Vulcan anyway. I may be wrong, but
I think the Minigun started as an airborne weapon, like the installation
on AC-47 Puff, the Magic Dragon. It was just too heavy and power dependent
until they moved to 5.56mm and rechargeable batteries. The idea of
saturating the battlefield with projectiles is just going back to the
Maxime era and only works if the other side has no armour, like the VC
in Nam. Such Rock n' Roll psyche may be inborn with US boys who grew up
enjoying movies like Rambo, Predator and Terminator etc., but the idea
does not seem to catch on with many foreigners, probably their foes are
different.

Raymond Man
From: pafford@polaris.rtp.dg.com (Randy Pafford)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Self Protect Handgun vs. Shotgun.
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:15:27 GMT
Organization: Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1993Jan5.093638.3174@email.tuwien.ac.at>, holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Holger Reusch (Dipl. Gerhard + Joe)) writes:
|> pusv1305@altair.selu.edu writes:
|> #I am trying to decide on an appropreate personal protection pistol and or
|> #shotgun?  I have looked at ballistics and energy on impack for different
|> #ranges.  I figure a maximum range of 30 yards, for this porpose.  I also live
|> #in a neighborhood where homes are close together, and thin walled.  For this
|> #reason I dont want something that will go through my house and the neighbors,
|> #ect.  I do however want one shot stopping!  A possible might be the .22 Magnum,
|> #the ballistics i've seen rate it up there with a .38, but I havent seen many on
|> #the market.  I am not in a situation to get up if the first shot misses and
|> #beat the perp. over the head.  I'm open to suggestions.  
|> 

	stuff deleted . . . 

|> 
|> Suggestion #2:  Higher stopping power usually means more penetra-
|> tion.   TANSTAAFL.   Stay away from fast rounds (read: all magnum
|> rounds) if you are concerned because of penetration.

Ummm, I don't think this is quite right.  Many high-velocity hollowpoint
loads will penetrate less than lower velocity loads IF they
expand.   For example, I strongly suspect that the CORBON 115 gr 
9mm load at 1300+ fps will penetrate many materials LESS than the typical 
.45 hardball load, consisting of a 230 gr round at about 830 fps.  

As others have pointed out, it's difficult to envision _any_ consistantly 
effective pistol round that won't penetrate lots of dry wall and siding,
if something doesn't slow it down first.  

Question to the net: does anyone know how well brick stops things? I.e.
is a brick house "bulletproof" to any appreciable degree?  

Whatever the merits (or demerits) of typical American home construction 
featuring drywall, platform framing and wooden siding, bullet stopping 
is not one of the design goals.

Glaser rounds may not overpenetrate, although I'd worry about enough
penetration in the actual, ah, problem to do the job.

Randy
From: petekunz@iiic.ethz.ch (Peter John Kunz)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Reality in movies
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:27:39 GMT
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH

In article <1993Jan9.020633.27313@netcom.com> damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos) writes:
#In <JGM.93Jan8153039@vegas.cs.brown.edu> jgm@cs.brown.edu (Jonathan Monsarrat) writes:
##Sometimes in television or movies (such as "The Terminator") I
##see someone getting thrown back by the force of a bullet hitting them.
##As far as I can guess from physics, bullets don't have enough mass to
##do this, even if their entire velocity was stopped against a kevlar vest.
##Am I wrong?
#no.
#
#what you see in the movies is pure fiction. in real life, the only reason
#a person gets "thrown back" by the force of a bullet hitting them is by 
#their own volition, i.e. they expect to be knocked backwards, so they
#comply.

or the shock or insdtability of posture

#a 10mm round hitting you has enough energy to "knock you back" about one inch.
#curiously, this is about how far back the shooter's mass is pushed by the 
#xrecoil.
#
#gee, i wonder if there's a connection?  %^)
#

i saw a neat demonstartion in a movie about guns. was moderated by some fbi guy and started out with demonstartions of various calibers. at one point, a guy
from some company making bullet proof vests is introduced. he shoots himself with a .44. interestingly he puts a phonme book beneath the vest. this is not to stop the bullet, but to stop the knife like dent in the kevlar made by teh bullet. while the bullet will not kill you, the dent might. there havce been various
experiments on this subjects.

anyway, after this the moderator takes a shot at the guy with a .308, they're
about 2 feet apart. he then explains why the target went back as far as the shooter. pretty neat demonstration.



cu
-pete



-- 
Peter J. Kunz	Vogesenstr. 60	4106 Therwil	Switzerland
petekunz@iiic.ethz.ch	pkunz@amiga.physik.unizh.ch
From: GWH@UH.EDU (Gregory W Hayes)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: M1 Garand help needed...
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:28:45 GMT
Organization: University of Houston

Well, I'm almost finished with my own match Garand and I could use some
help from you out there...

