Holiday Wishes...
Philbert
the coming year bring you musical growth, great tone, and lots of gigs with
compatible bandmates!
Anyone getting gear for Christmas? I'm looking forward to some URB
goodies - a new (still cheap) bow made out of genuine wood and real
horsehair (to replace the f-glass one w/ synthetic crap), a new bag that
actually has handles (my current nasty-ass bag has one - and it's in the
wrong place!) and a new pickup (so all of my intonation errors can be shared
with everyone!)
Peace,
Philbert
utellme
> Anyone getting gear for Christmas?
I'm getting a Remington 410 as well as a few other useful items, just in
case JoeSpareBedroom attempts to follow up on his death threat.
Steve Freides
news:UcudnXW9__a1VfLa...@trueband.net...
I got a new pickup, one of those $30 they sell on ebay. Since my only
other pickup is borrowed, I guess I should say I got my first pickup. I
also moved from a fiberglass + horse hair bow to a composite + horse
hair bow, an improvement.
-S-
> Peace,
>
> Philbert
>
RichL
news:UcudnXW9__a1VfLa...@trueband.net...
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all!
I don't know if I got any new gear yet. My kids are coming over later, and
my oldest son (recording engineer/producer) usually surprises me with
something really nice, music-wise.
Jim Carr
utellme
@newsfe15.phx:
ruff...ruff...ruff
The Bishop
I got an Axiom 49 MIDI keyboard, and I'm treating myself for my
birthday to a ZOOM H4 Recorder!
Philbert
exactly as described and quite nice for the modest $$. The Rev Solo II pu
from Upton is as described and sounds way better than it should, even with
no pre-amp. I'm running it directly into my AI Clarus and it sounds great.
Even better - zero feedback - even when just 2' from my speaker!
I'm grinnin' (and grateful!)
<Philbert> wrote in message
news:UcudnXW9__a1VfLa...@trueband.net...
Misifus
JoeSpareBedroom would know that the .410 isn't much protection.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rafse...@suddenlink.net
blog: http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
utellme
news:5ulhsbF...@mid.individual.net:
> utellme wrote:
>> <Philbert> wrote in
>> news:UcudnXW9__a1VfLa...@trueband.net:
>>
>>
>>> Anyone getting gear for Christmas?
>>
>>
>> I'm getting a Remington 410 as well as a few other useful items, just
>> in case JoeSpareBedroom attempts to follow up on his death threat.
>>
>>
>
>
> JoeSpareBedroom would know that the .410 isn't much protection.
>
> -Raf
Then, why don't you and JoeSpareBedroom pay me a visit and let's find out.
jeffb
>
> Then, why don't you and JoeSpareBedroom pay me a visit and let's find out.
I'm in.
What's yer address?
Brian Running
It's not?! You wouldn't mind being shot with a .410?
Am I missing something? Were you being sarcastic?
Misifus
I'm not threatening you. I'm merely stating that I know that Joe is
familiar with firearms, and you seem not to be. That's all.
Misifus
I'm not offering to be shot with a .410, I'm merely saying that for self
defense, something a bit larger would be preferable. To be shot with
one would not be pleasant, but it wouldn't stop an aggressor as well as
a 12 ga.
Mike Rieves
"Misifus" <rafse...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:5uo6k8F...@mid.individual.net...
> Brian Running wrote:
>>> JoeSpareBedroom would know that the .410 isn't much protection.
>>
>> It's not?! You wouldn't mind being shot with a .410?
>>
>> Am I missing something? Were you being sarcastic?
>
>
> I'm not offering to be shot with a .410, I'm merely saying that for self
> defense, something a bit larger would be preferable. To be shot with one
> would not be pleasant, but it wouldn't stop an aggressor as well as a 12
> ga.
>
A .410 loaded with birdshot at more than 20 feet might not even slow down
someone who is really intent on doing you bodily harm. I'd rather have a
.22. A .410 loaded with a slug is another matter, however...
pTooner
>>> JoeSpareBedroom would know that the .410 isn't much protection.
>>
>> It's not?! You wouldn't mind being shot with a .410?
>>
>> Am I missing something? Were you being sarcastic?
>
>
> I'm not offering to be shot with a .410, I'm merely saying that for self
> defense, something a bit larger would be preferable. To be shot with one
> would not be pleasant, but it wouldn't stop an aggressor as well as a 12
> ga.
>
> -Raf
Dear Lord, I guess it depends on just how dead you want to be. Is it
something like "a little bit pregnant?". In all seriousness, a .410 at self
defense ranges, i.e. less than 10 feet, is just as deadly as a nuclear
weapon.
Gerry
Brian Running
> defense, something a bit larger would be preferable. To be shot with
> one would not be pleasant, but it wouldn't stop an aggressor as well as
> a 12 ga.
I don't think "dead by 12-gauge" is any deader than "dead by .410."
Brian Running
> someone who is really intent on doing you bodily harm.
Fer cryin' out loud. Here you go again -- Mike, you obviously know
nothing about .410s, .22s, or probably any other kind of gun. How 'bout
sticking with topics you know something about?
By the way, when will you reveal one to us?
Brian Running
By the way, how on earth did this work its way into a "Holiday Wishes"
thread?
Sorry, Philbert.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>
> "Misifus" <rafse...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
> news:5uo6k8F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Brian Running wrote:
>>>> JoeSpareBedroom would know that the .410 isn't much protection.
>>>
>>> It's not?! You wouldn't mind being shot with a .410?
>>>
>>> Am I missing something? Were you being sarcastic?
>>
>>
>> I'm not offering to be shot with a .410, I'm merely saying that for self
>> defense, something a bit larger would be preferable. To be shot with one
>> would not be pleasant, but it wouldn't stop an aggressor as well as a 12
>> ga.
>>
>
> A .410 loaded with birdshot at more than 20 feet might not even slow down
> someone who is really intent on doing you bodily harm.
True - but it would be pretty unpleasant for them. If we were talking
20-30 yards it'd be a little different.
--
Aaron
LagerHaus5 - for all your classic rock needs.
http://www.myspace.com/lagerhaus5
Misifus
Keep in mind that a .410 slug is moving pretty slowly. A .45 Colt would
be a much better choice in about the same caliber.
Brian Running
> be a much better choice in about the same caliber.
A .410 slug goes about twice as fast as a .45 Colt.
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:A%Lhj.38407$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
I grew up with guns, I was shooting .22's and .410's when I was six or
seven, and I owned both, and a twnety guage, in my early teens. I've fired
every caliber pistol from .22 to .45 (including .25, .32, 38, 9mm, .40, .and
44 magnum). I qualified expert in the army with both the M-14 and M-16, so I
do know a bit about guns.
I saw a guy get shot in the stomach with a .410 loaded with birdshot at
about 20 to 25 feet, and his wounds were superficial, none of the pellets
penetrated deeply enough to hit any major organs. A .22 at that range would
have done serious, possibly lethal damage. I don't know how much you know
about shooting guns, but you're sure as hell an expert at shooting off your
big mouth...
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> Keep in mind that a .410 slug is moving pretty slowly. A .45 Colt would
>> be a much better choice in about the same caliber.
>
> A .410 slug goes about twice as fast as a .45 Colt.
The .45 ACP fires a 230 grain bullet at about 850 fps, generating about 370
ft lbs of muzzle energy, the .410 slug weighs 87.5 grains and has a muzzle
velocity of about 1815 fps and generates about 640 ft lbs of muzzle energy,
so Brian is right.
The .45 long cartridge is available in specail loads that will propel a 300
grain bullet at over 1200 fps from a long barreled pistol like the Buntline,
resulting in muzzle energy close to the .410's.
Mike Rieves
"pTooner" <gedd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FcChj.49947$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Misifus" <rafse...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
> news:5uo6k8F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Brian Running wrote:
>>>> JoeSpareBedroom would know that the .410 isn't much protection.
>>>
>>> It's not?! You wouldn't mind being shot with a .410?
>>>
>>> Am I missing something? Were you being sarcastic?
>>
>>
>> I'm not offering to be shot with a .410, I'm merely saying that for self
>> defense, something a bit larger would be preferable. To be shot with one
>> would not be pleasant, but it wouldn't stop an aggressor as well as a 12
>> ga.
>>
>> -Raf
>
> Dear Lord, I guess it depends on just how dead you want to be. Is it
> something like "a little bit pregnant?". In all seriousness, a .410 at
> self defense ranges, i.e. less than 10 feet, is just as deadly as a
> nuclear weapon.
At 10 feet or less, a .410 loaded with birdshot might be lethal, but loaded
with heavy shot or a slug, it would be as deadly as a .454 Casull. I don't
know about the nuclear weapon analogy though, it's possible to miss even at
close range with a .410, but not with a nuclear weapon. :-)
Brian Running
No you didn't.
> I was shooting .22's and .410's when I was six or seven,
No you weren't.
> I've fired every caliber pistol from .22 to .45 (including .25, .32, 38, 9mm, .40, .and
> 44 magnum).
No you haven't.
> I qualified expert in the army with both the M-14 and M-16, so I do know a bit about guns.
No you didn't and no you don't.
> I saw a guy get shot in the stomach with a .410 loaded with birdshot at
> about 20 to 25 feet,
No you didn't.
> I don't know how much you know about shooting guns,
No you don't.
> but you're sure as hell an expert at shooting off your big mouth...
Neener, neener, neener!
Does that get me re-kill filed? Please?
utellme
$lo5....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.bass/msg/6245264287f7291a?
dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.bass/msg/db654951a74187db?
dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.bass/msg/81fd5ceb48c48f3b?
dmode=source
Hope that resolves your confusion.
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote in message
news:J05ij.41510$G23....@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
>> I grew up with guns,
>
> No you didn't.
Liar!
>> I was shooting .22's and .410's when I was six or seven,
>
> No you weren't.
Liar, liar!
>> I've fired every caliber pistol from .22 to .45 (including .25, .32, 38,
>> 9mm, .40, .and 44 magnum).
>
> No you haven't.
Your nose is growing!
>> I qualified expert in the army with both the M-14 and M-16, so I do know
>> a bit about guns.
>
> No you didn't and no you don't.
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
>> I saw a guy get shot in the stomach with a .410 loaded with birdshot at
>> about 20 to 25 feet,
>
> No you didn't.
Sure I did!
>> I don't know how much you know about shooting guns,
>
> No you don't.
No, I don't knw how much you know about guns...
>> but you're sure as hell an expert at shooting off your big mouth...
>
> Neener, neener, neener!
Nope, you're a weener, weener, weener.
> Does that get me re-kill filed? Please?
Well, I was going to killfile you again, but since you're being so nice now,
I think I'll just keep you around for a while.
Fritz Wuehler
jeffb <je...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> utellme wrote:
> >
> > Then, why don't you and JoeSpareBedroom pay me a visit and let's find out.
>
> I'm in.
Great. Don't forget to kiss your boyfriend goodbye.
> What's yer address?
1048 E. Pueblo Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85020
coreybenson
> "Brian Running" <brunn...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
Google search, click link, cut, paste into post.
Nice work, Mike!
Corey
Brian Running
> ft lbs of muzzle energy, the .410 slug weighs 87.5 grains and has a muzzle
> velocity of about 1815 fps and generates about 640 ft lbs of muzzle energy,
> so Brian is right.
I think I'm right, but the reason is not what you've cut-and-pasted,
Mike. The .45 ACP is not a .45 Colt, they're two completely different
cartridges. Better do your Google search for .45 Colt this time.
Was that an "attack"? Do I get kill-filed again now?
reality-check
@mid.individual.net:
> Brian Running wrote:
>>> JoeSpareBedroom would know that the .410 isn't much protection.
>>
>> It's not?! You wouldn't mind being shot with a .410?
>>
>> Am I missing something? Were you being sarcastic?
>
>
> I'm not offering to be shot with a .410, I'm merely saying that for self
> defense, something a bit larger would be preferable. To be shot with
> one would not be pleasant, but it wouldn't stop an aggressor as well as
> a 12 ga.
>
> -Raf
FYI a couple of rounds of buckshot from a 410 in the face are enough to
stop anyone. You can't attack someone when you are blind and can't see.
Brian Running
> stop anyone. You can't attack someone when you are blind and can't see.
Now we've got buckshot in a .410 shell? You guys ought to stick to
talking about things you know something about, like bass... uh, no, not
bass... what is it you know something about? I keep forgetting.
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> The .45 ACP fires a 230 grain bullet at about 850 fps, generating about
>> 370 ft lbs of muzzle energy, the .410 slug weighs 87.5 grains and has a
>> muzzle velocity of about 1815 fps and generates about 640 ft lbs of
>> muzzle energy, so Brian is right.
>
> I think I'm right, but the reason is not what you've cut-and-pasted, Mike.
> The .45 ACP is not a .45 Colt, they're two completely different
> cartridges. Better do your Google search for .45 Colt this time.
The "ACP" stands for "Automatic Colt Pistol", so how is the .45 ACP not a
Colt? If you had bothered to read a bit further, you'd have noticed that I
also mentioned the .45 Colt long cartridge, which is also a Colt .45
cartrodge. In other words, there is more than one Colt .45 cartridge...
> Was that an "attack"? Do I get kill-filed again now?
No that was you making a fool of yourself. Since I'm enjoying watching you
make a fool of yourself, I'm not about to killfile you.
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote in message
Makijng a fool of yourself again, Brian, in 2002 Winchester offered a .410
shell loaded with three pellets of #000 buckshot, and Golden Bear is still
selling brass .410 rounds loaded with #4 buckshot.
www.the-armory.com currently offers .410 rounds loaded with #4 buckshot,
#000 buckshot, #00 buckshot and #3 buckshot.
This is so much fun, I may never killfile you again! :-)
Brian Running
> Colt?
A .45 Colt is a completely different cartridge than a .45 ACP.
Back-pedal all you want, Mike, but that's a fact. Anyone that claims to
have as much gun experience and knowledge as you do would know that.
Brian Running
> shell loaded with three pellets of #000 buckshot, and Golden Bear is still
> selling brass .410 rounds loaded with #4 buckshot.
All you're doing is demonstrating again that you have no personal
knowledge of anything you BS about, and that without a computer and
Google, you'd have nothing at all to say. You go out, right now, and
find a place that sells, through normal channels of commerce, a .410
buckshot load. Go get yourself a box of them right now. You can't.
And tell me, what do you use your .410 with buckshot for? Can't be
hunting, because those few pellets would never work for game. No one
has ever used a .410 with buckshot for hunting. Can't be self-defense,
because you've already argued that a .410 is no good for that. Let's
see... oh, wait. I've got it. Now you're going to say something like,
"You're makjing a fool of yourself again, Brian, because earlier I said
a .410 loaded with birdshot is no good for self-defense, not buckshot.
In spite of the fact that this was before I even knew there was such a
thing as a .410 buckshot load and hadn't yet spent a couple of hours
trying to Google up a manufacturer that for a short period of time
several years ago did actually load a .410 with buckshot, and I hadn't
yet even figured I'd be able to act as though it was common knowledge to
everyone." And in spite of the fact that if you had known at the time
that for a brief time five years ago Winchester loaded .410s with 3-O
buck and an obscure manufacturer somewhere loads #4, you would have
argued that a .410 is a great choice for self-defense. Your habit of
going back and revising what you said earlier (on any topic, not just
this) shows clearly what you're doing. If you had actually known all of
the facts you claim to know, you would state them the first time around
and not have to go back and revise. Instead, you frantically Google
after you've been exposed.
Say what you want, Mike, but you established your lack of firearms
knowledge when you said a .410 would not be protection from a personal
assault. Can't change that now, no matter what obscure references you
dredge up in Google.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=273721
http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/product621.html
http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/product384.html
http://www.chestnutridge.com/images/inv/AS41001.jpg
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/cb.aspx?a=215168
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>> Makijng a fool of yourself again, Brian, in 2002 Winchester offered a .410
>> shell loaded with three pellets of #000 buckshot, and Golden Bear is still
>> selling brass .410 rounds loaded with #4 buckshot.
>
> All you're doing is demonstrating again that you have no personal
> knowledge of anything you BS about, and that without a computer and
> Google, you'd have nothing at all to say. You go out, right now, and
> find a place that sells, through normal channels of commerce, a .410
> buckshot load. Go get yourself a box of them right now.
I can't buy the ammo I shoot in my hunting rifle, or my slug gun, at
any local store.
> And tell me, what do you use your .410 with buckshot for? Can't be
> hunting, because those few pellets would never work for game. No one
> has ever used a .410 with buckshot for hunting.
Wrong - mostly used for snakes, occasionally turkeys or coyotes.
Mostly intended for shooting people though.
> In spite of the fact that this was before I even knew there was such a
> thing as a .410 buckshot load and hadn't yet spent a couple of hours
> trying to Google up a manufacturer that for a short period of time
> several years ago did actually load a .410 with buckshot,
Still loads a 410 with buckshot, in two different shell sizes
(2 3/4", 3" @ 000)... plus so does Sellier & Bellot (2 3/4", 3" @ 000),
and Golden Bear (2 3/4" @ #4 buck).
Brian Running
>> hunting, because those few pellets would never work for game. No one
>> has ever used a .410 with buckshot for hunting.
>
> Wrong - mostly used for snakes, occasionally turkeys or coyotes.
>
> Mostly intended for shooting people though.
Okay. There are .410 buckshot loads. I've never seen them before and
I've never heard of anyone using them before. My statements come from
actual experience, 35 years of hunting, and several additional years of
shooting before I was old enough to hunt. I do not get my "knowledge"
from Googling for obscure references, that's my mistake. I note also
that hand loaders could come up with just about any kind of load -- you
could have a .410 loaded with sugar cubes, I suppose -- but that does
not make such loads usual, commonly-available or commonly-used.
I do not believe, however, that anyone would use a .410 with buckshot
for hunting. I don't believe people go hunting for snakes with .410s,
but I do know that people use handguns and rifles loaded with shot, and
shotguns, for snakes. I absolutely refuse to believe that anyone would
hunt turkeys with a .410, no matter what it was loaded with. If a
coyote were ever shot with a .410 using buckshot, it would have been an
accidental, chance encounter, not hunting. Have you ever done any of
these things?
I think a .410 with buckshot would be a good self-defense gun. However,
that is the premise that Mr. Rieves was trying to refute, originally.
Now would you care to use your prodigious Googling talents to show us
all the difference between a .45 ACP and a .45 Colt? Or are they really
the same thing?
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>>> And tell me, what do you use your .410 with buckshot for? Can't be
>>> hunting, because those few pellets would never work for game. No one
>>> has ever used a .410 with buckshot for hunting.
>>
>> Wrong - mostly used for snakes, occasionally turkeys or coyotes.
>>
>> Mostly intended for shooting people though.
>
> Okay. There are .410 buckshot loads. I've never seen them before and
> I've never heard of anyone using them before. My statements come from
> actual experience, 35 years of hunting, and several additional years of
> shooting before I was old enough to hunt. I do not get my "knowledge"
> from Googling for obscure references, that's my mistake.
I've been hunting for almost 25 years. Here is the deer I got this
year:
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/aborgman/carhead1.jpg
I don't get my "knowledge" from Googling for obscure references
either.
> I note also
> that hand loaders could come up with just about any kind of load -- you
> could have a .410 loaded with sugar cubes, I suppose -- but that does
> not make such loads usual, commonly-available or commonly-used.
Lots of loads aren't commonly available or commonly used. I sometimes
shoot a Moisin-Nagant 7.62x54mm. Find some hunting rounds for that
at your local sporting goods store.
> I do not believe, however, that anyone would use a .410 with buckshot
> for hunting. I don't believe people go hunting for snakes with .410s,
> but I do know that people use handguns and rifles loaded with shot, and
> shotguns, for snakes. I absolutely refuse to believe that anyone would
> hunt turkeys with a .410, no matter what it was loaded with.
You probably refuse to believe people hunt deer with a .410 (and even
with buckshot) also... but there are people who do it - not that I
would recommend it.
> If a
> coyote were ever shot with a .410 using buckshot, it would have been an
> accidental, chance encounter, not hunting.
More of a "defending the chickens" kind of things as opposed to hunting
when we are talking coyotes.
> Have you ever done any of
> these things?
No, but I have done some pretty strange things... like pheasant hunted
with archery equipment.
> I think a .410 with buckshot would be a good self-defense gun. However,
> that is the premise that Mr. Rieves was trying to refute, originally.
I think it would be an ok self defense gun, but far from my first choice.
> Now would you care to use your prodigious Googling talents
I don't need to use my googling talents. I know what I'm talking about.
> to show us
> all the difference between a .45 ACP and a .45 Colt? Or are they really
> the same thing?
They aren't the same thing. A .45 ACP is almost a half inch shorter
than a .45 Colt.
Brian Running
patience with certain knuckleheads that post here. That's my fault, I
don't mean to be insulting to you.
> I've been hunting for almost 25 years. Here is the deer I got this year:
Nice rack. Nice touch to add a pic of the gut pile, too. :-) I took a
few shots this year, but didn't get one. We had pretty good luck among
the party, though. We hunt in what's called an "earn-a-buck" zone, you
have to shoot a doe to earn the right to shoot a buck, and the result
was, all we got was does. Where do you hunt?
Here in Wisconsin, we have shotgun-only zones for deer, and we hunt in
one of them. Buckshot is illegal, though, gotta use slugs. .410 slugs
are also illegal here for deer.
> show us all the difference between a .45 ACP and a .45 Colt? Or are they really the same thing?
>
> They aren't the same thing. A .45 ACP is almost a half inch shorter than a .45 Colt.
Even though I've been exposed as a complete fraud for not being aware of
.410 buckshot loads, at least I've got the ol' .45 Colt to cling to.
I'll say two things about all this ridiculousness before I sign off on
it -- one, if you took one hundred active, avid shotgunners and asked
them if they'd ever used a .410 loaded with buckshot,
ninety-nine-and-a-half of them would answer, "A .410 loaded with
buckshot? Are you kidding?" Apparently, Remington, Winchester and
Federal agree (if the bit about Winchester loading them only for a short
time in 2002 is correct -- that means that all of the inventory out
there is going on six years old -- not a big seller). Two, I know damn
well that the knuckleheads weren't aware of those loads, either, and
only learned of them after Googling.
Ah, well. Happy shooting.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
> Aaron, thanks for your patient reply. It's no secret that I lose my
> patience with certain knuckleheads that post here. That's my fault, I
> don't mean to be insulting to you.
>
>> I've been hunting for almost 25 years. Here is the deer I got this year:
>
> Nice rack. Nice touch to add a pic of the gut pile, too. :-) I took a
> few shots this year, but didn't get one. We had pretty good luck among
> the party, though. We hunt in what's called an "earn-a-buck" zone, you
> have to shoot a doe to earn the right to shoot a buck, and the result
> was, all we got was does. Where do you hunt?
Gratiot County, MI.
> Here in Wisconsin, we have shotgun-only zones for deer, and we hunt in
> one of them. Buckshot is illegal, though, gotta use slugs. .410 slugs
> are also illegal here for deer.
Here you could use it - but I've never seen it. The southern half
of the lower penninsula is shotgun only.
>> show us all the difference between a .45 ACP and a .45 Colt? Or are they really the same thing?
>>
>> They aren't the same thing. A .45 ACP is almost a half inch shorter than a .45 Colt.
>
> Even though I've been exposed as a complete fraud for not being aware of
> .410 buckshot loads, at least I've got the ol' .45 Colt to cling to.
> I'll say two things about all this ridiculousness before I sign off on
> it -- one, if you took one hundred active, avid shotgunners and asked
> them if they'd ever used a .410 loaded with buckshot,
> ninety-nine-and-a-half of them would answer, "A .410 loaded with
> buckshot? Are you kidding?" Apparently, Remington, Winchester and
> Federal agree (if the bit about Winchester loading them only for a short
> time in 2002 is correct -- that means that all of the inventory out
> there is going on six years old -- not a big seller). Two, I know damn
> well that the knuckleheads weren't aware of those loads, either, and
> only learned of them after Googling.
It definitely isn't something common... but then neither is the .454
Casull (to bring it back around to the .45 Colt) that I know a couple
guys use...
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
Once again, the "ACP" in .45 ACP stands for "Automatic Colt Pistol", so how
is the .45 ACP not a Colt? Once again, I also mentioned the .45 long Colt
cartridge:
"The .45 long cartridge is available in specail loads that will propel a 300
grain bullet at over 1200 fps from a long barreled pistol like the Buntline,
resulting in muzzle energy close to the .410's"
Standard loads in the .45 Colt (long) are considerably lower velocity, close
to the .45 ACP round. I assume those are the ones you were talking about
when you said that the .410's muzzle velocity was close to twice that of the
.45 Colt. Of couse you could also have been talking about the classic .45
Colt black powder cartridge.
BTW, I'm not back-pedaling, in fact I'm sticking to my guns on thios one.
:-)
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> Makijng a fool of yourself again, Brian, in 2002 Winchester offered a
>> .410 shell loaded with three pellets of #000 buckshot, and Golden Bear is
>> still selling brass .410 rounds loaded with #4 buckshot.
>
> All you're doing is demonstrating again that you have no personal
> knowledge of anything you BS about, and that without a computer and
> Google, you'd have nothing at all to say.
So now you're going to jump me for posting references?
You go out, right now, and
> find a place that sells, through normal channels of commerce, a .410
> buckshot load. Go get yourself a box of them right now.
http://www.the-armory.com/ Specifically,
http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/product384.html
"Sellier & Bellot 00 buckshot with 5 pellets for your .410 for a little
extra knockdown over 2.5" shells. Good shotgun ammunition for taking your
kids hunting or home defense."
> You can't.
Yes, I can: http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/product384.html
> And tell me, what do you use your .410 with buckshot for? Can't be
> hunting, because those few pellets would never work for game. No one has
> ever used a .410 with buckshot for hunting. Can't be self-defense,
> because you've already argued that a .410 is no good for that.
There you go again, misrepresenting what I said, I said .410 birdshot loads
aren't good for self defense. I said .410 slugs and buckshot loads are a
different story.
> Let's see... oh, wait. I've got it. Now you're going to say something
> like, "You're makjing a fool of yourself again, Brian, because earlier I
> said a .410 loaded with birdshot is no good for self-defense, not
> buckshot. In spite of the fact that this was before I even knew there was
> such a thing as a .410 buckshot load and hadn't yet spent a couple of
> hours trying to Google up a manufacturer that for a short period of time
> several years ago did actually load a .410 with buckshot, and I hadn't yet
> even figured I'd be able to act as though it was common knowledge to
> everyone."
I've was aware that .410 buckshot loads were (and still are) available, I
just provided references so that you wouldn't be able to call me a liar. In
fact .410 buckshot loads were available years ago when I was a kid. I used
them on occasion for varmints.
>And in spite of the fact that if you had known at the time that for a brief
>time five years ago Winchester loaded .410s with 3-O buck and an obscure
>manufacturer somewhere loads #4, you would have argued that a .410 is a
>great choice for self-defense.
Nope, I wouldn't argue for using any long barrelled gun for self defense.
Since most self-defense situations occur in the home, having a short
barrelled weapon like a pistol is a distinct advantage, especially if it has
rapid fire capability.
Your habit of
> going back and revising what you said earlier (on any topic, not just
> this) shows clearly what you're doing. If you had actually known all of
> the facts you claim to know, you would state them the first time around
> and not have to go back and revise. Instead, you frantically Google after
> you've been exposed.
Since I haven't revised anything in this discussion, you're full of shit.
> Say what you want, Mike, but you established your lack of firearms
> knowledge when you said a .410 would not be protection from a personal
> assault. Can't change that now, no matter what obscure references you
> dredge up in Google.
No, I said from the beginning that a .410 *with birdshot loads* wasn't a
good choice for self defense. In fact, I said from the first that a .410
slug was a different matter entirely.
As I also said from the first, I saw a guy get shot in the gut from 20 to 25
feet with .410 birdshot, and none of the pellets penetrated deeply enough to
hit a major organ. He was treated and released from the hospital. It was a
hunting accident rather than a self defense situation, but that matters not
at all.
Perhaps you should go back to the beginning and re-read this thread,
maybe you'll realize that you are making a fool of yourself and stop before
you insert your foot into your mouth so deeply it comes out your ass.
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>>> And tell me, what do you use your .410 with buckshot for? Can't be
>>> hunting, because those few pellets would never work for game. No one
>>> has ever used a .410 with buckshot for hunting.
>>
>> Wrong - mostly used for snakes, occasionally turkeys or coyotes. Mostly
>> intended for shooting people though.
>
> Okay. There are .410 buckshot loads. I've never seen them before and
> I've never heard of anyone using them before. My statements come from
> actual experience, 35 years of hunting, and several additional years of
> shooting before I was old enough to hunt.
So do mine, I was shooting .410 buckshot loads back when I was a kid for
varmints on my uncle's farm. I Googled so that I could post current
references.
> I do not believe, however, that anyone would use a .410 with buckshot for
> hunting.
No one said it was for hunting, both of us mentioned varmints.
>I don't believe people go hunting for snakes with .410s, but I do know that
>people use handguns and rifles loaded with shot, and shotguns, for snakes.
>I absolutely refuse to believe that anyone would hunt turkeys with a .410,
>no matter what it was loaded with. If a coyote were ever shot with a .410
>using buckshot, it would have been an accidental, chance encounter, not
>hunting. Have you ever done any of these things?
>
> I think a .410 with buckshot would be a good self-defense gun. However,
> that is the premise that Mr. Rieves was trying to refute, originally.
No, I specifically said ".410 with birdshot".
> Now would you care to use your prodigious Googling talents to show us all
> the difference between a .45 ACP and a .45 Colt? Or are they really the
> same thing?
There is the .45 ACP (Automatically Colt Pistol) round and the .45 Colt, or
.45 long Colt round, and I mentioned both in my early posts in this thread.
Mike Rieves
<abor...@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote in message
news:8T4nr87...@redshark.goodshow.net...
A couple of my cousins used to hunt deer with both .410 buckshot and .410
slugs, and both killed deer with them. This was in the mountains of eastern
NC back in the late fifties and early sixties. I'm not sure that eather load
was legal for deer hunting back then, but they were hunting for meat on the
table on the mountian owned by me uncle and he didn't care. And yes, .410
buckshot loads were available back then.
I grew up in middle Tennessee and eastern North Carolina and I was around
guns all the time. My uncle even owned a couple of caplock muzzle loaders,
which I fired a few times. The .454 Casull has even been used for grizzlies.
Brian Running
> Perhaps you should go back to the beginning and re-read this thread,
> maybe you'll realize that you are making a fool of yourself and stop before
> you insert your foot into your mouth so deeply it comes out your ass.
Yeah, I'll be sure to do that. Sorry, Mike, you still have zero
credibility.
Jim Carr
You're still not back in his kill-file?
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>
> "Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
> news:bgpjj.186$uE....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>> The "ACP" stands for "Automatic Colt Pistol", so how is the .45 ACP not
>>> a Colt?
>>
>> A .45 Colt is a completely different cartridge than a .45 ACP. Back-pedal
>> all you want, Mike, but that's a fact. Anyone that claims to have as much
>> gun experience and knowledge as you do would know that.
>
> Once again, the "ACP" in .45 ACP stands for "Automatic Colt Pistol", so how
> is the .45 ACP not a Colt? Once again, I also mentioned the .45 long Colt
> cartridge:
The .45 ACP is *A* Colt .45, but not *THE* Colt .45 -
The cartridge you are calling the .45 Long Colt is actually technically
named the ".45 Colt" not the ".45 Long Colt".
The "Long" was added by laymen (no change in the actual cartridge
name of ".45 Colt") to differentiate between the ACP and "Long Colt"
cartridges.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
Wouldn't surprise me... I'd guess half the deer killed each year
in Michigan are taken by poachers using .22 LR.
Misifus
The "Long" is a habit of speech, but it's not the designation of that
revolver cartridge. That cartridge, for the revolver, is properly, ".45
Colt". ".45 ACP" is the designation for the automatic pistol cartridge,
but "Automatic Colt Pistol" although the source the designation, is not
used. There is no ambiguity.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rafse...@suddenlink.net
blog: http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
Mike Rieves
<abor...@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote in message
news:3T4ntri...@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Mike Rieves <mr...@hotspam.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> news:bgpjj.186$uE....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> The "ACP" stands for "Automatic Colt Pistol", so how is the .45 ACP
>>>> not
>>>> a Colt?
>>>
>>> A .45 Colt is a completely different cartridge than a .45 ACP.
>>> Back-pedal
>>> all you want, Mike, but that's a fact. Anyone that claims to have as
>>> much
>>> gun experience and knowledge as you do would know that.
>>
>> Once again, the "ACP" in .45 ACP stands for "Automatic Colt Pistol", so
>> how
>> is the .45 ACP not a Colt? Once again, I also mentioned the .45 long Colt
>> cartridge:
>
> The .45 ACP is *A* Colt .45, but not *THE* Colt .45 -
If you want to get really technical, I believe that "the" .45 Colt was
actually the black powder version used with the "wild west" Colt .45.
> The cartridge you are calling the .45 Long Colt is actually technically
> named the ".45 Colt" not the ".45 Long Colt".
I know that, in fact, I mentioned it in an earlier post.
> The "Long" was added by laymen (no change in the actual cartridge
> name of ".45 Colt") to differentiate between the ACP and "Long Colt"
> cartridges.
>
Yes, I said that in an earlier post.
Brian was correct when he said that the muzzle velocity of a .410 slug was
about twice that of a .45 Colt, and it really doesn't matter whether it's
the .45 ACP or "the" .45 Colt cartridge. Both have similar muzzle velocities
with standard loads. However, special loads are available for "the" .45 Colt
which will propel a 300 grain slug at around 1200 fps, with resulting muzzle
energy close to the same as the .410 slug.
Mike Rieves
"Misifus" <rafse...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:5vct86F...@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Rieves wrote:
>> "Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> news:azNij.6841$pr6....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> The .45 ACP fires a 230 grain bullet at about 850 fps, generating
>>>> about 370 ft lbs of muzzle energy, the .410 slug weighs 87.5 grains
>>>> and has a muzzle velocity of about 1815 fps and generates about 640 ft
>>>> lbs of muzzle energy, so Brian is right.
>>> I think I'm right, but the reason is not what you've cut-and-pasted,
>>> Mike. The .45 ACP is not a .45 Colt, they're two completely different
>>> cartridges. Better do your Google search for .45 Colt this time.
>>
>> The "ACP" stands for "Automatic Colt Pistol", so how is the .45 ACP not
>> a Colt? If you had bothered to read a bit further, you'd have noticed
>> that I also mentioned the .45 Colt long cartridge, which is also a Colt
>> .45 cartrodge. In other words, there is more than one Colt .45
>> cartridge...
>>
>>> Was that an "attack"? Do I get kill-filed again now?
>>
>> No that was you making a fool of yourself. Since I'm enjoying watching
>> you make a fool of yourself, I'm not about to killfile you.
>
>
> The "Long" is a habit of speech, but it's not the designation of that
> revolver cartridge. That cartridge, for the revolver, is properly, ".45
> Colt". ".45 ACP" is the designation for the automatic pistol cartridge,
> but "Automatic Colt Pistol" although the source the designation, is not
> used. There is no ambiguity.
You're right, and as I said before, I mentioned that in an earlier post.
Brian seemed to be saying that the .45 ACP wasn't a Colt .45, I was trying
to make it clear that it was. Obviously, "the" Colt .45 is the one that is
similar to the original .45 Colt black powder cartridge used back in the
1800s, Brian was ragging my ass for no good reason and I was just returning
the favor. He also didn't know that buckshot loads were and are available in
.410 ga, as well.
Mike Rieves
<abor...@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote in message
news:4T4ntrp...@redshark.goodshow.net...
Back then, when folks were hunting for meat on the table, not trophies,
game wardens tended to look the other way. My cousins were hunting in a
fairly confined area on my uncle's property, and they never left a wounded
animal, they always tracked them down and made the kill.
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. However, this thread has
reduced your credibility by a fair amount. It's also shown that you can be a
real jerk for no reason.
Mike Rieves
"Jim Carr" <newsg...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:9J5kj.60566$Rf5....@newsfe13.phx...
Nope, I decided to just let him rant at me and show everyone else what I
already know, he isn't the all-around expert he pretends to be. In this
thread, I was right, and he was wrong.
Brian Running
> to make it clear that it was.
No, sorry, Mike. Raf originally said a .410 slug is very slow, and that
a .45 Colt would be a better choice. I pointed out that a .410 slug is
actually faster than a .45 Colt. You then came back and said I was
right, and cited the muzzle velocity of a .45 ACP as proof. I then
pointed out that a .45 ACP is not a .45 Colt, and, since you had
recently bragged yourself up as an expert on firearms, commented that a
true firearms expert would have known that immediately. So I had plenty
of good reason.
You then spun off into a Google-fueled attempt to claim that a .45 ACP
really is a .45 Colt, which convinced no one.
I'd love to help you, Mike, I really would, but I'm not in charge of
these decisions -- your credibility is still at zero. If you continue
to try to claim that a .45 ACP is a .45 Colt, you may actually descend
into negative figures. If you continue to claim that a .410 is not a
good self-defense gun because somewhere in your fertile imagination you
saw someone shot with one and was unharmed, you'll keep dropping even
faster.
Ready, set, back-pedal!
Brian Running
> reduced your credibility by a fair amount. It's also shown that you can be a
> real jerk for no reason.
In your mind, "being a real jerk" means "correcting your many factual
misstatements." Okay with me, that's your concern, not mine. As long
as the misstatements keep coming, I'll have reason to keep correcting.
Seems fair to me.
Brian Running
I keep getting this nagging feeling that I never really was in his kill
file. He wouldn't lie to me, would he?
Jim Carr
Well, he's lied a number of times before. When called on it, he denied
it. But when he was caught in his lies, he admitted them. And since
admitting a lie after being caught is almost as good as not lying in the
first place, I'd consider him pretty reliable now.
handgunner
> >news:azNij.6841$pr6....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >>> The .45 ACP fires a 230 grain bullet at about 850 fps, generating about
> >>> 370 ft lbs of muzzle energy, the .410 slug weighs 87.5 grains and has a
> >>> muzzle velocity of about 1815 fps and generates about 640 ft lbs of
> >>> muzzle energy, so Brian is right.
> >> I think I'm right, but the reason is not what you've cut-and-pasted, Mike.
> >> The .45 ACP is not a .45 Colt, they're two completely different
> >> cartridges. Better do your Google search for .45 Colt this time.
>
> > The "ACP" stands for "Automatic Colt Pistol", so how is the .45 ACP not a
> > Colt? If you had bothered to read a bit further, you'd have noticed that I
> > also mentioned the .45 Colt long cartridge, which is also a Colt .45
> > cartrodge. In other words, there is more than one Colt .45 cartridge...
>
> >> Was that an "attack"? Do I get kill-filed again now?
>
> > No that was you making a fool of yourself. Since I'm enjoying watching you
> > make a fool of yourself, I'm not about to killfile you.
>
> The "Long" is a habit of speech, but it's not the designation of that
> revolver cartridge. That cartridge, for the revolver, is properly, ".45
> Colt". ".45 ACP" is the designation for the automatic pistol cartridge,
> but "Automatic Colt Pistol" although the source the designation, is not
> used. There is no ambiguity.
>
> -Raf
>
> --
> Misifus-
> Rafael Seibert
> blog:http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
> Photos:http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
> home:http://www.rafandsioux.com
The 45Colt cartridge is a rimmed revolver cartridge introduced in 1873
and originally loaded with black powder but now is loaded with
smokeless powder,and is sometimes called the 45 Long Colt. There was
also another shorter 45 cartridge made for the 19th cent. Schofeild
Revolvers that was sometimes refered to as the 45 short, but this
cartridge is obsolete. The 45ACP is a rimless pistol cartridge
introduced around 1905 for the Colt semi-auto pistols.
As to the 410 shotshell, while it does have a higher muzzle velocity
than the 45 cartridges above, it is fired from a smooth bore so it
isn't ballistically stablized like the 45's are by the rifling of the
barrel. That means it will lose velocity quicker and be less accurate
at anything over point blank range.
pTooner
cartridge of their own around the late 1800s early 1900s? I vaguely remeber
that some of their top break revolvers was chambered in a 45 caliber other
that the Webley caliber. If memory serves it was called .45 S&W but had
another name which escapes me for the moment.
--
Gerry -
I regard Usenet as a global cocktail party. Nothing I say here is profound
or weighty. If by accident I say something really good, it is copyrighted
and you may NOT use it.
"handgunner" <handg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:314864ff-0841-44c1...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
Unless you shoot a sabot slug out of a rifled bore shotgun, as I do
for hunting.
Brian Running
> for hunting.
This has really become a remarkable thread.
What on earth do you use your .410 sabots for? Why do you choose that
over, say, a .22 short? Are there special applications that require
less speed, less accuracy and less stopping power than
commonly-available hunting loads? Do you recommend taking the slugs out
of the shells and shooting them with a slingshot instead, for greater
velocity? Have you done a comparison with a pointy stick for effectiveness?
Am I being too sarcastic? I am? Okay, then, all seriousness aside, why
do you choose to use an obscure, not-readily-available, slow and
inaccurate load when there are kazillions of readily-available,
inexpensive, faster, more accurate, less expensive gun/cartridge
combinations to do the job?
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@xxtdsxx.net> wrote in message
news:J2Mkj.41696$G23....@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
>> Brian seemed to be saying that the .45 ACP wasn't a Colt .45, I was
>> trying to make it clear that it was.
>
> No, sorry, Mike. Raf originally said a .410 slug is very slow, and that a
> .45 Colt would be a better choice. I pointed out that a .410 slug is
> actually faster than a .45 Colt. You then came back and said I was right,
> and cited the muzzle velocity of a .45 ACP as proof. I then pointed out
> that a .45 ACP is not a .45 Colt, and, since you had recently bragged
> yourself up as an expert on firearms, commented that a true firearms
> expert would have known that immediately. So I had plenty of good reason.
>
> You then spun off into a Google-fueled attempt to claim that a .45 ACP
> really is a .45 Colt, which convinced no one.
No, Brian, you said that the .45 ACP was not a .45 Colt round, it is a .45
Colt round, so I was right, and since you apparently didn't know that the
ACP was a Colt, you were wrong and I was right. In that very same post I
mentioned the other 45 Colt round, often called the .45 Colt long, and
stated that with standard loads, it's muzzle velocity is similar to the .45
ACP, though there are special loads available that are much faster.
> I'd love to help you, Mike, I really would, but I'm not in charge of these
> decisions -- your credibility is still at zero. If you continue to try to
> claim that a .45 ACP is a .45 Colt, you may actually descend into negative
> figures. If you continue to claim that a .410 is not a good self-defense
> gun because somewhere in your fertile imagination you saw someone shot
> with one and was unharmed, you'll keep dropping even faster.
First, since the "ACP" in .45 Colt ACP stands for "Automatic Colt Pistol",
and it is .45 caliber, the .45 ACP round IS a .45 Colt round. You can try to
make out that it's not, and that I didn't mention the other .45 Colt round,
but you are wrong, and you are trying to act like I didn't mention both
common Colt .45 rounds. It is your credibility at stake in this thread, not
mine.
Second, a .410 loaded with birdshot is NOT a good self defense weapon, not
enough penetration power if your attacker is more than 20 to 25 feet away. A
.410 loaded with a slug or with buckshot would probably be a decent self
defense weapon, for a long barrelled gun. However for self defense in the
home, a short barrelled weapon is preferable, since your attacker might be
on top of you before you could swing the long barrelled gun to aim it. While
a .410 loaded with birdshot might have enough knockdown power at point blank
range, I wouldn't want to bet my life on it, and if you're depending solely
on it for self defense, that's exactly what you're doing. Even a .22 LR has
much more penetration power than a .410 loaded with birdshot.
> Ready, set, back-pedal!
Nope, no back pedaling, just repeating what I've already said more than
once.
In any event, I never claimed to be an "expert" with guns, I just said I
grew up with them. Judging from this thread, though, I have more expertise
than you concerning .410's and .45 Colts
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> Unless you shoot a sabot slug out of a rifled bore shotgun, as I do for
>> hunting.
>
> This has really become a remarkable thread.
>
> What on earth do you use your .410 sabots for? Why do you choose that
> over, say, a .22 short? Are there special applications that require less
> speed, less accuracy and less stopping power than commonly-available
> hunting loads? Do you recommend taking the slugs out of the shells and
> shooting them with a slingshot instead, for greater velocity? Have you
> done a comparison with a pointy stick for effectiveness?
Are you really that ignorant? There is absolutely no comparison between
an 85 grain slug traveling at 1800+ fps and a 29 grain bullet traveling at
1045 fps. That's 70 ft lbs of muzzle energy for the .22 compared to 640 ft
lbs of muzzle energy for the .410.
Incidentally, I was a bit surpirsed at the velocity and muzzle energy of
a 410 slug when I looked it up. I hadn't realized that it was that high,
though I knew it was higher than either .45 round.
> Am I being too sarcastic? I am? Okay, then, all seriousness aside, why
> do you choose to use an obscure, not-readily-available, slow and
> inaccurate load when there are kazillions of readily-available,
> inexpensive, faster, more accurate, less expensive gun/cartridge
> combinations to do the job?
Why not? They actually aren't as obscure or not-readily-available as you
seem to think they are. I checked, and a local sporting goods store carries
.410 slugs in stock. BTW, deer hunting with a .410 slug is currently legal
in Ohio. Lots of folks around here still own .410's
Mike Rieves
Nope, "being a real jerk" means automatically assuming that I don't know
what I'm talking about, on a subject that you know only a little about, and
then misquoting me, or taking my comments out of context, or ignoring what I
said, and then accusing me of back pedaling when I correct you. You did it
when we were talking about electronics, about speakers, and now you're doing
it about guns. And, yes I had you in my killfile for a while and just
recently removed you and Jim Carr, who has deluding himself into thinking
that I want him to like me. I don't want either of you to like me, I just
want the two of you to stop jumping my case when you don't know what you're
talking about.
Apparently it kills both of you to think that I might know a bit more than
you do about anything.
coreybenson
> "Brian Running" <brunn...@xxtdsxx.net> wrote in message
Mike, will you please just leave? Ugh.
Corey
Brian Running
> Colt round, so I was right, and since you apparently didn't know that the
> ACP was a Colt, you were wrong and I was right.
No. And everyone else who's bothering to read this knows you're wrong, too.
> Second, a .410 loaded with birdshot is NOT a good self defense weapon, not
> enough penetration power if your attacker is more than 20 to 25 feet away.
If your "attacker" is more than 20 or 25 feet away, then anything you do
to him is not self-defense. Self-defense is only justifiable when you
are in imminent danger of physical harm. Not only that, but at 20 to 25
feet, a shot from a .410, even loaded with #8 shot, is going to stop
anyone from attacking you. You're just wrong.
Brian Running
> an 85 grain slug traveling at 1800+ fps and a 29 grain bullet traveling at
> 1045 fps. That's 70 ft lbs of muzzle energy for the .22 compared to 640 ft
> lbs of muzzle energy for the .410.
Gosh, Mike, I don't know if I'm that ignorant or not. After all, you're
the one who said you'd prefer a .22 over a .410 for self-defense. I
trust your expert judgment.
Well, no, I really don't, but I have to say something to you.
I also thought that accuracy, cost and easy availability might factor
into the decision, but if you say they don't, then I guess I'm wrong.
Maybe the guy I posed the questions to will answer, and then we'll hear
it from someone who has actual experience and first-hand knowledge of
the matter, unlike you.
> Why not? They actually aren't as obscure or not-readily-available as you
> seem to think they are. I checked, and a local sporting goods store carries
> .410 slugs in stock.
Sabots? Remember, Mike, we're talking about sabot slugs out of a
shotgun with a rifled barrel?
Brian Running
> you do about anything.
No. But I will keep pointing out when you are incorrect, because people
come to this group for accurate information. Apparently, it kills you
when I do that, because you repeatedly refer to it as "attacking" you.
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> No, Brian, you said that the .45 ACP was not a .45 Colt round, it is a
>> .45 Colt round, so I was right, and since you apparently didn't know that
>> the ACP was a Colt, you were wrong and I was right.
>
> No. And everyone else who's bothering to read this knows you're wrong,
> too.
>
>> Second, a .410 loaded with birdshot is NOT a good self defense weapon,
>> not enough penetration power if your attacker is more than 20 to 25 feet
>> away.
>
> If your "attacker" is more than 20 or 25 feet away, then anything you do
> to him is not self-defense.
If he's pointing a gun at you, it is. If you're physically unable to flee
and he's running toward you with a weapon screaming that he's going to kill
you, it is. There are other situations where it would be self defense, even
at 20 to 25 feet.
> Self-defense is only justifiable when you are in imminent danger of
> physical harm. Not only that, but at 20 to 25 feet, a shot from a .410,
> even loaded with #8 shot, is going to stop anyone from attacking you.
> You're just wrong.
No, I'm not!
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> Are you really that ignorant? There is absolutely no comparison between
>> an 85 grain slug traveling at 1800+ fps and a 29 grain bullet traveling
>> at 1045 fps. That's 70 ft lbs of muzzle energy for the .22 compared to
>> 640 ft lbs of muzzle energy for the .410.
>
> Gosh, Mike, I don't know if I'm that ignorant or not. After all, you're
> the one who said you'd prefer a .22 over a .410 for self-defense. I trust
> your expert judgment.
No, I said I'd rather have a .22 over a .410 loaded with birdshot. I also
said for home defense, I'd rather have a pistol than a rifle or shotgun.
> Well, no, I really don't, but I have to say something to you.
>
> I also thought that accuracy, cost and easy availability might factor into
> the decision, but if you say they don't, then I guess I'm wrong. Maybe the
> guy I posed the questions to will answer, and then we'll hear it from
> someone who has actual experience and first-hand knowledge of the matter,
> unlike you.
For self defense at close range, a .410 slug is plenty accurate, it's also
available locally and reasonably priced. As I said, there are states where a
.410 slug is legal for hunting deer, if it's accurate enough for killing
deer, it's probably accurate enough for self defense. .410 slugs are cheaper
than 12 ga slugs.
>> Why not? They actually aren't as obscure or not-readily-available as you
>> seem to think they are. I checked, and a local sporting goods store
>> carries .410 slugs in stock.
>
> Sabots? Remember, Mike, we're talking about sabot slugs out of a shotgun
> with a rifled barrel?
Yes, sabots.
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
When I'm correct and you "point out that I'm incorrect", then I consider
that an attack. You've done in concerning electronics, concerning speaker
design and now concerning guns. I'd like to point out that you didn't even
know that .410 slugs were commercially available until it was pointed out to
you by several people. Argue all you want to, but in this case, I'm right
and you're wrong.
Brian Running
> know that .410 slugs were commercially available until it was pointed out to
> you by several people.
Come on, Mike, if you're going to beat a dead horse, at least get it
right -- it was buckshot, not slugs. And, it was pointed out to me by
one person, not several.
> Argue all you want to, but in this case, I'm right and you're wrong.
No, you're completely wrong, on both points. Listen, if you're going to
try to twist things to make yourself appear smarter, at least be consistent.
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>> Unless you shoot a sabot slug out of a rifled bore shotgun, as I do
>> for hunting.
>
> This has really become a remarkable thread.
>
> What on earth do you use your .410 sabots for?
I don't. Reading.Is.Fundamental.
I was disagreeing with his assertion that a .410 slug would automatically
perform worse due to the lack of rifling - if one shoots a sabot out of
a rifled barrel shotgun, problem is solved.
> Why do you choose that
> over, say, a .22 short? Are there special applications that require
> less speed, less accuracy and less stopping power than
> commonly-available hunting loads? Do you recommend taking the slugs out
> of the shells and shooting them with a slingshot instead, for greater
> velocity? Have you done a comparison with a pointy stick for effectiveness?
>
> Am I being too sarcastic? I am? Okay, then, all seriousness aside, why
> do you choose to use an obscure, not-readily-available, slow and
> inaccurate load when there are kazillions of readily-available,
> inexpensive, faster, more accurate, less expensive gun/cartridge
> combinations to do the job?
I don't. Why does your reading comprehension suck?
Brian Running
If you don't see a clear implication in your post that you had used a
.410 sabot slug, then it's not my reading comprehension that's lacking.
Brian Running
>
> Him: Why use a .410 slug, it'll suck because it isn't rifled.
> Me: It isn't an issue if you use a rifled barrel slug gun like I do.
>
> I don't imply I use a .410, I state I use a rifled barrel slug gun.
Here's what both of you actually said:
> > As to the 410 shotshell, while it does have a higher muzzle velocity
> > than the 45 cartridges above, it is fired from a smooth bore so it
> > isn't ballistically stablized like the 45's are by the rifling of the
> > barrel. That means it will lose velocity quicker and be less accurate
> > at anything over point blank range.
> Unless you shoot a sabot slug out of a rifled bore shotgun, as I do
> for hunting.
Jim Carr
>
> Him: Why use a .410 slug, it'll suck because it isn't rifled.
> Me: It isn't an issue if you use a rifled barrel slug gun like I do.
>
> I don't imply I use a .410, I state I use a rifled barrel slug gun.
Sorry, Aaron, but I'm with Brian on this one.
Me: If you have sex with a monkey, you'll get AIDS.
You: It isn't an issue if you use a condom like I do.
What does "do" mean? Are you we talking about human on human sex? No.
We're talking about monkey-human sex. Therefore, the reasonable
conclusion is that "do" can be replaced with "have sex with a monkey."
If you wanted to be clear:
Me: If you have sex with a monkey, you'll get AIDS.
You: It isn't an issue if you use a condom like I do when I have sex
with humans.
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> I'd like to point out that you didn't even know that .410 slugs were
>> commercially available until it was pointed out to you by several people.
>
> Come on, Mike, if you're going to beat a dead horse, at least get it
> right -- it was buckshot, not slugs. And, it was pointed out to me by one
> person, not several.
It was ppointed out be at least two, Aaron and me, and I even gave a link
where you could order them, which you didn't bother to check or you wouldn't
have argued about it..
>> Argue all you want to, but in this case, I'm right and you're wrong.
>
> No, you're completely wrong, on both points. Listen, if you're going to
> try to twist things to make yourself appear smarter, at least be
> consistent.
I'm not the one twisting things, you are.
Mike Rieves
Of course you would agree, your example is exactly the way you think.
"Him: Why use a .410 slug, it'll suck because it isn't rifled.
Me: It isn't an issue if you use a rifled barrel slug gun like I do."
The portion of Brian's statement, "it'll suck because it isn't rifled" would
be applicable to any unrifled weapon firing a slug. Aaron's reply addressed
the generic part of the statement. He didn't say that his rifled barrel slug
gun was a .410. So I'm on Aaron's side.
BTW, I found several interesting articles on firing rifled sabot rounds
from unrifled .410 shotguns. The general consensus seemed to be that certain
rifled sabot rounds were better than others when fired from an unrifled gun,
but that none of them were nearly as accurate as a rifle at longer
distances. However, the better ones were accurate enough to hit the target
at reasonable distances and powerful enough to bring down deer and smaller
game. In general, the sabot rounds with shallow rifling were little better
than smooth slugs, but some vaned sabot rounds imparted enough spin to be
useful in stabilizing the bullet enough to allow reasonable accuracy well
beyond a smooth slug. Shotguns with rifled barrels would do better, of
course. Hoening is one company I found that makes .410 rifled barrels.
Your ridiculous, "Me: If you have sex with a monkey, you'll get AIDS. You:
It isn't an issue if you use a condom like I do", is a typical Jim Carr-ism,
no one would make that reply to your statement about having sex with a
monkey, and you are probably the only one here to whom the idea of having
sex with a monkey would even occur. Brian's statement about slugs fired
from an unrifled .410 is equally applicable to any shotgun with an unrifled
bore, and Arron's response is equally applicable to any shotgun with a
rifled bore.
Mike Rieves
"Mike Rieves" <mr...@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:d_Ulj.5834$1f....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
I say or do one of those "No, It isn't." things you do.
I'm through in this thread.
coreybenson
> "Mike Rieves" <mr...@hotspam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d_Ulj.5834$1f....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:f6Klj.182$Ej5...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >>> I'd like to point out that you didn't even know that .410 slugs were
> >>> commercially available until it was pointed out to you by several
> >>> people.
>
> >> Come on, Mike, if you're going to beat a dead horse, at least get it
> >> right -- it was buckshot, not slugs. And, it was pointed out to me by
> >> one person, not several.
>
> > It was ppointed out be at least two, Aaron and me, and I even gave a link
> > where you could order them, which you didn't bother to check or you
> > wouldn't have argued about it..
>
> >>> Argue all you want to, but in this case, I'm right and you're wrong.
>
> >> No, you're completely wrong, on both points. Listen, if you're going to
> >> try to twist things to make yourself appear smarter, at least be
> >> consistent.
>
> > I'm not the one twisting things, you are.
>
> Addendum: It's all been said, and you'll just try to either twist whatever
> I say or do one of those "No, It isn't." things you do.
>
> - Show quoted text -
If only you were done with this newsgroup.
Brian Running
> where you could order them, which you didn't bother to check or you wouldn't
> have argued about it..
It was pointed out to me by only one competent individual, and that was
Aaron. I checked his links, and immediately agreed that there are .410
buckshot loads available. They are obscure, hard to find, unusual, and
have extremely limited usefulness. You were not aware of their
existence either, before you Googled them.
Brian Running
> I say or do one of those "No, It isn't." things you do.
> I'm through in this thread.
No, you're not!
Brian Running
> Me: It isn't an issue if you use a rifled barrel slug gun like I do."
>
> The portion of Brian's statement, "it'll suck because it isn't rifled" would
> be applicable to any unrifled weapon firing a slug. Aaron's reply addressed
> the generic part of the statement. He didn't say that his rifled barrel slug
> gun was a .410. So I'm on Aaron's side.
No, you're not. That was not my statement, it was Aaron who said it,
and it was an inaccurate paraphrasing of what had actually been said.
> BTW, I found several interesting articles on firing rifled sabot rounds
> from unrifled .410 shotguns. The general consensus seemed to be that certain
> rifled sabot rounds were better than others when fired from an unrifled gun,
> but that none of them were nearly as accurate as a rifle at longer
> distances.
Hoo-wee! That's a shocker! That little bit of earth-shaking news will
just stun shotgun shooters worldwide! It's a little surprising to me,
though, that you, as an acknowledged expert on firearms, would have to
Google articles to get this info, or that you treat it as if it's news.
Gosh, Mike, I might be losing a little faith in your expertise. It
almost looks as if you don't really know anything from personal
knowledge, and have to Google articles to be able to comment on these
things. You better watch that...
> Brian's statement about slugs fired from an unrifled .410 is equally applicable to any shotgun with an unrifled
> bore, and Arron's response is equally applicable to any shotgun with a rifled bore.
Whose statement about what, now? You sure about that? Did I say
something about slugs from an "unrifled" barrel? Oh, and thanks for
teaching me something else I didn't know -- "unrifled." Everybody I
know calls it a smooth bore, but I'll start calling it "unrifled" now,
too. Thanks, Mike, I was really embarrassing myself again, wasn't I?
Jim Carr
> Hoo-wee! That's a shocker! That little bit of earth-shaking news will
> just stun shotgun shooters worldwide!
Wait. I thought the only reason they introduced rifled barrels was in
anticipation of modern day police forensics. Do you mean it helps with
accuracy? Interesting. I wonder if NFL quarterbacks know that.
> Whose statement about what, now? You sure about that? Did I say
> something about slugs from an "unrifled" barrel? Oh, and thanks for
> teaching me something else I didn't know -- "unrifled." Everybody I
> know calls it a smooth bore, but I'll start calling it "unrifled" now,
> too. Thanks, Mike, I was really embarrassing myself again, wasn't I?
I think Wiki started the whole "unrifled barrel" fad that is sweeping
the country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> "Him: Why use a .410 slug, it'll suck because it isn't rifled.
>> Me: It isn't an issue if you use a rifled barrel slug gun like I do."
>>
>> The portion of Brian's statement, "it'll suck because it isn't rifled"
>> would be applicable to any unrifled weapon firing a slug. Aaron's reply
>> addressed the generic part of the statement. He didn't say that his
>> rifled barrel slug gun was a .410. So I'm on Aaron's side.
>
> No, you're not. That was not my statement, it was Aaron who said it, and
> it was an inaccurate paraphrasing of what had actually been said.
>
>> BTW, I found several interesting articles on firing rifled sabot rounds
>> from unrifled .410 shotguns. The general consensus seemed to be that
>> certain rifled sabot rounds were better than others when fired from an
>> unrifled gun, but that none of them were nearly as accurate as a rifle at
>> longer distances.
>
> Hoo-wee! That's a shocker! That little bit of earth-shaking news will
> just stun shotgun shooters worldwide! It's a little surprising to me,
> though, that you, as an acknowledged expert on firearms, would have to
> Google articles to get this info, or that you treat it as if it's news.
> Gosh, Mike, I might be losing a little faith in your expertise. It almost
> looks as if you don't really know anything from personal knowledge, and
> have to Google articles to be able to comment on these things. You better
> watch that...
Well, zI said I was through in this thread, but I'll post one more in an
attempt to eliminate your obvious confusion. First, I never said I was an
expert, I just said I grew up with guns. You obviously didn't do any
research on the subject, or you wouldn't have made the glaring mistakes you
made. I did do research to make sure that buckshot loads were still
available for the .410, because I havne't looked in a long time, and picked
up a bit of useful knowledge in the process, how is that wrong?
>> Brian's statement about slugs fired from an unrifled .410 is equally
>> applicable to any shotgun with an unrifled bore, and Arron's response is
>> equally applicable to any shotgun with a rifled bore.
>
> Whose statement about what, now? You sure about that? Did I say
> something about slugs from an "unrifled" barrel? Oh, and thanks for
> teaching me something else I didn't know -- "unrifled." Everybody I know
> calls it a smooth bore, but I'll start calling it "unrifled" now, too.
> Thanks, Mike, I was really embarrassing myself again, wasn't I?
Unrilfed, smooth bore, who cares? I've heard both for years, and everyone
who knows anything about guns knows what the terms mean.
Have a nice day!
Mike Rieves
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
Since you don't know me, you have no clue as to what I knew. The fact is
that I was aware of buckshot loads, they were available back when I was
young, I just didn't know for sure that they were still available. I checked
and even posted a link to a website that currently sells them. They are not
all that obscure, I found them easily, and anyone who can legally buy
shotgun shells can order them. As to their usefulness, that would be up to
the user wouldn't it? I can see them as being useful for varmints, which is
a fairly common use for shotguns.
It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about, either about
me or about .410 shotguns, so I'll endeavor to ignore any further comments
you make in this thread.
Brian Running
> attempt to eliminate your obvious confusion.
No, you won't!
> First, I never said I was an expert, I just said I grew up with guns. You obviously didn't do any
> research on the subject, or you wouldn't have made the glaring mistakes you made.
You mean, like saying that shooting an attacker at 20 feet with a .410
loaded with birdshot wouldn't even slow him down? Was that one of my
glaring mistakes?
> I did do research to make sure that buckshot loads were still
> available for the .410, because I havne't looked in a long time, and picked
> up a bit of useful knowledge in the process, how is that wrong?
Because lying is wrong, Mike.
> Unrilfed, smooth bore, who cares? I've heard both for years, and everyone
> who knows anything about guns knows what the terms mean.
Sorta like how everyone who knows anything about guns knows a .45 ACP is
really a .45 Colt, because the "C" in "ACP" stands for Colt, even though
a .45 ACP and a .45 Colt are two very, very different cartridges.
Right? Or is that just you?
Brian Running
> that I was aware of buckshot loads, they were available back when I was
> young, I just didn't know for sure that they were still available.
Oh, yeah, sure, okay. Right.
> It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about, either about
> me or about .410 shotguns, so I'll endeavor to ignore any further comments
> you make in this thread.
No, you won't.
Jim Carr
> Sorta like how everyone who knows anything about guns knows a .45 ACP is
> really a .45 Colt, because the "C" in "ACP" stands for Colt, even though
> a .45 ACP and a .45 Colt are two very, very different cartridges.
> Right? Or is that just you?
Is the .45 Colt an un-automatic pistol?