HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisb@wang.com (Chris Bennet)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Trajectory Question
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:16:28 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

On the "change in impact with different loads" thread, I
have the following data points to add:

- I think the "heavy load/heavy bullet" changing impact is only
  partially correct.  My own experience makes me think velocity is
  the real cause.  It just so happens that heavy bullets
  are usually moving slower.  Example: .357 revolver 
  * Sighted for 158 gr at 1100 fps (sighted at 30')
  * With wadcutters shoots 3" high (low velocity)
  * With 230gr at 800 ? fps shoots 3" high

- My two .45 loads 225gr/5.6grW231 (<- *) and 200gr/4.6grW231 shoot about the
  same place.  They may have about the same velocity too.

- Heavy recoiling loads shoot a little to the right in my .45.  I attribute
  this to my grip [I have small hands].

(*)  Disclaimer: DO NOT USE THIS LOAD, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.
From: spf@hoqaa.att.com (Steven P Frysinger)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Bad tactical position ( was Psychology in Defense)
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:37:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

#From article <1992Nov12.162956.3766@btree.uucp>, by btree!hale@UCSD.EDU (Bob Hale):
# In article <RTARAZ.92Nov11125627@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> rtaraz@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Ramin Taraz) writes:
# [ story about a deaf person being shot for producing his ID deleted ]
# #I got a chill going down my back bone after reading this story.
# #What would you DO if you shot this poor fellow and then saw his card?
# 
# I would think that organizations which serve the deaf should be
# educated in the public safety aspects of presenting ID.  Does the
# NRA have any programs to do this?

By the way, this happens to cops too.  An off duty cop involved in a
shooting situation responds to the approaching uniform by reaching for her
or his badge - BOOM.  It's a training issue, indeed, but apparently it
still happens.  There's a very gruesome photo of the results of this in the
text book "Street Survival".

Steve
From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: A shotgun might knock you down
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:58:20 GMT
Organization: Demi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA

kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:

#Recently, I saw pictures in a magazine of a fellow testing out
#the new Mossberg turkey gun chambered in 3 1/2" mag.  The guy
#shotting the gun was a big fellow, over 250 lbs., if I remember,
#but sure enough, a series of pictures shows him firing the gun
#and going right over backwards, just like a tin soldier you pushed
#over.

#They said it was the way he was standing.  Sorry I don't have more
#info on this, perhaps others saw it.

It is easy to confuse the "fall down" power of a high recoil weapon with
the alleged "knock down" power so often seen in TV/movies.

Fall down:  If you do not maintain your center of gravity over your load
bearing surfaces (read: feet :-), you fall down.  Depending on how well-
balanced you were to begin with, it can take a tremendous amount or a tiny
amount of force to shift your center of balance.  The recoil from
a shotgun like you describe could certainly make someone fall down, especially
if they were already leaning backward some.

Knock down:  If you are well-balanced and receive the impact of recoil or
a projectile that is sufficiently strong to force you over despite your
attempt to keep your feet, then you have been knocked down.  But consider:
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  So if the
action (receiving the projectile) was sufficient to knock the recipient
down (as is all those "action" shows wherein someone gets shot),
then the recoil from that action is also sufficient to knock down the
shooter.  And that just doesn't happen.

So the Mossberg shooter was not well-balanced and probabaly underestimated
the recoil to boot.  And he fell down.


Bill
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: The HK P7M8 - is it worth the $$$ ??
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:57:26 GMT

In article <9210310253.AA13629@afterlife.ncsc.mil> you wrote:
: 
: A friend of mine and I were discussing handguns. I am a Glock fan. Although
: I don't own one as of yet, I am considering buying a Glock 19 very soon. My
: friend is a HK fan. We both agree that both guns would be good CC weapons.
: What both of us were wondering is if the HK is worth the cash? Also, are
: there any advantages of one over the other? I would appreciate any thoughts
: that anyone might have on this. Thanks in advance!
: 
: 			- Tim

IMNSHO, the P7 is the safest carry gun you can get.  On one hand, it
doesn't go bang when you squeeze the trigger, unlike a glock or a DA
revolver.  On the other hand, there are no little gizmos you have to
move out of the way to make it go bang, like a SA automatic.  All you
do is pick it up, squeeze it (very natural, especially if you're 
scared) and press the trigger.  The chances of both cocking it and
pressing the trigger unintentionally are very slim, I think.  They are
also very well made, and, as far as I can tell, very accurate.  Worth
the price?  well, at $400 for a glock and $600 or so for a P7... I think
so.  I understand that hospital bills and court costs resulting from
an accidental shooting can become quite unreasonable!  (Not to imply
that the glock is UNsafe... safety resides in the hands of the shooter.
I just think its easier to be safe with a squeeze cocker).