(1)  Does anyone have the address to Fulton Armory or know where I can
find a NM front blade sight?  I already have a G.I. NM rear...
	[MODERATOR: fulton armory in savage, md ... 301 490 9485]

(2)  A poster (LOONG time ago) wrote about a composite stock from a
company called MPI in Portland, OR.  Anybody know their address/phone
number?

(3)  Does anyone have any good loads or bullet weights/velocities for
original .30-06 ammo?  There are no specific recommendations in my
reloading manuals for the Garand.  I have saved posts over the years of
what weights to use, but still am clueless as to what velocities I
should aim for.

Thanks,

Greg Hayes
--
Gregory W. Hayes

GWH@UH.EDU	greg@simpsons.cc.uh.edu
DISCLAIMER: I don't get paid enough to have an opinion...
University of Houston
From: holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Holger Reusch (Dipl. Gerhard + Joe))
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: guns vs. K9s
Date: 4 Jan 93 13:32:24 GMT
Organization: Technical University Vienna, Dept. for Realtime Systems, AUSTRIA

A past experience of a relative of mine prompts me to ask for in-
sights.

Consider the following scenario:

You are confronted with a very  unfriendly  and  rather  big  dog
(growling,  foam  at  the mouth, suspected rabies) in your garden
(so carry laws are not an issue).  What gun/ammo would  you  like
to have with you?

Would you deem a rifle necessary?  IMHO even big dogs  are  small
enough to allow a quick killing by using a handgun.

My (rather un-educated) guess is .357 Magnum 125grs SJHP in a  6"
revolver.    Some might consider that a bit over-powered, but I'd
rather err on the safe side.

What about shotguns?  Would you think a 12ga #4  or  #0  buckshot
load  is  too  strong?  We don't want to litter the premises with
body parts.

All ideas appreciated.

BTW, the relative took the safe way out.  He  went  slowly  back-
wards, at all times facing the brute  and jumped smartly throught
the next open window, closing it afterwards.  Then he called  the
Cops and kept  waiting.  Don't know what happened to the dog.

-- 
| Holger Reusch                             |
| Technical University of Vienna, Austria <-+--- No kangaroos here,
| Dept. for Real-Time Systems               |    sorry!
| holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at                 |
From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Report on Chech Vz-52 pistol.
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:06:43 GMT
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi

In article <1993Jan7.154119.15495@ncsu.edu> edhresko@hresko.eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC DAVID HRESKO) writes:
#	Too bad that you seem to have a lemon of a pistol.  My Vz will 
#consistiently group around 1" at 25 yards.  A recent issue of Combat Handguns 
#also could get groups around this range.  This is due to the inherent accuracy
#of the fixed barrel.

No one said the gun was a lemon. I just said that the combination of the gun
and shooter didn't do very well on this test. Could be the shooter is a lemon.
8-)
BTW, you don't mean to imply that the barrel does not move, do you? The barrel
does recoil with the slide. It is locked to the slide and they recoil together
for  about 8 cm. It does not pitch downward as does the Colt .45 .
-- 

Donald R. Newcomb                * Life only admits two states: 
dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu        * growing and dying. So what,
newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet            * if I've put on a little weight?
From: ctownsend@atlas.nafb.trw.com
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: .45 Long Colt vs .357 & .44 Magnum
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:30:01 GMT


	I was hoping someone could look up some ballistics for me . . .

	I'm curious how the 45 Colt (Long Colt) compares to .357 Magnum and
.44 Magnum in terms of velocity and energy (for their respective bullet
weights).  Also, I picked up some Federal High Power Semi-Wadcutter Hollow
Points;  The salesman told me these are hotter than the typical 45 Colt load.
What are the ballistics?  Also, I've read somewhere that it may not be prudent
to use 'modern' gunpowder in older guns; How do I know if the gun is designed 
for modern powders or not (or how old it is, for that matter)? Is it stamped 
with a symbol or something?

