HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tmi@well.sf.ca.us (Peter Kasler)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Hand-loads for defense (was Re: Occasional Dud in Glock 20)
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:59:32 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link

In <9208202033.AA25010@gtephx.com> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

#you were justified in shooting.  If you were justified, there will 

#a free state (tm) like Arizona!

#As to the cost, 50 rounds of .357 Mag 125 gr HP will cost me anywhere
#from $12.95 to $18.95 (US).  100 rounds of hand-loaded HP-XTP will 

	First off, Andrew, not everyone is so fortunate as to live in
a state such as Arizona; some of us care about legal liability
exposure. Moreover, not all that long ago, virtually all of the United
States was more reasonable than some of the oppressive states (such as
California) is today. And the way things are going, some day in the
not too distant future your smug little world might be shattered with
the enactment of a few restrictive laws. And finally on this point, it
is precisely folks such as you who increase the burden on the rest of
us by persisting with foolish and naive notions such as you've posted
here.

#cost me $10.00 to $12.00.  So you're suggesting that I *half* my
#shooting?  

	I'm not suggesting anything, Andrew. Perhaps you should be a
little less defensive and a little more constructive.

#BTW, you really should practice at least 20% of the time with the load
#you use for defense.  Variations in ammunition alter the point of
#impact and the amount of recoil and noise.  In a defense situation
#you will be on edge and you will need every advantage -- including
#intimate familiarity with the load you are using.  

	Thanks so much for the lesson. I'm certain you know of that
which you write, probably as much or more than I do.

#Besides, I handload because factory .357 mag ammo is "too hot" and may
#over penetrate, whereas my handloads are lighter and are of less risk
#to innocent bystanders. 8^)

	Once again, I yield to your obvious expertise. I'm going to go
right out and replace my pistols with revolvers so I can shoot .357
Magnum ammunition like you big guys. By the way, heard anything good
from Evan Marshall lately? "8^)




-- 
                           Peter Alan Kasler
                      Threat Management Institute
                 800 West Napa Street, Sonoma, CA 95476
     Voice: 707-939-0303  =  tmi@well.sf.ca.us  =  Fax: 707-935-1713
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: X's on bullets (was Re: Occasional Dud in Glock 20)
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:34:03 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <9208061711.AA02600@dseg.ti.com>, noonan%icd3.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Noonan ) writes:
# In article <199208051632.AA52995@ns1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>,
# ka02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Kent P. Aitchison) writes:
# 
# #    On the subject of basement bullet manufactory, a neighbor recently told me
# #that her husband, with an evil grin, no doubt, cuts X's in his defense rounds
# #in the belief that it will provide some sort of supernormal stopping power.
# #That's the second time I've heard this - what's the story?  Is this actually
# #useful or does hold the same utility as the post in Hydrashoks?
# 
# I'm certainly no expert on firearms (especially non-military ones), but I do
# know that my military training included the instruction not to carve X's into
# bullets as it is against the Geneva Convention.  My understanding is that 
# when the bullet enters a person, it splits and does more damage - it has
# more stopping power.  I assume this is along the same lines as hollow points.
# 
# I know if I can be corrected, I will be corrected.
# 
As I remember, such bullets are called Dum-Dums after the location (fort/town/
county/??) in India(?) where the British first used them. 

Cutting an X on the end of the bullet improves expansion: hollowpoint ammo 
expands even better.

And there is a combination of Dum-Dum and hp ammo: Hornady manufactures 
HP/XTP (eXtra Terminal Performance) bullets which are jacketed hollowpoints
with small slits cut in the jacketing around the hollow point.  This is
supposed to offer improved expansion: it *does* make a mean looking bullet.

[As far as I can tell, the XTP bullets are sold as projectiles only -- 
meaning you have to load them yourself.]

I am reaching here, but I seem to remember a warning about Dum Dums
expanding prematurely (IE: in the barrel) if the X is too deep.
I wouldn't advise trying it as hollowpoints expand more effectively
anyway.


WRTmovies, the movie "The Bear" (Disney?) has a scene (or two) where 
the "evil hunter" puts a large, deeeeep X on bullets to shoot bear.
The hysterical part here is that (a) the X was cut deep enough to 
significantly increase the diamter of the projectile (which would 
cause the bullet to get stuck in the barrell) and (b) "expanding
bullets" tend to loose their energy in the fat/dense muscle of 
large game like bear (meaning that a Dum Dum would be less effective
for large game).  

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: .357 or 9mm first gun
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:23:54 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group


#As has been pointed out on other occasions, one advantage of a revolver
#for training purposes is that it can be partially loaded, so that the
#shooter doesn't know whether or not there will be a BANG! when the
#hammer drops.  This can help with learning proper trigger control and
#flinch resistance; ideally, when you hear the CLICK. instead of a BANG!
#you'll see the sights still properly aligned on target.

I routinely use 'dummy' rounds in (semi) auto's for this purpose.  As long
as the person shooting doesn't see the mag, it works quite well.  I'll 
often go to the range with a friend and we will load each others mag's.  
I you aren't a hand loader, there are a couple of companys that supply 
highly visible dummy rounds for this purpose.

These rounds also can be used to simulate various types of malfunctions 
in (semi) auto pistols.  This is probably just as valuable as teaching 
trigger control.

Rick.
From: burge@qdeck.com (Bill Burge)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: 9mm major / 9x21 reloading question
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:31:10 GMT
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA

In article <1992Aug12.171430.22984@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
#
#So if you load a 9mm up super hot, in a special gun, it can equal a 
#38 Super... 
#
#...I wonder why not just get a .38 super for this purpose? 
#
#Is there something bad about the .38 Super that I am not aware of, or 
#is it simply consumer preference?    I know about the semi-rimmed nature
#of the cartridge, but to my knowlege it does not effect performance.
#

The 38Super is a straight wall case with a semi-rim.  In order for the 
semiauto to feed reliably, the chamber must be tapered.  When you go to
high pressures, BTW the 38Super has similar working pressures to the 9mm
in high end loads, the Super case will bulge at the base.  You cane 
either work thie brass repeatedly or risk feeding problems.  The straight
wall case also allows more gas flow (and crud buildup) in the chamber by
only gas sealing at the case mouth.  The taper case mated to tapered chamber,
the lack of rim and lessened crud build up make the 9mm a better autoloader
round.  It also seems that until the last couple of years, it was tough
to get tough 38Super brass.  9mm carbine and milspec brass has alway been
plentiful.

Bill	burge@qdeck.com
From: bartb@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com (Bart Bobbitt)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: .22 LR Grouping
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:40:54 GMT

The person who posted these words about an AMT .22 LR groups:

#I shot 2 groups of 10 rounds each using 4 different ammos.  Grouping
#was from 3" (CCI Green Tag), 3" from Hansen Std Vel Target to .75"
#with PMC Zapper to .5" with PMC Target.

#The groups were shot staggered, so it's not wind or anything, but I'm
#still curious about the poor showing of the "target" ammo.  Is it the
#lack of a target chamber? 

has a typical situation going.

My initial questions are:

  * What does the term `shot staggered' mean?

    I've not heard of this term.  Does it mean that one shot from ammo
    type A was fired, then a shot on another target from ammo type B
    was fired?  

  * What were the group sizes for each 10-shot group with each ammo type?

Actually, .75 and .5 inch groups at 50 yards from a sporting .22 LR rifle
are pretty good.  But the true measure of accuracy is the worst, or largest
group a type of ammo delivers, not the smallest.     

A lot of folks get so-called `target' .22 LR ammo and expect it to shoot
really well.  The problem is that most of that ammo is not real target
ammo.  Real .22 LR target ammo costs about 13 cents per round, such as
RWS R50, Ely Tenex, Lapua Dominator.  And it will shoot, at worst, about
quarter-inch 20-shot groups at 50 yards from a real target barrel.  

A target chamber will let smaller groups be fired, but the bore and groove
dimensions are important, too, as well as receiver bedding in the stock.
From: jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Top Man Stoppers???
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:13:47 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

#From article <1992Aug17.141754.11124@email.tuwien.ac.at>, by holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Holger Reusch (Dipl. Gerhard + Joe)):
# In <1992Aug12.153118.25855@amc.com> reb@amc.com (Bob Brunjes) writes:
# #In article <1992Aug11.084948.9679@email.tuwien.ac.at> holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Holger Reusch (Dipl. ALF in spe)) writes:
# #Although I live in a rural area, and could care less about the dreaded
# #"over-penetration", I hear lack of overpenetration being used a positive
# #factor in "stopping power".  In truth, the shootee does not care if the
# #bullet overpenetrates after he is stopped, nor does he care if the
# #he was shot by a gun that carried nicely.  He cares only that he was
# #hit by a well-place energetic bullet.  
#

Hmmmm, I should have thought that the shootee who is shot well
enough to stop him has probably ceased to care about much of
anything in a majority of cases ;-{).  He as assumed room
temperature.  The world has found someone else to revolve
around...  BTW, did Marshal happen to mention in his book what %
of one shot stops were fatal?
 
# Still, I uphold my reservation on excessive calibers.  Statistics
# show (Here I mean Marshall's, whatever you think about them.  So far, I
# haven't seen anything better.) that above .357 Magnum, stopping power
# actually decreases.  I understand the reason for this (less energy
# dumped in the target due to quick penetration), but I understand, too,
# that this is merely a hypothesis.  If anybody demonstrates tomorrow that
# a .50 Win.Mag. is a more effective manstopper than a .357, I'm the last
# one to grieve over that.
#

How about a .45 LC, .44 spl, .44 mag. etc. with a very light
bullet?  What would be the approximate equivalent of the 110 gr.
and 125 gr. .357 mag bullets?  Did Marshall have any data on such
rounds, presuming they exist. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
From: cavasin@convex.com (Vince Cavasin)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: .40 s&w questions
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:17:01 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA

Soon I'll be looking to buy a (probably) large-frame pistol in .40 s&w.  Right
now I like the big smith and wesson (can't remember model number: 4006?) but
everyone seems to think it's not worth the money.  I also like the baretta m96
a lot.  I've heard some positive things about the sig (is it available yet?).
I'm not very impressed with the glock.  Ideally, I'd like a stainless/alloy
frame/slide, >=11 round magazine capacity, and traditional double action.
Concealability isn't a major concern.

My questions:

has taurus come out with a model 96 clone yet?

there's no such thing as a stainless model 96, is there?

is browning ever going to have a .40 high power?

How are the Rugers? (I haven't looked at these at all)

also, if you have recommendations or disrecommendations for a specific
make/model, please let me know.  I'm also interested in magazine reviews if
you know of any (er, I should say "reviews in magazines", not to be confused
with reviews OF magazines...:^).

thanks,
vince

p.s. other than a couple brief articles on the glock, I didn't see much
discussion on this topic here.  forgive me if I missed something.
From: r36110m@kaira.hut.fi (Mika Matti Jalava)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: .357 vs 9mm and Revolvers vs Semi-autos  (was: 1st gun= .22? )
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:59:42 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Aug20.160835.24187@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:

#be a much greater factor than the gun itself.  A .357 will kick
#harder than a .38 or 9MM, and for that reason will require more
#practice to shoot accurately.

I've been wondering this a bit. How much does the recoil affect the
accuracy? 

Of course if you are so scary about the kick that you can't keep your
hands from trembling, it will be difficult to shoot. That should be
easy to come over, though. I shoot mostly .22 pistol, but have shot
.357 (mag and max) with quite good results. I just don't think about
what gun it is, just hold the gun and pull the trigger always just in
the same way. The recoil is a problem only AFTER the gun fires, if
even then. There are much harder things to keep in hands than guns and
you usually survive. Of course your grip must be good enough to start
with so you don't injure yourself, but at least a .357 even with
comparatively hot loads doesn't kick too much (my only experience is
about 4" barrels, don't know about some really short ones). Just don't
think about it.

But what I was interested in is the effect of the recoil moving the gun
before the bullet leaves the barrel. I would suppose a harder recoil
would make the gun hit higher in the target, and higher muzzle
velocity (shorter time in the barrel) cause lower hits. These might
also compensate each other. How big percentage of the recoil is
generated while the bullet still travels in the barrel (of course this
depends on the gun, but at least some idea for rifles and handguns
would be interesting)?

	Mika
From: reb@amc.com (Bob Brunjes)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: .357 or 9mm first gun
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:23:26 GMT
Organization: Applied Microsystems, Redmond, WA

In article <19059@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
#
#In article <9208061720.AA04754@cyclone.sbi.com> jbm@cyclone.sbi.com (Jeffrey B. Moore) writes:
##... the simplicity of a revolver makes it a great learning tool ...
#
#As has been pointed out on other occasions, one advantage of a revolver
#for training purposes is that it can be partially loaded, so that the
#shooter doesn't know whether or not there will be a BANG! when the
#hammer drops.  This can help with learning proper trigger control and
#flinch resistance; ideally, when you hear the CLICK. instead of a BANG!
#you'll see the sights still properly aligned on target.
#
This is the world's most effective "flinch-finder".  While you may
judge your own ability to hold by the steadiness of the sight picture,
your shooting friends will see you wave your muzzle to cover several
acres of target.  _Most_ embarrassing.  If they are kind, they will
suggest you go back to the .22 to lose your flinch.  If they are 
unkind, they will fall down, hold their sides and roll around howling
with laughter.

Parenthetically, if you _don't_ have .22 experience to fall back onto,
you've probably found the cause for your flinch. 

When training new shooters on .22 auto, I used to single-load the pistol
and hand it to the shooter, who never knew whether the chamber contained
a live round or a fired case.  _Nobody_ wants to look the dufus with a
wildly-waved CLICK, so flinch-control comes into play quickly.

Thanks for raising an important point.