--Dan
: 
: 

--
"Master... Master...                       (To The Tune of Metallica's)
	Master of Science is your degree.  ('Master of Puppets')
	You're too dumb for a PhD.              loki@acca.nmsu.edu
	Should have studied for the GRE!    taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu
From: sfaber@ihlpb.att.com (Steven R Faber)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: "Cooler Powders", Say what?
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:17:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewse.1992Nov10.185804.13907
Organization: AT&T

#From article <27284@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, by bercov@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (John Bercovitz):
# In article <1992Nov6.145526.13265@cbnewse.cb.att.com> sfaber@ihlpb.att.com 
# (Steven R Faber) writes:
# 
# #Seems that if it were cooler, you could compensate by using a greater
# #charge if the burn rate was suitably adjusted. This would not save
# #on total energy.  Otherwise you would somehow have to reduce the
# #average molecular weight of the product gases.  I would think that to
# #get a cooler powder you would end up with more high heat capacity
# #heavier gases so it would be tough to go in the direction of
# #cooler with lighter gases. I'll have to think about this one some
# #more and try and quantify some.
# 
# One caveat on this one which you've probably already recognized:
# The force on the base of the bullet is the integral of all those 
# collisions of gas molecules with said base.  It's a momentum thing.
# This is just another way of saying that pressure is averaging
# momentum transfer over area and time.  Now if peak pressures are
# the same for the two propellants (peak pressure occurs when the bullet
# is near the case and moving slowly) then the propellant with the
# more massive gas molecules will have slower-moving molecules.  And
# that's the rub.  Because when the bullet gets up to speed, those
# molecules have a lower delta V with respect to the base of the
# bullet.  (By the perfect gas law, the density of the molecules is 
# about the same in both cases, I would think.)

Yes, if you go to heavier gases you lose out.  There is the mass of the 
gas behind the bullet to accelerate also, which causes the the pressure
gradient to the base of the bullet, which is I think the same thing as
you are stating at a molecular level.  Thats interesting about the 
velocity of the gas molecules with respect to the bullet, I'll have
to calculate that, but offhand I don't think it is necessary to go
to the molecular level to do the calculations.   

I don't know why I said you would end up with more high molecular 
weight gases if you made a cooler powder.
Guess I don't know why you can't just add water for example and get
a cooler powder that would also lower the average molecular weights
of the gases. 

#   ... helium gun ...
# this little puppy you can lay 10 or 20 thousand feet per second on a
# low mass projectile while conventional propellants will only give you
# 4500 to 5000 fps if you want to be semi-practical about it.  
# 

Steve
From: rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Fletchette
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:38:11 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

ri saw some flechettes about 2 years ago at a gun show.  They looked like
mini sidewinders, about 1 1/4" long, maybe 1-2 mm in diameter, and had
four small fins at the front and four larger fins at the back.  I guess
you could squeeze from 20-30 in a 12 gauge case, though weight wise I
wasn't sure what they were condtructed from.  They were 8/$1.00, and
looked as though they would've made a nasty home defense load.

Bob
From: bellcore!bae.bae.bellcore.com!wind@uunet.UU.NET (Wind Chen)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: LONG, rec.guns discussion
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:54:16 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research

In article <62013@mimsy.umd.edu>, magnum@cs.umd.edu writes:
|> 
|> options I see available to us are...
|>  -- remain as is.
|>  -- discover or elect a new moderator.
|>  -- un-moderate the group, as Mr. Klausner has requested.
|>  -- suggest that an alt group be created, splitting us into moderated
|>     and unmoderated forums.

Democracy here stands for "you are free to stay with the group if you like
this group".  I always appreciate all news.group "keeper" on their efforts
of keeping the group running - moderate or un-moderate.  Maybe Jim should
not add comments to other's post, maybe Ben is right.  My take is healthy
suggestions are welcome by Jim.
From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Unique questions
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:44:50 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1992Nov5.185226.29917@MorningStar.Com> chris@MorningStar.Com (Chris Miller) writes:
= 
= The actual shape of the powder granules is different for different powders.
= Some of the various shapes are cylinderical, spherical, flake, and I believe

To say nothing of various densities...

