Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?

This is such fun, I hate to get back on topic, but does anyone know of a
comparison table that compares the features of the G11 and SD4000IS?

It's kinda coming down between those two.

The S8000, while having f2.0, is also said to have some slow problems, in
some of the reviews I saw.

Jane Galt wrote:
This is such fun, I hate to get back on topic, but does anyone know of a
comparison table that compares the features of the G11 and SD4000IS?

It's kinda coming down between those two.

The S8000, while having f2.0, is also said to have some slow problems, in
some of the reviews I saw.

dpreview.com; -Buying guide- side by side comparison.

However, the highest SD number I saw there was 3500....

--
john mcwilliams

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. ..
"Neil Harrington" wrote :


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Jane Galt" wrote in message
Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a
polarizing
lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a bunch of
stuff in
there, including the XD-45 ACP,
Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.)
Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman.

Really? What makes you think that?

The same sorta stuff that made me know "Rita", aka "Larry Thong"
recently, was a guy.

Were you the one who was so skeptical about my claim re "Rita" when you
first came to this NG? I never did get an enthusiastic thank you from
the guy whoever he was.

Yes, that was probably me. I was skeptical at first; now I believe
you're right, but I guess I'll never know for sure. But thank you
anyway, I guess. I don't know if that's "enthusiastic" enough . . . :-)

What silly speculation, and you apparently only do this to women who post?

I don't do it at all, though I have occasionally responded when someone else
does, as I have this time. In the other case John mentions, it does seem to
have been a he posing as a she.


Is a woman somehow not a woman if she likes guns and martial arts? (
pretty
insulting to the NRA women I've met and the ones who attended the same
dojo
with me )

Have you ever questioned whether one of the "guys" posting here, really
was
one? Wanted to turn him upside down like a cat, lift those hind legs and
check? How boorishly inappropriate. This is what drives women away from
posting in usenet groups.

I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's
male, or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course.

Maybe you're not really a man, but actually a cross dressing woman. Who
cares? Are you polite and respectful to people in the group? That's all
I'd
personally care about.

Well, excepting pests like the Troll of a Thousand Names, I think I have
generally been polite and respectful.


What is it about Jane Galt (or "Jane Galt") that makes you suspect the
same thing, though? I'd agree the name is odd, looking like perhaps a
variation on the John Galt of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," but
that in itself doesn't mean the gender is faked.

Thank you. That's exactly why I picked the nym. I'm a female Objectivist.
Sue me?

Certainly not; I'm an Ayn Rand fan myself.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Jane Galt" wrote in message
Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a
polarizing
lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a bunch of
stuff in
there, including the XD-45 ACP,
Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.)
Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman.

Really? What makes you think that?

The same sorta stuff that made me know "Rita", aka "Larry Thong"
recently,
was a guy.

Were you the one who was so skeptical about my claim re "Rita" when you
first came to this NG? I never did get an enthusiastic thank you from
the
guy whoever he was.

Yes, that was probably me. I was skeptical at first; now I believe you're
right, but I guess I'll never know for sure. But thank you anyway, I
guess.
I don't know if that's "enthusiastic" enough . . . :-)

I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's male,
or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course.

I can't understand why anyone would care if the poster is male or
female.

I don't, particularly, but I'm still curious as to why anyone would fake his
gender. If for example I were at a large cocktail party with roughly equal
numbers of men and women, I'd be equally at ease with all regardless of sex,
but probably not with a man who was there dressed as a woman. Perhaps you
wouldn't find such a person remarkable in the least, but I would.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:18:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Jane Galt" wrote in message
Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a
polarizing
lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a bunch of
stuff in
there, including the XD-45 ACP,
Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.)
Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman.

Really? What makes you think that?

The same sorta stuff that made me know "Rita", aka "Larry Thong"
recently,
was a guy.

Were you the one who was so skeptical about my claim re "Rita" when you
first came to this NG? I never did get an enthusiastic thank you from
the
guy whoever he was.