Bob Brunjes		Applied Microsystems Corp
			Redmond, WA
			reb@amc.com
From: swatt%mickey@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Action Ears: What Do Users Think?
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:37:06 GMT
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems


In article <9208181629.AA21997@ariel.crd.Ge.Com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.ge.com (william E Davidsen) writes:
|>
|>   I want a set for trap. I don't want to hear anything when I'm
|> shooting, but it sure would be nice to hear people say "pull" when I'm
|> officiating. 
|> 
|> -- 
|> bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
|>     I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.

I sent a rather long reply to someone in this group regarding Action Ears.
In short I dis-recommend them.  The problem is their pickups are forward-
facing.  They seem to work OK to suppress the blast of your shot.  They
don't work when the muzzle blast comes from an adjacent stall.

I have a set of "Wolf Ears", which at $250 are probably the most expensive
of the models available, but they work very well.  They suppress the blast
so well I can actually hear the  TWIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGgggggggg of the
bullets as they head downrange.  It sounds just like the old Westerns,
something I'd never heard in real life because either the muzzle blast has
totally blanked out your hearing, or typical passive ear pads have muffled
such relatively quiet noises out completely.

Wolf Ears will amplify sound below 70 dB and suppress levels above that
(I may have the exact figure wrong, but that's the general idea).

However, they don't work for trap because (at least with my gun), they
interfere with a proper cheek-to-stock contact. For shooting I use the
disposable compressible in-the-ear type.  When new and properly inserted
they seem to work fine for me.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
From: adpgate!martin@uunet.uu.net (Martin Golding)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: bolo ammunition
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:39:09 GMT
Organization: ADP Dealer Services R&D, Portland, OR


PATE@VXC.UNCWIL.EDU (BILL PATE, ADMIN. SERVICES, PATE@VXC.UNCWIL.EDU) writes:

# This reminds of a cannon innovation which came about during the War for
# Southern Independence (a.k.a. Civil War). The cannon was double-barreled.
# The cannon balls were connected with a length of chain. 

This sounds unlikely, as chain shot was already well developed and
in general use on shipboard. Split the cannonball, and run a linked
pair of rods or a chain between the halves. (Load the connection in
front of the ball, of course.)

Useful for cutting sails or rigging, and breaking masts. The effective
width of the cannonball was much improved.


I'd like to see a reference for the two cannons- that sort of thing
was popular centuries earlier; I'd think just loading grape would have
been sufficient in the War between the States.



Martin Golding      | Western philosophy:  All that we can see is the illusion.
Dod #236 0354 .EC   |   Eastern religion:   All that we can see is illusion.
                    |     Zen <THWACK!>:     Shut up and watch.
[motcsd!]mcspdx!adpgate!martin
From: jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Top Man Stoppers???
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:39:33 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

#From article <87ycPB1w165w@hale.cts.com>, by system@hale.cts.com:
# cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
# 
# # In article <1992Aug9.104019.25582@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.e
# # ...
# # #BTW, nothing to do with anything: How does 20 ga recoil compare with
# # #that of an SKS 7.62x39?   Which would be bettter for self defense?
# # 
# # #An aquaintance wants a long gun for self defense, but is rather small and
# # #light, saying that a 12 ga is terrible to shoot and would be useless to
# # #him.  Has never tried 20 ga (neither have I),  but I have tried an SKS
# # #and thought recoil wasn't bad at all, and that it is a neat little rifle.
# # 
# # #BTW2, There is a maniac who is stalking him, in jail for it now, but due 
# # #to get out soon.  The aquaintance is expecting a Cape Fear type summer,*
# # #and wants something useful that he can learn to use quickly.   He has a 
# # #.22 rifle now, but may not purchace handguns due to being 20 years of age.
# # 
# # Sounds bad. Given the parameters, I would recommend a semi-automatic
# # carbine. The 20 gauge idea isn't bad--I suppose a 20 gauge loaded with #4
# # buck (they do make those in 20 gauge, don't they?) would be quite deadly.
# 
# 
# I don't know how small and light your partner is, but there are some
# highly developed defensive loads in 410 bore now too, and downloaded 
# versions of the same suitible (and expressly marketed towards) women.
# 
# One 410 load that comes to mind is a shell loaded with 000 buck times 3,
# there are several well designed, reduced load 12 gauge shells also
# exclusivly marketed towards defensive use with special features such as
# a reversed finned wad that won't go too far.
#

Does anyone make specialty loads like these:

I have heard of people crimping a pair of fishing weights on the
ends of a length of nylon fishing line.  One guy who tried it
said it cut off an 8 inch (diameter) tree very neatly.

After I learned how Claymore mines work, I always wondered if a
load of needle bearings would work.  An alternative would be
sinkers crimped onto a piece of wire.

I have heard of a police load which consisted of a stack of steel
disks loaded into a 12 gauge shotshell. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)