	Thanks in Advance, 

	Cary
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: M1 Garand help needed...
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:26:01 GMT
Organization: who knows

#In article <1iaqekINNar@menudo.uh.edu> GWH@UH.EDU (Gregory W Hayes) writes:
##Well, I'm almost finished with my own match Garand and I could use some
##help from you out there...
#                   :
##(3)  Does anyone have any good loads or bullet weights/velocities for
##original .30-06 ammo?  There are no specific recommendations in my
##reloading manuals for the Garand.  I have saved posts over the years of
##what weights to use, but still am clueless as to what velocities I
##should aim for.

The usual M1 match load for the .30-06 is around 47 gr. of IMR 4895 pushing
a Sierra 168 gr MK bullet or you can use around 48 gr. to push a 150 gr. bullet.
To be safe, start 5% low on the loads and work up.
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Large capacity magazines: design of...
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:47:32 GMT
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."

In <1ib3u0INN7j0@menudo.uh.edu> GWH@UH.EDU (Gregory W Hayes) writes:

#A friend and I were thinking about building a .22LR gatling gun...  Just
#got to get the TMs for the feed mechanism for a chain gun, dump alot of 
#.22LR into the hopper and power up the electric drill... :-)

Somebody else made a similar remark, and I got to thinking: just how
difficult *would* it be to make a hopper-magazine for a .22 semi-auto?

Seems to me that it's reasonably straightforward, the only even slightly
tricky part being if you want to feed it up an unmodified magazine well.
In fact, it would be mostly or entirely gravity-and-recoil-shock operated.

Here's the scheme: the rounds would be funnelled into an orientation 
space, where the rims would index the rounds all into the face forward
(or face down, to be rotated into face forward) position.  This would
all happen via a mildly sloped ramp-and-constriction from the main hopper
and a rail scheme to perform the orientation.  Now we've got a stack of
rounds waiting to feed down, they either need to be driven up (to feed up
a well) or driven endwise (to feed into a tube magazine), or somehow into
a modification of the chamber/feed mechanism.  (Are there any side-magazine
.22 rifles out there?  That would seem easiest to prototype on....)  I'm
sure I'm glossing some details, but it doesn't seem impossible, either.

(Whaddaya say Dion, want to try to bang something out?)

-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
From: wiggs@deets.chem.washington.edu (James Wiggs)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Reloading...
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:15:22 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


 Two things:

   1. I'm in Seattle/Redmond, and I'm looking to "rent" time on someone's  
reloading setup.  Anyone in the area interested?  If you've got one of the  
Dillon Square Deal or RL550 presses, so much the better; I'd like to try one  
before buying.

   2. I'm looking to buy some once-fired .38 Special and .40 S&W brass.   
Someone have a few hundred cases they'd like to sell?

   Email or post replies, I'll monitor the response.

Thanks,
Jim

--
James Wiggs
jk_wiggs@pnlg.pnl.gov _or_ wiggs@u.washington.edu
#include <std.disclaimer>
"They're six year olds; how much trouble can they be?"
From: kkrh@troi.cc.rochester.edu (K. Karcich)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: .45 Long Colt vs .357 & .44 Magnum
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:27:50 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

Stuff deleted

#	Most .45 Colt factory loads are mild, because of some of the
#older guns out there.  You'd have to tell more about your individual
#gun for anyone to comment on it.  The hottest .45 Colt I've ever heard 
#of from a factory is aprox equal to .45 ACP, but less than .45 ACP +P.

#255 gr at +-  750-950 fps.

#Lemme see, for Federal, they claim
#.45 Colt	225 gr	900 fps		405 ft-lbs
#.44 Mag		240 	1180 		741
#.357 Mag	158 	1235		535

#	The .45 Colt can be handloaded past .44 magnum levels, but
#only in _some_ decent modern guns.   A call to the manufacture of 
#your gun before trying any funny stuff would be wise.

	For those of us who like to push the old .45 along and make the shootersof the 44mags look like panseys, pressure gun tested data is available for
the ruger blackhawk from John Linebaugh, the custom pistolsmith. This data goes
to 32kpsi and is a much safer way to load up the above revolver and probably
the redhawk, dan wesson and the colt anaconda without playing guessing games.
I have used this data in my blackhawk and anaconda without problems and have
had easy extraction and long case life. Typical loads are a 260 gr cast bullet
at 1450 and a 320 gr at 1250-1300. The large bore diameter of the .45 Colt
gives it a real advantage over the .44 in terms of efficency with heavy bullets
at lower pressures, which is very good for us cast bullet shooters. Loaded this way I don't notice much difference between my .45 Colts and my .454 Casull!

	Note that I am not recommending any loads not found in common loading
manual or from industry approved sources. Anybody who wants the above data can
send 5 bucks to Linebaugh and get the data directly from him.

regards,
Ken Karcich


#JD
From: tmoore@tinton.ccur.com (Tim Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Book Review: "Custom Government Model Pistol"
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:28:48 GMT


	Someone posted requesting information about the book "The
Custom Government Model Pistol" by Layne Simpson as advertized in
American Handgunner for $24.50 + $3.00 shipping.  I received mine
yesterday so I haven't had much time to check it out in detail.
Firstly it is a slick-cover paperback with 639 pages and lots and
lots of quality B&W pictures.  My initial impression was "WOW".
Being an IPSC nut this book is right up my alley.  I think that for
beginners this book will be *very* informative.  As for old dogs, 
I'll have to read it to see if there is anything new, however it 
hould make a dandy reference.  It does not appear to be a  gunsmithing
manual however it seems to cover all the things a gunsmith would do.
The author has written on various gun subjects in Handgunning and
other gun rags.  I have found his work to be informative and enjoyable
reading.  There sure are lots of cool pictures... :)

Here is the Table of Contents:
-------------------------------
1. John Browning and His Autoloader
2. How the Gov Model Works.
3. Pistolsmiths and Custom Pistols
   (30 pages-lots of pictures)
4. Planning your Custom Pistol
5. Slide Modifications
6. The Frame
   (frame modifications)
7. Metal Checkering and Serrating
8. Metal Preparation and Finishes
9. The Barrel
10. The Fire Control System
    (trigger, safety etc.)
11. Open Sights
12. Optical Sights and Mounts
13. Magazines
14. About Those Coil Springs
15. Odds and Ends
    (springs, shock buffs, grips etc.)
16. Compensators
17. The Switch-Top Guns
18. Complete Disassembly
19. Maintaining the Custom Gun
20. How Much Does it Weigh?
21. Government Model Cartridges
22. Handloading for the Gov Model.
23. Load Data
    (9x19, 9x21, 9x23, .38 super, .40S&W, 10mm, .41 Avenger, .41 AE, .45 ACP)
24. USPSA/IPSC Competition
25. The Practical Belt Holster
26. The Competition Rig
27. Into the Twenty-first Century.
APPENDICES
I.   Contributing Pistolsmiths
II.  Other contributors
III. Spring Rates
IV.  Factory Load Velocities (above listed calibers)
V.   Actual Jacketed Bullet Diameters
VI.  The Cover Gun

--Tim

[MODERATOR:  Nice review, Tim, thanks for posting!]
From: rtaraz@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Ramin Taraz)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: falling bullet does not "compute"
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:18:05 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280

#>>>> On 11 Jan 93 23:31:18 GMT, mac@cis.ksu.edu (Myron A. Calhoun) said:



mac> "Calculations indicate that the 150-grain .30-caliber Service
mac> bullet fired straight up at a muzzle velocity of 2700 feet per
mac> second will rise 9000 feet, taking about 18 seconds to do it; and
mac> that it takes 31 seconds to return to earth, the last few
mac> thousand feet of the fall being at a nearly constant speed of a
mac> bit over 300 feet per second."

mac> The last clause of the above paragraph just doesn't "compute", at
mac> least not in the way I use the English language!

mac> Suppose "a bit over 300" means "301"; then a constant-speed fall
mac> of 9000 feet at 301 fps takes 29.9 seconds, (and a "nearly
mac> constant speed" shouldn't be much different; see the next two
mac> paragraphs) which doesn't jibe with "the last few thousand feet
mac> of the fall".

if you divide 9000 by 301 you get 29.9. But the bullete doesnt start
at 301 ft/s from 9000 feet.  at 9000 feet the bulletes velocity is 0
ft/s.  it then accelerates at about 30 ft/ss (9.8 m/ss).  then you
have to use this formula
                 distance = .5 * time * time * acceleration

now, due to the air friction, the speed of the bullet doesnt increase
all the time, that's why the author said that for the last few thousand
feet of the fall the velocity is pretty much constant.

if you use this formula and just assum that the speed of the bullet
keeps increasing, then you get time ~ 25s.  but since the bullet will
have a constant speed for a while, 31s seems reasonable.

I'll let the physics majors take it from here!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\///\\\/\///|                rtaraz@wpi.wpi.edu                /  Is today \ |
|\\//\\//\\//|       1988 EX500 (missed dearly until spring)    | a good day| |
|\\\/\///\\\/|       DOD # 0740  ||  Taurus PT-92AF             \  to die?  / |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------