Yes, that was probably me. I was skeptical at first; now I believe you're
right, but I guess I'll never know for sure. But thank you anyway, I
guess.
I don't know if that's "enthusiastic" enough . . . :-)

I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's male,
or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course.

I can't understand why anyone would care if the poster is male or
female.

I don't, particularly, but I'm still curious as to why anyone would fake his
gender. If for example I were at a large cocktail party with roughly equal
numbers of men and women, I'd be equally at ease with all regardless of sex,
but probably not with a man who was there dressed as a woman. Perhaps you
wouldn't find such a person remarkable in the least, but I would.


Apples and oranges. At the cocktail party you have visual
identification with the person. You are seeing something that you
expect to be one thing that is represented as something else.

A posting is gender neutral. You have no expectations based on what
you see.

"Larry Thong" doesn't write things you would expect to see only from a
male or only from a female. When you start reading things into a
written post that have male or female characteristics you are making
assumptions that may be entirely off-base.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. ..
"Neil Harrington" wrote :


"Jane Galt" wrote in message
.. .
"Neil Harrington" wrote :


"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. ..
tony cooper wrote :



Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.)

As in 9mm? Wuss? LOL

Yep. I've loved the 9mm Luger/Parabellum/NATO/x19 cartridge since long
before it became as commonplace as it is now. It's the perfect pistol
ammo and was probably designed by God. Not too big, not too small, it's
just right -- Goldilocks would have loved it too.

Tried finding any handgun ammo on the shelves at Walmart, since Obama
Nation got into office? It's 18 months later and the shelves are STILL
bare, people are still scared and hoarding.

I guess I have enough of a hoard already, and I've got plenty of brass,
primers, powder and bullets in case I need more. I haven't shopped for ammo
in many years now. Actually I haven't been doing any shooting lately either.


I was carrying an XD-9 for awhile but the guys in my gun group kept
bugging
me about its lack of "stopping power" ( heck it had 9mm +P JHP! )

Then it was for all practical purposes the equal of any .45 Auto in
stopping power, though of course you will never, never, ever convince
the .45-adoring guys of that.

I know, so I finally went for the Xd-45 ACP. If ya cant beat em, join
em.

That's really not good thinking. You didn't join the Obama mobs, did you?


COme to think of it, I still have that XD-9 around and need to sell it.
sigh But a woman cant have too many guns. ;-)

I'd sell the XD-45 instead and keep the more sensible 9.

Just on the remote chance the survivalists are right and our gummint may
fall apart some day leading to massive civil disorder, it's not a bad idea
to have something that will accept military ammo. There will ALWAYS be
millions and millions of rounds of 9mm NATO around SOMEWHERE. And there will
be people who have ways of getting to it.


They do LOVE their pumpkin rollers! They
think a bullet that big just must be best -- never mind that it comes
out of a basically low-pressure cartridge (the .45 Auto can't handle
more than half the chamber pressure of the 9mm Luger) and has about the
trajectory of a slingshot.

Yeah, but hit a bad guy in the shoulder and the whole arm will be gone.

BALONEY. And don't believe those silly stories about the .45 having
"knockdown power" either. No handgun has "knockdown power" and no rifle does
either for that matter, unless it's something like a .300 Magnum being used
on a chipmunk.


You should see the hand of the woman who was running the "ladies night" I
used to attend, at the local gun shop here. She accidentally shot herself
through the hand with a 9mm JHP. What a mess. Havent seen her in awhile,
but she said it would take years of rehab to use the hand again.

Nasty business. But I'd sure like to know how she managed to shoot herself
through the hand.


Read the book "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study" by Evan
Marshall and Edwin Sanow. They are (or were) two cops who spent years
evaluating actual shootings and comparing the ammunition used in terms
of "one-shot stops" -- actual shootings of people, not just theories
about the subject or blowing holes in ballistic gelatin. Their
conclusion: the best 9mm JHP load did the job better than any .45 or
other cartridge in their accumulated data. Now that was their first book
and they've written a couple of others since, which I haven't read, so
maybe that has changed.

I KNOW. Much of the "9mm doesnt have the stopping power" tales come from
the military, when the idiot politicians make them use FMJ.

Well, to be fair, it's the Geneva Convention that makes them do that. Any
type of expanding bullet is outlawed in war because it's "inhumane." OK to
use napalm or flamethrowers on people, but not expanding bullets. Actually
the .303 British in its Mk VII loading had a bullet with aluminum nose cone
under the jacket, making the bullet tail heavy so it would topple when it
hit flesh, thus comparable to a JSP or JHP in destructiveness, but that was
OK because it was full metal jacketed. And our 5.56mm rifles have (depending
on model) an abnormally slow rifling twist for that caliber, causing the
bullet to be only marginally stabilized and also possibly topple in flesh --
still perfectly legal because it's FMJ.

I know a woman
who had a guy coming at her and fired 7 rounds into him at close range,
before stopping him, because she was dumb enough to use FMJ.

FMJ is for target practice.

For me, cast bullets are for target practice.

Actually there are people who for "serious social intercourse" load their
magazines alternating JHP and FMJ, the idea being that when and if you have
to use the weapon you can't know ahead of time what the situation will be --
the miscreant may be behind something he's using as a shield.


Based on the ballistics figures alone, I would expect the 10mm Auto to
be best in stopping power (with the possible exception of some of the
humungous wheelgun cartridges)

Yeah, a .50 Desert Eagle might be amazing.

For home defense, the heck with a pistol, we got the 12 gauge pump, with 8
shells of alternating 00 Buck and slugs.

Yes, that oughta work. BTW the police nowadays prefer No. 4 Buck to 00, I
understand. At close range, even birdshot is devastating.


Glad we got the Limbsaver pad for it though, that thing really kicks my
shoulder.

, but I doubt there's enough data on the
10mm in actual shootings to prove that. Next best would probably be the
shortened version of the 10mm, the now very popular .40 S&W (which some
wags called the ".40 Short & Weak," but they were of course comparing it
to its daddy). That does look like a very effective round to me, better
than either the 9mm or .45, and it's pleasant enough to shoot, but it's
not enough better to make me switch to it. All my reloading gear is in
9mm/.38/.357 and this late in life I'm not going to take on a new size.

I've owned a lot of .45 automatics (all Colts), also one S&W target
revolver in the same caliber, and liked them all a lot. When I was
shooting in competition in the '60s and '70s I had to have a .45 since
one-third of an NRA outdoor tournament requires that caliber (and
actually most competitors use their .45s in the Center Fire third as
well). But I haven't owned a .45 since, and have no interest in owning
another one. I still like the 1911 configuration, just don't care that
much for the cartridge. It DOES make sense for military purposes because
of the Geneva Convention FMJ rule, I'll say that for it. But I'm
satisfied that for civilian purposes the 9mm in JHP loads does at least
as well.

Probably right.


and telling
me to carry a .45 ACP. So I figure if 14 rds of 45 ACP JHP wont do the
job now, I gotta call in Jack Bauer. LOL

Jack Bauer doesn't use a .45 either. At least, not in the shows I've
seen (which were only from the first season). My recollection is that he
was using a SIG-Sauer, so presumably either a 9mm or a .40.

Dont know for sure, but that scene where he tortured the russian snipe was
one of the most gruesome ones I've ever seen on TV.

Still, who would I want defending my country? Or if a nuke was in Denver
and needed to be found? Him or Obama?

Our community organizer president is reduced to total helplessness when
confronted by the problem of a major oil spill. After two months he still
doesn't know what to do about it but assures us all that he's "on top of
it." Meanwhile he (a) has refused help from a dozen countries who have
experience with oil spills and could almost certainly have relieved the
situation at least somewhat by now; (b) is threatening BP, the only people
trying to do something about the leaks, with criminal prosecution and has
shaken them down for $20 billion; (c) has done nothing about Louisiana's
repeated requests for permission to build sand barriers to stop the oil from
reaching their shores, while six or more government agencies try to decide
whose responsibility it is what they should do about it; and (d) has called
a moratorium on all offshore drilling, killing thousands of jobs, as if that
region wasn't already hard hit enough economically by the effects of the
spill -- and despite the fact that 35,000 or so offshore wells have been
drilled before with no accidents or problems.

So no, I would not want Obama and his teleprompters "defending my country"
from any other serious threat. He is already in way over his head.

To all those gullible folk who voted him into office:

HOW'S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN' OUT FOR YA?

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 01:01:00 -0500, Jane Galt wrote:

This is such fun, I hate to get back on topic, but does anyone know of a
comparison table that compares the features of the G11 and SD4000IS?

It's kinda coming down between those two.

The S8000, while having f2.0, is also said to have some slow problems, in
some of the reviews I saw.

I don't have any resources of comparisons between the two, but earlier you
expressed a curiosity about G-series optical quality. You might find these
two links interesting.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

The Canon P&S G10 was compared in a blind-test against a medium format
Hasselblad H2. The Hasselblad was security locked down on a hefty tripod, a
delayed remote shutter release, and mirror lock-up was used to try to
prevent all camera shake. ["The H2 was on a large Enduro tripod with RRS
head. Mirror lock-up was used, along with 3 second self timer and cable
release."] The P&S camera was only triggered hand-held while placed on top
of the tripod-mounted Hasselblad. ["...without a tripod mount for the G10 I
simply held it firmly braced on top of the Hassy ..."] In prints up to
13"x19" size professional photographers couldn't tell the difference in
image quality between the two cameras.


http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/

In this fun review the G9's and G11's images were compared against those of
this year's Canon 7D DSLR. The G-series P&S cameras both won.


DSLRs are not the automatic winners when it comes to image quality, and
haven't been for a long time. In 2002 I bought a super-zoom P&S camera that
was beating the images from DSLRs made that same year. The same thing three
years ago when researching a new camera for myself.

Here's another interesting link where the image quality from a 20x
super-zoom P&S camera's lens easily beats out an easy to design 3x DSLR
zoom lens.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml

Do those help to allay your fears about image quality in P&S cameras?


Addendum:

The G11 may not be the optimum camera for you, but, depending on your skill
levels and amount of creativity that you get into, you might like to know
that the G11 now has a beta-phase of CHDK for it. This allows you to have
things like motion detection to shoot images of birds at a feeding station,
unattended; or of lightning-strikes. It's that fast, the shutter triggered
on the first discharge to capture the rest of the oscillating lightning
event. Or for example, with your ballistics interests you might like to
point your tripod-mounted camera at a target and have it snap off a new
shot automatically each time a new bullet-hole is created. CHDK's
ultra-fast shutter speeds (up to 1/40,000 second actual shutter speed, or
as fast as 1/224,000 flash duration on some models (1/60,000 second more
typical)) and the 15ms response time for the remote-shutter release (see
the SDM build for stereo-pair synchronization speed information) could also
be used to stop bullets in flight if used jointly with the proper external
event-detection circuitry. Advanced time-lapse scripts are also plentiful
for CHDK so you can now do this without being tethered to a battery-hungry
and heavy laptop computer to do the same, or an expensive remote release
with limited time-lapse options in it. Some time-lapse scripts even allow
you to shoot video clips as well as high-res still frames. CHDK time-lapse
scripts are quite popular with the KAP (kit aerial photography) crowd, as
well as those that mount them to model planes and helicopters. Some CHDK
time-lapse scripted cameras have even been sent aloft on balloons to the
very edges of earth's atmosphere, taking images showing the curvature of
the earth against the black of space. (There's some nice websites with full
documentation and images from these ventures.)

CHDK's features are generally for the very advanced photographer and may
not concern you, but it's worth knowing about it should you ever have need
of any of its capabilities.

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

For a fuller list of all of CHDK's features:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_User_Manual

That's a newer compilation of all four of the previous user manuals that I
wrote for all earlier builds of CHDK's various incarnations. While there is
some minor information that the manual-mergers forgot to add in this new
manual it's a pretty complete one-shot overview now.

Keep in mind that that user manual does not include all the uBASIC and LUA
information where you can program your camera to perform any of its tasks
by using simple scripts, written by using any text editor. Your scripts
stored on your SD card and loaded individually whenever needed, just like
loading up a new program on your computer when it's needed. Nor does the
manual include information about composition and cropping viewfinder "Grid"
designing, also found on another page. (The complete uBASIC programming
sections and Grids sections also authored by myself, as well as many of the
more popular scripts.)

p.s. Should a troll going by the name of SMS now chime in with his
relentless claims of having authored the CHDK Wiki pages (as he does every
time I bring up CHDK to others), you can rest assured he's never added even
one word to CHDK's documentation. He doesn't even own a camera. The above
information is precisely why I know this to be a fact.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:18:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Jane Galt" wrote in message
Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a
polarizing
lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a bunch of
stuff in
there, including the XD-45 ACP,
Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.)
Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman.

Really? What makes you think that?

The same sorta stuff that made me know "Rita", aka "Larry Thong"
recently,
was a guy.

Were you the one who was so skeptical about my claim re "Rita" when
you
first came to this NG? I never did get an enthusiastic thank you from
the
guy whoever he was.

Yes, that was probably me. I was skeptical at first; now I believe
you're
right, but I guess I'll never know for sure. But thank you anyway, I
guess.
I don't know if that's "enthusiastic" enough . . . :-)

I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's
male,
or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course.

I can't understand why anyone would care if the poster is male or
female.

I don't, particularly, but I'm still curious as to why anyone would fake
his
gender. If for example I were at a large cocktail party with roughly equal
numbers of men and women, I'd be equally at ease with all regardless of
sex,
but probably not with a man who was there dressed as a woman. Perhaps you
wouldn't find such a person remarkable in the least, but I would.


Apples and oranges. At the cocktail party you have visual
identification with the person. You are seeing something that you
expect to be one thing that is represented as something else.

A posting is gender neutral. You have no expectations based on what
you see.

"Larry Thong" doesn't write things you would expect to see only from a
male or only from a female. When you start reading things into a
written post that have male or female characteristics you are making
assumptions that may be entirely off-base.

Not entirely apples and oranges. I'm still curious as to why someone would
pretend to be the gender he is not. Not making a federal case out of it,
just curious. It *is* curious.

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. ..
tony cooper wrote :
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's
male, or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course.

I can't understand why anyone would care if the poster is male or
female.

I can't either - but in earlier exchanges on the issue of gay marriage,
"N. H." revealed himself likely to be a "closet case", so I'm surprised
to see that he can now "accept that some do, of course" (understand
why someone would pretend to be female when he's male, or vice
versa). It is good to see that some people *can* become more
tolerant of others and also less fearful of being outed as a result (I'm
guessing that the consequences of "protesting too much" have become
more evident to "N. H.", perhaps...;-).

Most people use pseudonyms on usenet anyway, to avoid things like death
threats. Is this a surrise?
--
- Jane Galt

I've used my own name on several NGs since 1995, and I have been
open about my being gay, without problems...
--DR

Ï "Neil Harrington" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...

"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. ..
"Neil Harrington" wrote :


"Jane Galt" wrote in message
.. .
"Neil Harrington" wrote :


"Jane Galt" wrote in message
. ..
tony cooper wrote :



Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.)

As in 9mm? Wuss? LOL

Yep. I've loved the 9mm Luger/Parabellum/NATO/x19 cartridge since long
before it became as commonplace as it is now. It's the perfect pistol
ammo and was probably designed by God. Not too big, not too small, it's
just right -- Goldilocks would have loved it too.

Tried finding any handgun ammo on the shelves at Walmart, since Obama
Nation got into office? It's 18 months later and the shelves are STILL
bare, people are still scared and hoarding.

I guess I have enough of a hoard already, and I've got plenty of brass,
primers, powder and bullets in case I need more. I haven't shopped for
ammo in many years now. Actually I haven't been doing any shooting lately
either.


I was carrying an XD-9 for awhile but the guys in my gun group kept
bugging
me about its lack of "stopping power" ( heck it had 9mm +P JHP! )

Then it was for all practical purposes the equal of any .45 Auto in
stopping power, though of course you will never, never, ever convince
the .45-adoring guys of that.

I know, so I finally went for the Xd-45 ACP. If ya cant beat em, join
em.

That's really not good thinking. You didn't join the Obama mobs, did you?


COme to think of it, I still have that XD-9 around and need to sell it.
sigh But a woman cant have too many guns. ;-)

I'd sell the XD-45 instead and keep the more sensible 9.

Just on the remote chance the survivalists are right and our gummint may
fall apart some day leading to massive civil disorder, it's not a bad idea
to have something that will accept military ammo. There will ALWAYS be
millions and millions of rounds of 9mm NATO around SOMEWHERE. And there
will be people who have ways of getting to it.

Not to mention the 7.62 mm NATO round or the ubiquitous .50 BMG API
tracer...(Armor Piercing Incendiary)

They do LOVE their pumpkin rollers! They
think a bullet that big just must be best -- never mind that it comes
out of a basically low-pressure cartridge (the .45 Auto can't handle
more than half the chamber pressure of the 9mm Luger) and has about the
trajectory of a slingshot.

Yeah, but hit a bad guy in the shoulder and the whole arm will be gone.


BALONEY. And don't believe those silly stories about the .45 having
"knockdown power" either. No handgun has "knockdown power" and no rifle
does either for that matter, unless it's something like a .300 Magnum
being used on a chipmunk.

I wouldn't like to be in the receiving end of it. Officers in infantry carry
the .45 browning pistol, also tank drivers and machine-gunners.

You should see the hand of the woman who was running the "ladies night" I
used to attend, at the local gun shop here. She accidentally shot herself
through the hand with a 9mm JHP. What a mess. Havent seen her in awhile,
but she said it would take years of rehab to use the hand again.

Nasty business. But I'd sure like to know how she managed to shoot herself
through the hand.
A policeman did that to himself in a firing range.

Read the book "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study" by Evan
Marshall and Edwin Sanow. They are (or were) two cops who spent years
evaluating actual shootings and comparing the ammunition used in terms
of "one-shot stops" -- actual shootings of people, not just theories
about the subject or blowing holes in ballistic gelatin. Their
conclusion: the best 9mm JHP load did the job better than any .45 or
other cartridge in their accumulated data. Now that was their first book
and they've written a couple of others since, which I haven't read, so
maybe that has changed.

I KNOW. Much of the "9mm doesnt have the stopping power" tales come from
the military, when the idiot politicians make them use FMJ.
How about the incendiary shell for the 4.2" mortar? With white phosphorus?
Totally legal... Or the high-explosive shell for the same mortar, which
shrapnel can go to 500 meters? Or the ubiquitous 90 mm bazuka HEAT (High
Explosive Anti Tank) round, which will roast the crew of a tank like
chicken? Or the Milan anti-tank missile, which can pierce half a meter of
tank grade steel? Talking about deterrence...

Well, to be fair, it's the Geneva Convention that makes them do that. Any
type of expanding bullet is outlawed in war because it's "inhumane." OK to
use napalm or flamethrowers on people, but not expanding bullets. Actually
the .303 British in its Mk VII loading had a bullet with aluminum nose
cone under the jacket, making the bullet tail heavy so it would topple
when it hit flesh, thus comparable to a JSP or JHP in destructiveness, but
that was OK because it was full metal jacketed. And our 5.56mm rifles have
(depending on model) an abnormally slow rifling twist for that caliber,
causing the bullet to be only marginally stabilized and also possibly
topple in flesh -- still perfectly legal because it's FMJ.

Loophole.
I know a woman
who had a guy coming at her and fired 7 rounds into him at close range,
before stopping him, because she was dumb enough to use FMJ.

FMJ is for target practice.

For me, cast bullets are for target practice.

Actually there are people who for "serious social intercourse" load their
magazines alternating JHP and FMJ, the idea being that when and if you
have to use the weapon you can't know ahead of time what the situation
will be -- the miscreant may be behind something he's using as a shield.


Based on the ballistics figures alone, I would expect the 10mm Auto to
be best in stopping power (with the possible exception of some of the
humungous wheelgun cartridges)

Yeah, a .50 Desert Eagle might be amazing.

For home defense, the heck with a pistol, we got the 12 gauge pump, with
8
shells of alternating 00 Buck and slugs.

Yes, that oughta work. BTW the police nowadays prefer No. 4 Buck to 00, I
understand. At close range, even birdshot is devastating.


Glad we got the Limbsaver pad for it though, that thing really kicks my
shoulder.

, but I doubt there's enough data on the
10mm in actual shootings to prove that. Next best would probably be the
shortened version of the 10mm, the now very popular .40 S&W (which some
wags called the ".40 Short & Weak," but they were of course comparing it
to its daddy). That does look like a very effective round to me, better
than either the 9mm or .45, and it's pleasant enough to shoot, but it's
not enough better to make me switch to it. All my reloading gear is in
9mm/.38/.357 and this late in life I'm not going to take on a new size.

I've owned a lot of .45 automatics (all Colts), also one S&W target
revolver in the same caliber, and liked them all a lot. When I was
shooting in competition in the '60s and '70s I had to have a .45 since
one-third of an NRA outdoor tournament requires that caliber (and
actually most competitors use their .45s in the Center Fire third as
well). But I haven't owned a .45 since, and have no interest in owning
another one. I still like the 1911 configuration, just don't care that
much for the cartridge. It DOES make sense for military purposes because
of the Geneva Convention FMJ rule, I'll say that for it. But I'm
satisfied that for civilian purposes the 9mm in JHP loads does at least
as well.

Probably right.


and telling
me to carry a .45 ACP. So I figure if 14 rds of 45 ACP JHP wont do the
job now, I gotta call in Jack Bauer. LOL

Jack Bauer doesn't use a .45 either. At least, not in the shows I've
seen (which were only from the first season). My recollection is that he
was using a SIG-Sauer, so presumably either a 9mm or a .40.

Dont know for sure, but that scene where he tortured the russian snipe
was
one of the most gruesome ones I've ever seen on TV.

Still, who would I want defending my country? Or if a nuke was in Denver
and needed to be found? Him or Obama?

Our community organizer president is reduced to total helplessness when
confronted by the problem of a major oil spill. After two months he still
doesn't know what to do about it but assures us all that he's "on top of
it." Meanwhile he (a) has refused help from a dozen countries who have
experience with oil spills and could almost certainly have relieved the
situation at least somewhat by now; (b) is threatening BP, the only people
trying to do something about the leaks, with criminal prosecution and has
shaken them down for $20 billion; (c) has done nothing about Louisiana's
repeated requests for permission to build sand barriers to stop the oil
from reaching their shores, while six or more government agencies try to
decide whose responsibility it is what they should do about it; and (d)
has called a moratorium on all offshore drilling, killing thousands of
jobs, as if that region wasn't already hard hit enough economically by the
effects of the spill -- and despite the fact that 35,000 or so offshore
wells have been drilled before with no accidents or problems.

So no, I would not want Obama and his teleprompters "defending my country"
from any other serious threat. He is already in way over his head.

To all those gullible folk who voted him into office:

HOW'S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN' OUT FOR YA?



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr