9mm vs .45 No I'm not crazy. - Page 3

9mm vs .45 No I'm not crazy.

This is a discussion on 9mm vs .45 No I'm not crazy. within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I'm not so sure the Silvertip is a failure, what do you base that claim on? Well, the history of the cartridge starting with the ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 67
  1. #31
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    11,248
    I'm not so sure the Silvertip is a failure, what do you base that claim on?
    Well, the history of the cartridge starting with the Illinois State Police, thru the Miami-FBI.

    It is interesting that the impression of an engineer is a person that can make things work on paper but he doesn't understand the real world well enough to make the design work.
    That isn't my impression and it isn't what I said?

    Yep, we've had some real fiascos.
    That's all I've been saying, but I bet they looked good on paper, or they wouldn't have been tried, no?
    Last edited by OD*; January 29th, 2006 at 09:41 PM.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, donít give them a tomorrow."


  2. #32
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,809
    OD,
    What you and I are talking about is almost inconsequential. But there have been derogatory posts that imply that engineers can't get beyond paper, and have all kinds of mistaken ideas about what will work and are essentially "paper bound".

    And yet, most of everything that we have contact with every day was designed by engineers, from the computers, the cars we drive, the electric razors we shave with, the guns we shoot, the high performance ammo, the guns we carry, ships, bridges, refrigerators, TVs, DVD technology, more efficient car engines, hybrid cars, jet planes, space shuttles, to name a very, very few.

    No, engineers aren't prefect, not all designs are sound, some good engineering designs are "force" comprimised to meet some body's money requirements. For example the Challenger Space Shuttle. And someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't engineering warn that the seal that failed, could fail under the conditions before the lanch and somebody decided not to listen?

    As for bullet design, that is not an area that there is a lot of theory to work with, there are a lot of unknowns and no way to resolve some of the issues involved. As in many development cases, bullet development is a trial and error process because there is no math or theory that can define the problem, and yet engineers still try. The only way to know sometimes is to put it out there and learn from how it performs in the real world; that's an unavoidable part of the process. So yeah, we make it work on paper, sometimes knowing there's no way to know ahead of time many of the issues involved. But we still tackle the problem and try. When a bullet fails to live up to the performance hoped for in the real world we hear - "Engineers can tell you what works on paper, but not in the real world."

    And I'm over reacting a bit, but after 35 years of being told engineers have book learning but no common sense; they've got so much theory they don't understand the real world.

    When I worked for the TVA Electric Vehicle Program, I can't tell you how many times I had to explain why putting a generator on an electric vehicle to charge the batteries as you drive won't work. After I explained it, I commonly got the "You don't understand what I saying", or some blank look that implied, "You understand all that paper stuff, but not the real world."

    Then there was the solar cells on the roof to charge the batteries. After we explained that, we got, "You don't understand."

    Then came the suggestion to put a windmill on top of the car to drive a generator to charge the batteries while you drive. Free power, right? Again, we didn't understand the real world.

    Then how about floating those heavy batteries in water so the car won't have to carry the weight of the batteries. Again, we didn't understand the real world.

    How about replacing the entire valve train on a car by small tubes in each spark plug. After an hour, no charge, this guy gets mad at me, tells me I don't understand and says he's gonna talk to an automotive engineer, because I can do all that paper stuff but don't understand the real world stuff. BTW, he came back once again to try to convince me his idea would work and left mad again.

    How about the carburetor that really exists that doubles gas mileage? That's a fact because my brother that works down at the gas station found out from a customer whose cousin works for the post office and a guy told him that he heard from his brother who did it. That's just one of the classic conspiracy theories to prove engineers don't know the real world. FWIW, the sole purpose of a carburetor or fuel injection is to mix the correct combination of air with fuel, about 15:1, for optimized combustion. To double gas mileage with a magic carburetor would mean existing carburetors weren't mixing right and none of the NASCAR mechanics or engineers realized it.

    So maybe you can see why I'm a little sensitive about being told we understand the paper part but not the real world part. Do you have any idea, how much stuff there is in the world that we use and take for granted because engineers do understand the real world?

  3. #33
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    11,248
    But there have been derogatory posts that imply that engineers can't get beyond paper, and have all kinds of mistaken ideas about what will work and are essentially "paper bound".
    There may have been sir, but they weren't made by me.
    What I said was, just because it works on paper doesn't necessarily prove it will work in real life. There is no arguing that, theory is just theory until it's proven.

    And someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't engineering warn that the seal that failed, could fail under the conditions before the lanch and somebody decided not to listen?
    That is indeed a fact.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, donít give them a tomorrow."

  4. #34
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,809
    Quote Originally Posted by OD
    There may have been sir, but they weren't made by me.
    What I said was, just because it works on paper doesn't necessarily prove it will work in real life. There is no arguing that, theory is just theory until it's proven.


    That is indeed a fact.
    OD,
    I didn't mean to imply you made the remarks; but rather that they were made.

    Actually there is arguing that theory is just theory until it is proven. Depending on the vague general definition of theory. Theory may be proven or it may not be proven yet.

    To engineers, theory refers to the principles that are "law" that govern our field. They always apply and they are proven, there are no exceptions. Yet we also have to deal with unknowns, unproven ideas, etc. and that too can be theory. In fact, one definition of theory is speculation.

    It just seems odd to me that of all the engineering accomplishments that we enjoy and use every day of our lives as we work, relax, and play, still people look at engineers as those people who don't know the real world and sometimes what's on paper doesn't always work.

    It would be amazing to see how many times, the paper does work. Yet it's frequently protrayed in a negative light. Next time you flip a light switch and your lights come on, it started as a theory on paper. And yeah, I'm sure there were many paper failures before one could flip a switch and turn on a light.
    Last edited by Tangle; January 30th, 2006 at 12:04 PM.

  5. #35
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    11,248
    Theory may be proven or it may not be proven yet.
    Theory may be proven
    This then would be "fact" correct?


    or it may not be proven yet.
    If it has not been proven, how can it be anything other than theory?
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, donít give them a tomorrow."

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Exclamation Don't Mess With Engineers!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle
    So maybe you can see why I'm a little sensitive about being told we understand the paper part but not the real world part. Do you have any idea, how much stuff there is in the world that we use and take for granted because engineers do understand the real world?
    Oh man, my late father was a structural engineer who's company (he owned and ceo) was heavily involved with the space program of the 1950's and 1960's. My dad's firm had a hand in the design of forty out of the 45 launch pads as well as the famous Crawler that transports launch vehicles from the Vertical Assembly Building, itself an engineering marvel.

    My father-in-law is a licensed Practical Engineer and holds a Ph.d in nuclear physics. This O-L-D (84?) guy has stood toe to toe with local building inspectors and made them tuck their tails between their legs and run! He's been told by FHP (Florida Highway Patrol) that he outranks them. Seems that waaaaaay back in the early days of the state of Florida, the practical engineers were given disposition over certain areas pertaining to the public health and safety. That status has not changed. My dad knew and respected my father-in-law as a "hands on" type of scientist, whereas my dad was a genius of the theoretical.

    My father-in-law used to run various nuclear power plants, he still builds and flies his own experimental aircraft (PITTS specials mostly) and he does what other retirees do. He also has (with my help and advice) built a considerable collection of firearms. He carries either a S&W M60 snubnose 38 or a Kel-Tec P11 9mm. He holds a lifetime CCW permit from the state of New York and his FL permit came with a snap of the fingers when his status as an engineer was revealed.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array Euclidean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,213
    Then how about floating those heavy batteries in water so the car won't have to carry the weight of the batteries. Again, we didn't understand the real world.
    That is hilarious.

    But one point to make here: A theory in any sort of scientific field be it engineering, math, one of the pure sciences, etc. is not just "We guess this is true."

    A theory has a track record. In mathematics for instance some of our "theories" are centuries old and have been proven time and time again by several different people.

    A theory is something like "If you jump off the top of this building you are going to fall due to the effects of the force due to gravity". Do we absolutely know that this isn't going to be the one time physical reality won't go haywire all Twilight Zone style and gravity won't work? Nope, but you're sure as heck gonna fall from that building otherwise.

  8. #38
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    11,248
    "If you jump off the top of this building you are going to fall due to the effects of the force due to gravity".
    True, Newton's Law, not Newton's theory.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, donít give them a tomorrow."

  9. #39
    VIP Member Array Euclidean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,213

  10. #40
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,809
    Well, doggonit, it's confusing because theory has two meanings that are entirely different. One meaning is a proven "law" so to speak and the other meaning is an idea that has yet to be proven.

    So if I have an idea, I could say I have theory and then set out to prove it, and when it's proven, it becomes a theory. I said it was confusing.

    The Pythagorean theorem is an example. Once it was a hypothesis; it was proven to be true in all cases (paper and reality) an hence it is now a theorem.

    And let me add, theorem has a little bit different meaning than theory.

  11. #41
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    11,248
    Let's quit quibbling semantics, what I said was, "just because it works on paper, doesn't necessarily prove it will work in application."

    There is more than enough proof of this just, in just the two links I posted earlier. I did not flame engineering, mathematics or science, nor anyone who endeavors in those fields.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, donít give them a tomorrow."

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,134
    well I personaly " Theorise" that the caliber you carry is only a small component in the self defense " machine" ability to project your force accurately and mindset ( situational awareness, as well as an agressive " will survive" attitude ) both weigh in heavyer than the meger differances in caliber of a$$hole repellant that we happen to decide on . On the Engineering side I have been in construction for years and have seen some simply mind boggeling spectacular screwups by civil engineers ( which were fixed by other civil engineers ) lets take a deep breath and step back, I currently am in Agrobusiness, and do some investigations for a local attorney , but i can laff at farmer, lawyer, and PI jokes .. maby i just dont take myself seriously enough i donno but then i dont have all them letters after my name LOL

  13. #43
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,809
    Quote Originally Posted by OD
    Let's quit quibbling semantics, what I said was, "just because it works on paper, doesn't necessarily prove it will work in application."

    There is more than enough proof of this just, in just the two links I posted earlier. I did not flame engineering, mathematics or science, nor anyone who endeavors in those fields.
    It was context OD. There were some insinuative posts, to which I responded. Your responses seemed to agree, if not agree then support, the view expressed in the insinuative posts.

    Then you posted links to what you considered engineering disasters. IF that's not a flame, what is a flame? That's hardly semantics.

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array Euclidean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,213
    Quote Originally Posted by OD
    Let's quit quibbling semantics, what I said was, "just because it works on paper, doesn't necessarily prove it will work in application."

    There is more than enough proof of this just, in just the two links I posted earlier. I did not flame engineering, mathematics or science, nor anyone who endeavors in those fields.
    Oh I never took that as your meaning at all, I just wanted to be pedantic, because in certain contexts what happens on paper will happen in the real world and there's no ifs ands or buts about it. If a=b, and b=c, then a=c for instance.

    The trouble is that being 100% objective and logical all the time is very difficult. Even people who are considered to be very analytical thinkers aren't always logical. It is the application of theory that sometimes causes problems because people are human and make mistakes.

    Perhaps a better way to summarize this all is a corollary of Murphy's Law: Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.

  15. #45
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    11,248
    Actual happenings are now flames?

    I posted them to show that what may have looked good on paper, was not in applacation, true.

    Then you posted links to what you considered engineering disasters.
    Yep, we've had some real fiascos.
    I believe you agreed at one point.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, donít give them a tomorrow."

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Crazy crazy pics!
    By ErikGr7 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 16th, 2009, 11:48 AM
  2. .380 crazy!!!
    By ev239 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2009, 10:01 AM
  3. This seems crazy!
    By P95Carry in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 20th, 2007, 11:44 AM
  4. This is something crazy, anyone tried it?
    By jarhead79 in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 7th, 2006, 10:34 AM
  5. This seems crazy!
    By P95Carry in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 7th, 2006, 05:56 PM

Search tags for this page

.45 acp wound
,

45 acp wound

,
9mm ceazy
,
9mm jhp wound
,

9mm vs .45

,
9mm vs .45 ccw
,
9mm vs .45 for ccw
,
9mm vs 45 acp
,

9mm vs 45 acp ballistics

,
9mm vs 45 ccw
,
jhp wound
,

military 9mm vs 45

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors