The best thing about the USA for now any way, is the huge selection of firearms and ammo one can own just for walking into a place with money. In most places any way.
Some people actually have more than one. No,no really, seriously they do. :lol:
The best thing about the USA for now any way, is the huge selection of firearms and ammo one can own just for walking into a place with money. In most places any way.
Read the above discussion and want to say about it.10mm loadings are barely greater then the .40 caliber so unless you hand load 10mm to the original specification you're basically shooting .
There may not be a HUGE difference, but to some people that difference is worth it.....especially if they are not recoil sensitive. As you say, those who load their own have more options.
I've had some interest in the .327 Federal Magnum, but the load and guns available never really took hold. Think that is a shame - very low felt recoil and excellent ballistics. Yes, I've shot one.
The .357 magnum is still the standard by which all others are judged.
Underwood 40 S&W is listed at 1200 FPS 165 gn, I don't pay attention to the energy ratings as they are grossly exaggerated. I stick to basic weight to speed, instead of squaring of velocity. I not sure who came up with that, but for years slow, and heavy performed, and still does.
40 is plenty for me, but it may be too much for others. I don't begrudge those who desire magnum semi autos, just not interested, and the hype has never caught my attention. But then I am one of those that would carry a 22 if I was sure it would feed reliably.
The 9 is obviously a better, far more powerful round. Allow me to explain using simple math:
Zero means nothing, so a 10 can be called a "1". 9 is NINE TIME BIGGER than 1. Goodbye 10mm.
9 is over 25 times more than a .357 and 27 times more than a .327. Ridiculous.
A .460? Better than a .45 perhaps, but of course a 9 is still 19 plus times more.
When you add in large capacity and mild recoil its an absolute no-brainer!
But why the velocity squared, and not just velocity to the first power?
Unit analysis from first principles.
Well, kinetic energy is most definitely real!
It is defined as E = (M x V²) ÷ K, where M is the weight of the projectile, in grains, V is the velocity in feet per second and E is the energy in foot pounds.
Seems pretty logical that if you shoot the same weight and diameter bullet at different speeds the amount of energy transferred to the target will be less or more depending on the speed of the bullet.
Heavier bullet at same ratio bullet speed is under powered according to kinetic energy claims, but slow heavy bullets have worked for centuries. How can this be? Sorry if I do not fall into line, I am more concerned with reliability, accuracy, and shootability.
More case space means more powder, even for equal performing loads. More powder means more muzzle blast, which lessons my requirement for shootability. This is why I use wadcutters in self defense loads, they are seated deeper in the cases making them more efficient. This was one of the premises for semi auto rounds to begin with, short cases efficient burning of powder. A lot for reduction of fouling by early corrosive powders.
Several factors control how a gun feels while being shot, case volume is an important one. I mainly use semi autos for self defense, if I want power I go with a 44 magnum. Again I am not disparaging others desire for such guns, I am not interested myself. And have a different criteria for handgun SD performance, I also am not a believer in the magic hollow point that can stop a herd of elephants with a single round.
Heavier bullet at same ratio bullet speed is under powered according to kinetic energy claims, but slow heavy bullets have worked for centuries. How can this be? Sorry if I do not fall into line, I am more concerned with reliability, accuracy, and shootability.
More case space means more powder, even for equal performing loads. More powder means more muzzle blast, which lessons my requirement for shootability. This is why I use wadcutters in self defense loads, they are seated deeper in the cases making them more efficient. This was one of the premises for semi auto rounds to begin with, short cases efficient burning of powder. A lot for reduction of fouling by early corrosive powders.
Several factors control how a gun feels while being shot, case volume is an important one. I mainly use semi autos for self defense, if I want power I go with a 44 magnum. Again I am not disparaging others desire for such guns, I am not interested myself. And have a different criteria for handgun SD performance, I also am not a believer in the magic hollow point that can stop a herd of elephants with a single round.
Does anybody actually believe a bullet can knock a man, or a animal down. Yet a boxer with considerably less kinetic energy can knock another off their feet. The formula is flawed.
Well the obvious difference is a bullet's frontal area is quite small in comparison to the frontal area of a big ol' boxing glove.
The energy behind a punch is usually 70 or so ft/lbs. on the light side but can reach 350+ ft/lbs. on the heavy side. That's as much as a "weak" handgun bullet.
I think a similar conceptual comparison would be people wearing snow shoes in the snow. When you make your foot print larger it disperses your weight on a larger surface area so that you aren't sinking down into the snow. Not all of the energy of your steps is concentrated in one small area.
[video=youtube;UWNBV6ndmH4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWNBV6ndmH4[/video]
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=af5_1315934617
308 Winchester ball and still did not knock him down. As stated a bullet will not knock you down, not even a rifle bullet. Not even with the energy dispersed through a vest. The bullet energy formula is flawed.
I believe a vest is bigger foot print than a snow shoe. Plus the theory of relativity comes into play, do you really think you could hold onto a gun that was exerting 500 pounds of force into your hand?
Let me repeat it then, do you think you can hold 500 pounds in your hand?We aren't disagreeing, haha.
I am confused by your question though.
Let me repeat it then, do you think you can hold 500 pounds in your hand?
I don't see the relevance of the question.