= Toroid.  The Point of this is that for a given _volume_ of powder, you
= will have different _weights_ due to the fact that some powders pack denser
= than others.  I've never used a Lee reloader (gotta Dillon and love it:-)

I'm not familiar with the Dillon--do you use a balance to set up
the powder measure?

= but I fail to see how any such conversion table such as you described could 
= ever be accurate -  you would need a separate table for each powder. 

Actually a single table that's a matrix--at least that's what comes
with the MEC (shotgun cartridge) presses.  Across the top are perhaps 
twenty different common shotgun powders and along the side are the
various sizes of powder bushing.  I, too, have found that they
normally throw light rather than heavy loads and agree with those
who opine that they are merely trying to assure that, under worst
possible conditions of vibration, packing, etc., excessively heavy
charges won't be thrown.

Just a question, while I'm at it:  I think that the powder measure
in question uses cylinders and disks or such?  Is this measure
significantly less costly than the various "micrometer" measures
that are available?  Has anyone some comparative prices?

= Then again, if you _do_ have a table for the specific powder you are using,
= then I haven't the slightest idea what your problem could be, but I 
= thought the granule shape factor worth mentioning.

Valid point.


-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  crs@lanl.gov
From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: "Cooler Powders", Say what?
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:57:23 GMT
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi

If you have seen this month's American Rifleman, there is an article
by Finn Aagaard on "cooler burning" nitrocotton powders from the UK.
The idea is that these powders burn cooler while still pushing the
bullet at the same velocity. This, we are told, will reduce barrel
erosion. Now thermodynamics was never my strong suite, but I am having
trouble understanding how a powder can burn "cooler" and still produce
the same pressure and, hence, the same velocity. Mr. Aagaard's article
did little, to put it mildly, to explain this or prove that it was
true.

It seems, to me, that accelerating a bullet down the bore to some
velocity just requires some given amount of energy and that the
only way get that energy is by burning calories (joules) that show
up as heat.

Can someone help me out here? I just don't get it.

-- 

Donald R. Newcomb                * The one who dies with the most toys
dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu        * has accomplished nothing beyond
newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet            * enslaving himself to his possessions.
From: DENNIS_@ncsu.edu (DGA)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Thanks Vets.
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:19:51 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

To the Vets in the group:

Thank you from everyone who, thanks to your efforts, still enjoys the 
freedom that America offers.  Thank you for the pain you, the survivors, 
suffered and thanks to your fallen comrades for giving their lives so that 
even the fools among us can be fools freely.

[MODERATOR: Probably not in our charter, but I've let lots worse slip through..]
From: drs@col.hp.com (Don Simmons)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: LONG, rec.guns discussion
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:21:36 GMT


      IN A WORD --         ********* GREAT ***********

   THANKYOU FOR YOUR TIRELESS EFFORTS AT FILTERING THE FILTH.

   I THINK YOU SHOULD BE PAID IF YOU ARE DOING THIS MUCH.

   THE 'COMMENTS' by YOU  are always helpful, and comical - KEEP EM UP!!

    This 'bozo' is just that and not much more. 

    My vote is STAY ON  JIM !!!!!!!!!!!  YEAH - RIGHT ON!!!!!!!! 
 
          GOOD WORK DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: .32-20 winchester questions
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:48:01 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.

I just purchased a nice Browning 53 (a .32-20 lever-action, based on
the Winchester 92).*

My kids ought to love shooting it; small, light, low-recoil, expected
good accuracy, etc.  (If they don't, *I* sure will.)  #2 daughter
thought it was very nice, being with me when I went in to buy it.
She wondered why I wanted *another* rifle, but she's young.  (I
suppose that I have to tell my wife sometime, but the money was
not from the regular operating budget, so that's not a problem.)

I plan on reloading (the local price for .32-20...if you can find any...
is attention-getting), and I'm looking around for sources of supply
for some stuff.

Anyone have any suggestions for reasonable suppliers of factory .32-20?
(I have to get brass from *somewhere*, and I plan on using only factory
stuff for the first couple hundred rounds or so.)  Natchez?

Source of bullets for reloading the slightly-used brass?  (I've been
looking around for information about reloading, and I've been seeing
the bullets described typically as 90 to 115gr, but with diameters
ranging from .308 to .313".  Am I correct in gleaning from various
seemingly-contradictory sources that .311 or .312 jacketed bullets
are what I really want to be using?

Any suggestions would be appreciated, of course...

* Well, the store has the money, *I* have to cool off for a couple
  of weeks.  I get to take it home just before Thanksgiving, though.
  :}

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give	 |  Meteor counting is |
| them all away and have none left for yourself. |  is not a crime...  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: talon@wizard.etsu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Problem with the Berettas?
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:48:05 GMT
Organization: East Texas State University, Commerce, TX

What exactly is +P and +P+ ammo.  I have seen this in several magazines, but
never explained.



David Fox
s8623f@etsuv2.etsu.edu
talon@wizard.etsu.edu
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Bad tactical position ( was Psychology in Defense)
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:05:52 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:

#	I would concentrate more on being quite wiling to blow a hole in
#	the bastard at the first hint of cuteness on their part, and
#	dispense with all speech beyond the most essential.   Get him
#	into an EXTREMELY poor tactical position (from his standpoint,
#	of course) and get yourself out of his field of vision, making
#	sure that he cannot spy you through reflections.

I hadn't really thought about it before, but what is possibly the best
poor tactical position to put somebody in, and just how would you enforce
your wishes?  Personally, I like the idea of spread eagle, on the ground,
face in the dirt for a perp, but what if he doesn't obey?  I can't shoot
the guy then, and there's no other option open to me.  If I'm holding
a gun on a guy, I can't adjust his attitude with a club.  I've given
myself only one option, basically.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: gt4458c@prism.gatech.edu (John Stephens Cronin)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: official rec.guns ballot?
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:54:54 GMT
Organization: Common Container Liberation Front


In article <9211130405.AA10529@sail.labs.tek.com> mitcha@sail.labs.tek.com (Mitch Aigner) writes:
#OFFICIAL REC.GUNS BALLOT:
#
#1) Should the group remain moderated   Y/N?  Yes
#
Yes from me as well.  It seems to be a must.  It keeps flame wars from
flaring up, and the noise from the pro-gun/anti-gun debates is properly
rerouted to a noisy group.  I am not in favor of censorship, but this
is not really censorship.  The stuff gets posted, just in a more
appropriate group.  Everyone here is essentially pro-gun, and there
is no sense preaching to the faithful.  As faithful, we also have no real
wish to hear the other side of the debate, and if we did, we would join
the fray in t.p.g.  I am not speaking for anyone else but myself, although
I feel many here may agree with me.

#2) Should "magnum" continue to do this Y/N?  Yes

He seems to be doing an excellent job to me.  It is also a lot of work
to do this, and he seems to be wiling to do it, where else are we gonna
find another sucker er moderator that works as hard?  ;)

-- 
John Cronin	Internet: gt4458c@prism.gatech.edu	Phone: (404) 876-1419
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live each day as if it's your last.  One day you'll be right.  -- me
Lighten up, you're gonna die whether you have fun or not.      -- me again
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Chinese 7.62 x39 Rounds
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:30:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: rutgers.9211130727.AA05373
Organization: Indiana University

In article <9211130221.AA190954@nike.calpoly.edu> ehorne@zeus.calpoly.edu (Eric T Horne) writes:
#In article <1992Nov11.004618.12042@bbxrbk> bbx!bbxrbk!russ@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Russ Kepler) writes:
###attracted to a magnet.  Head stamp 9121 over 73. Claimed non-corrosive.
##                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
##.....
###Guess I'll have one 'sacraficial round' from each case I buy ... just
###so I know what I'm shooting ...
##
##For the reason underlined above you might want to sacrifice a single
##round anyway.  Pull the bullet, dump the powder and fire the case with
##primer at a degreased steel plate.  If the plate shows rust after a
##few days in a humid environment then the primer was corrosive.
#
#Ive asked this before, but got no response.. 
#
#What exactly is the difference between corrosive and non-corrosive ammo?
#And why would someone use one over the other?

Corrosive ammo uses a primer compound that forms a salt on firing
that promotes rust though the salt, in itself, isn't harmful. 
And Non-Corrosive priming compounds don't form these salts. 
There are advantages to each. The corrosive primers are apparently
more stable and reliable, especiall over long storage. Non-corrosive
priming is more tolerant of inattentive maintenance and cleaning.

-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Glock (& lock)
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:48:43 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov10.062755.13526@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
##Actually, the recoil supprised me: It felt greater than that
##of my .357. I suspect this is a factor of the gun's light weight...

#???   I've shot the Glock .45, 10mm, & compact .40s and 9mms.  I
#was shocked at how mild the recoil was.   Ditto for my girlfriend.

I guess it depends on what you are used to: I've been shooting a
Smith and Wesson Model 27 with a 8-3/8" barrel recently. That weighs
about twice as heavy as a Glock 17...

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder