Is a full house 10mm more powerful than a .357 magnum?

[Rick]

I thought I'll hijack you thread abit:
Wat do you think is most effective for bear defence ?

It ain't a handgun...

 

[Gatehouse]

Ha Ha...Funny...

Camp Cook is actually a play on his name. Last name is Cook.

 

[Rick]

It takes pressure to push a given bullet to a given velocity from a given barrel, and it takes the same amount of pressure each and every time. These results are repeatable within a given combination of components and firearm.

In my view, it is more accurate to say that the same amount of area below the pressure trace for the bullet's passage through the barrel will result in the same muzzle velocity. The peak pressures can be different and you can get the same velocity; conversely, peak pressures can be the same and you can get different velocities.

I will also disagree that the results are repeatable within a given combination of components in the same firearm. They can be (within reasonable variations), and often are, but that is not necessarily so. There are various potential factors that can cause results to be different. Using one example, with some reduced loads, the position of the powder relative to the primer has much to do with both pressures and muzzle velocity. Some reduced cast bullet loads shoot very small groups when the cartridge is chambered, the rifle is raised so that the powder all flows to the back of the case near the primer, and then the rifle is leveled, sighted, and fired. I realize that benchrest with cast bullets is not most people's game, nor is plinking with those kind of loads. The point is, however, that there can be much more than simply the same firearm, bullet, powder, weight of powder, case, and primer as factors that determine what pressures will result when the trigger is pulled. The position of the powder in the case is just one example of these other potentially influential factors.

The head expansion measurement is only meaningful if it is conducted with the same make and lot of brass from test to test, and I would assume with brass that has been fired the same number of times, but ideally with new brass.

Actually, I am of the opinion that about all that can be said for case head expansion measurement is that it is about one step above simply guessing at what pressures are. Ken Waters always said it was not particularly reliable, just simply better than nothing at all - Waters never claimed this was an excellent way to evaluate pressures, and some writers and handloaders have forgotten or overlooked this. There have been numerous discussions in magazines and on the internet regarding this over the years; this is one I was able to quickly find:
http://tinyurl.com/2hezxf

By comparing the chronograph's findings with either previously chronographed results, or by comparing the findings to published load data, the chronograph will tell you every time if your pressure is within acceptable limits.

I'm not sure I can completely accept that, assuming I clearly understand what you're getting at.

You're comparing your velocity using "load x" handloads with "load x" from a powder or bullet manufacturer's data and what their velocity was, correct?

Well, in actually using a chronograph, you're probably ahead of most of the handloaders out there. However, I see some variables there that can't be accounted for in that procedure. Right off the top of my head, if your chamber is tighter than their test chamber, there is going to be differences. The lot of brass they used is almost certainly not the same lot of brass you will be using. The lot of powder they used is almost certainly not the same lot of powder you will be reloading. Is the ball seat and throat of their test rifle the same as yours - if not, more potential variations in the pressure trace. Furthermore, their data was almost certainly developed at standard temperature and pressure - and it is unlikely that the shots you fire over your chronograph for comparison will be during standard temperature and pressure atmospheric conditions.

Moreover, if one particular trial gives us a velocity that is 100 fps high or low (extreme spreads of over 100 fps are hardly desireable, but not unusual)... what did that give us in the way of an accurate figure to use in comparison to the published load? It seems it just indicated that we're still slower than the published load, so we can add more powder, or we're well over the published load, so need to reduce our charges.

If there is a rise or drop in pressure due to; temperature, change of components, or for any other reason, the chronograph will show that change in pressure by indicating a change in velocity. It is up to the tester to determine the cause for the change in pressure - and no software, hardware or loading manuals will be able to make that determination for him.

Again, a chronograph will NOT tell you what the maximum pressure of a load was - you can have pressure spikes that still result in "normal" muzzle velocities.

Given that you appear to be a pretty thoughtful and investigative handloader, you really should consider giving QuickLoad a try. I have yet to hear anyone using it say anything other than they found it quite valuable for load development. The fact that the predicted velocities for a given load are usually found to be very close to what chronographing that load afterwards actually shows (and PressureTrace pretty closely agrees with predicted pressures), tells me the interior ballistics modelling in this program is very good indeed.

http://www.neconos.com/details3.htm

As with any testing, the larger the test group the more accurate the results, but that does not mean the results of a small test group should be disregarded, or that data from a larger test group will be produce data that would influence the findings of the smaller test. The testing is for an individual shooter, with an individual firearm, and is done at a specific location.

We're definitely going to disagree on that one. The number of trials you do in ANY statistical analysis (which is what you're doing here, whether you're testing velocity, pressure, or the number of times you'll roll a dice and get a six) has everything to do with the accuracy and predictability of your results. A small number of trials leaves any statements regarding accuracy and predictability as essentially meaningless.

Statistical analysis is part of my profession, and the confidence interval is EVERYTHING when determining how valid our results are. So... I just flipped a quarter (American) five times. It came up "tails" four times; can I in any way say I am reasonably accurate in pronouncing that American quarters - or even that American quarter - will show tails 80% of the time on a coin toss and so one should always call tails? If we believe that although larger test samples might be more accurate, smaller ones should not be disregarded, that is what we are essentially saying. On the other hand, if I said I had nothing better to do this fine day so I flipped that same quarter 1000 times, and the result of that was it came up tails only 494 times, that doesn't mean anything in relation to the results of the much smaller test population from the first test?

I suffered through too many years of university statistics courses to agree with your contention on this point.

The purpose is not to test commercial ammunition which might be used in a wide range of firearms, by thousands of people, in the far reaches of the world.

From a statistical analysis point of view, that is irrelevant. You have a population of trials you are using for your analysis; the size of the population and the results of those trials are what matters.

The farther apart the chronograph screens, the more accurate the results. I find 6' is convenient for my purposes, and I am confident that small shot to shot variations are true readings.

Doppler radar trials of newer chronographs has produced results showing accuracies around the 99.8% mark. That gives you a +/- error somewhere around 2 fps at 2000 fps. That's for newer, smaller chronographs with 2' spacing or smaller - I don't recall any tests where the screens were then mounted much further apart to enhance accuracy and remove that 2 fps potential error. It also occurs to me that at some point as you increase screen distance you induce error - as a gross example, if I put the screens a hundred yards apart, do I now have an accurate measurement of velocity?

Theoretically, an optical chronograph's most accurate spacing for screens would be mere millimeters apart, the closest physical distance for two screens to detect the passage of the bullet's nose. The further the screens are apart, the further the slowing of the bullet during flight skews the results.

In the real world, for handloaders, modern chronographs with 2' spacing and smaller are more accurate than many of the other variables involved in velocity measurement. +/- a few feet per second really doesn't mean much.

 

[Rick]

Ha Ha...Funny...

Camp Cook is actually a play on his name. Last name is Cook.

Good thing I made allowances that he might be a geologist, forester, timber cruiser, or whatever, then...

And here I was going to offer him some work humping the gas powered rock drill, drill steel, car battery, gas can, and tripods next time I had to take out a total station - just so he could get out of camp or the pickup truck and out in the boonies with no roads or other manmade structures for dozens of kilometers... Figured he's too smart to volunteer for that amount of lumbar abuse just to get out in the bush though, particularly for what an unskilled field assistant gets paid compared to whatever he makes...

 

[Boomer]

Rick -

Your point concerning pressure spikes is taken, but the results obtained with reduced loads can be optimized by using easy to ignite powders and a strong primer. I have found when shooting light (1200 fps) loads in my .375, a combination of Unique with a magnum primer, gives excellent accuracy regardless of where the powder lies in the case.

Certainly the interior dimensions of your particular firearm effect the pressure when a round is fired, particularly if the dimensions are outside SAAMI tolarances. However, if you study the data from several loading manuals and determine that the maximum velocity of a 180 gr bullet from the .30-06 is 2700 fps when loaded with propellant X, when your chronograph reads 2700, it's a good bet you are very close to the maximum load with that combination of components.

I am not going to disagree that a larger test sample is the more accurate than a smaller one. However, I will point out that we are speaking about obtaining results for one firearm, with one particular load, and therefore I maintain huge test sample is of little practical value. If, based on 10 rounds, I determine that my velocity is 2700 fps, but you disagree because your testing of 100,000 rounds indicates that the true velocity is 2710 or that the standard deviation is a point or two different - I won't care. The reason I won't care is because your results won't provide any information that will be useful to me in the field, and because I am not concerned about how the load will work in a thousand different guns, I am only concerned about how it will work in my gun. Consider your example with the American quarter - you cannot make assumptions for all American quarters, but you can certainly make a reasonable assumption based on the history you have developed with that one particular quarter for how it might react to being flipped in the future.

If you have seen test results showing that chronographs with 2 foot spacing are accurate to 99.8%, that's fine, but it isn't what the folks at Oehler say concerning their products, and I can only comment on the machine I have. According to Oehler, the screens can be set from 1'-15' apart, and the wider the spacing the more accurate the results. The proof screen is always set midway between the primary screens. They recommend 8', but say 4' gives reasonable results, and a 2' rod is included with the machine. If you read between the lines, it seems that it is higher velocity projectiles that are more accurately measured with the longer spacing. In any case I am confident that my readings are within an acceptable range, and when I print off a drop tables based on the instrument velocity, it doesn't take much tweaking to get it right when I shoot long range, where a variation of 25 fps of MV equals about 12" inches (with my load) of vertical spread at 1000 yards. Useing this proceedure last winter, I fired at a target GPS'd at 1038 yards from my firing point, (it was a convenient snowdrift) and my rounds struck 4" low on the paper.

 

[Rick]

Rick -

Your point concerning pressure spikes is taken, but the results obtained with reduced loads can be optimized by using easy to ignite powders and a strong primer. I have found when shooting light (1200 fps) loads in my .375, a combination of Unique with a magnum primer, gives excellent accuracy regardless of where the powder lies in the case.

Reduced loads are an entire subject unto themselves. And many reduced loads are in the 600 - 800 fps range, which is another dimension entirely. However, I think I've illustrated the point that a chronograph can not tell you what pressures are simply by providing the muzzle velocity. You can try and avoid being fooled by your chronograph by using certain powders and primers - but the chronograph won't tell you whether you're getting pressure spikes or not.

However, if you study the data from several loading manuals and determine that the maximum velocity of a 180 gr bullet from the .30-06 is 2700 fps when loaded with propellant X, when your chronograph reads 2700, it's a good bet you are very close to the maximum load with that combination of components.

Okay... I can somewhat accept this. But where, for example, do I find "several" reloading manuals that give me the load data for a .308 Barnes TSX loaded with IMR4350 and a Federal Large Rifle Primer?

In using your chronograph, you're no worse off than the guy who simply reads the maximum load in his reloading manual and observes it, and probably well ahead to boot. However, I think you will find it extremely difficult to find loading manuals that duplicate the same load data - same bullet, same case, same primer, same powder and charge, same COAL, etc. Something usually varies - the bullet, for example, which means you're working with different bearing surfaces, hardnesses, etc.

I am not going to disagree that a larger test sample is the more accurate than a smaller one. However, I will point out that we are speaking about obtaining results for one firearm, with one particular load, and therefore I maintain huge test sample is of little practical value. If, based on 10 rounds, I determine that my velocity is 2700 fps, but you disagree because your testing of 100,000 rounds indicates that the true velocity is 2710 or that the standard deviation is a point or two different - I won't care.

The issue isn't whether it is one rifle or a thousand; it's whether the number of trials you are performing has any statistical value whatsoever.

You mentioned earlier that you can usually find your maximum load by firing five rounds. I take that to mean you have fired five rounds with incrementally increasing charges - otherwise, you'd just be testing whether ONE charge weight was maximum or not.

One trial of one load combination does NOT tell you anything about that load, any more than flipping a coin or rolling a die once tells you whether it always comes up heads. And the chance of each successive trial being a statistical outlier, a pressure abberation, remains exactly the same. And testing for under/over regarding the velocity which signals maximum load is essentially a coin flip type of trial, where one trial/flip/shot is performed. Five trials isn't much either, but at least you're getting a feel for the results - it's doesn't take too long flipping a coin before you eventually get five heads or five tails in a row. Ten shots wouldn't give you much in the way of a confidence interval that would make a statistical analyst happy, but for your purposes when exploring the edge of the SAAMI pressure limits, that's probably fine. We can intuitively see that the more trials we perform, the more accurate grasp we get of what we are trying to statistically analyze - it takes one hell of a lot more series of flipping a coin ten times to get ten heads in a row than it does flipping a coin five times to get five heads in a row.

The reason I won't care is because your results won't provide any information that will be useful to me in the field, and because I am not concerned about how the load will work in a thousand different guns, I am only concerned about how it will work in my gun. Consider your example with the American quarter - you cannot make assumptions for all American quarters, but you can certainly make a reasonable assumption based on the history you have developed with that one particular quarter for how it might react to being flipped in the future.

One trial does not provide any useful information to you about load performance - or flipping quarters.

You can make NO reasonable assumption on any individual coin after flipping it only five times - it is quite possible to perform one series of five trials and get all heads, and then repeat the trials and subsequently get all tails. I'm not going to run off and do the math to figure the probability of that happening right now, but the probability is probabably somewhere in the area where one would prefer not to risk it if we were talking the likelihood of a parachute failing to open or a cartridge on a dangerous game rifle failing to fire.

The general rule here is the more trials you perform in statistical analysis, the closer you nail down the answer you are looking for. Because nobody wants to pressure test 100,000 loads for an answer, roll a die 100,000 times, etc we use confidence intervals as a means of measuring our predictions/assumptions. That's why you always hear that "this survey is accurate 19 times out of 20".

We don't have to pass some statisticians requirements as handloaders, but we can intuitively see that the more tests we make, the more certain we are of what we are testing, and if we don't do enough tests then we may be well missing something. If I fire three shots and get a nice tight half minute of angle group out of my hunting rifle, then fire two more and the last one opens the group up to two inches, do I say "If I stick with three shot groups I have a pretty good load here"? Or do I think this load might be one that produces fliers OR perhaps I simply pulled that shot in some manner that I didn't notice at the trigger break? I, for one, will be firing successive five shot groups with that load...

If you have seen test results showing that chronographs with 2 foot spacing are accurate to 99.8%, that's fine, but it isn't what the folks at Oehler say concerning their products, and I can only comment on the machine I have.

Oehler is gone from the personal use chronograph market now, although they still supply parts and service for the time being. I'm going to take a guess here and say the reason for that is quite simply that their pricy systems could not compete with the Chronys, PACTs, CEDs, etc - especially after people started testing various systems against each other to see if any were particularly more accurate/inaccurate than others.

Useing this proceedure last winter, I fired at a target GPS'd at 1038 yards from my firing point, (it was a convenient snowdrift) and my rounds struck 4" low on the paper.

Well, I can't resist... stats again... if you were using a recreational GPS like a Garmin, Magellan, etc, your range was 1038 yards +/- about 60 yards. If recreational GPS's could determine the distance between two points to within a yard or two - or even ten yards - we wouldn't be dragging Leica's, Trimble's, and TopCon's around in the bush that require tripods, car batteries, etc, along with a backpack to carry them on.

The province you're in almost certainly has a series of monuments scattered throughout the countryside. If you - or anyone else - wants to test the accuracy of their GPS, go to your government office or look up a local land surveyor and ask them if they'll give you the location and coordinates of monuments in your area. Then take your GPS out and GPS those points - just for laughs do the same ones several times over several days. Then check the results against the precisely surveyed coordinates... most educational for those who believe their Garmin when it says their accuracy is "3 meters"... And the further north you go, the worse it gets.

Which is not to knock recreational GPS's - the information they give you and the accuracy they have is downright amazing for their cost, and even professionally we use them quite often. But it isn't hard for a recreational GPS to be up to 30 meters off, no matter how accurate it claims to be at the time...

 

[Camp Cook]

"WOW" Rick you really amaze me...

How do I even respond to such ignorant assumptions.

Obviously you have far too much time on you're hands and an extremely vivid imagination...

Let me put it this way for you...

All of your assumptions are wrong...

Where did you say you are right now?

Something about sitting in an office...

 

[Rick]

"WOW" Rick you really amaze me...

How do I even respond to such ignorant assumptions.

Well now, for somebody whose last post was about "armchair theorists" - when you don't have a clue who you're addressing or what we do for a living, you're a pretty amazing guy yourself.

You make those kinds of assumptions about others and then drop your guts when others make assumptions about you in turn? Oh, okay... that's pretty funny.

Let me put it this way for you...

All of your assumptions are wrong...

So... if I were to assume you have never actually shot a bear with a handgun yourself - nor seen anyone else have to shoot a bear with a handgun in self defense - I would be wrong?

And if I were to assume that as a prospector, just about every single claim you've registered is via BC's internet-based Mineral Titles Online while sitting inside in front of a computer, not the old compass, axe, and stakes method where you had to actually go out in the bush and physically stake it? Would I be wrong?

And even at that, I'm also going to guess you've only registered a handful of claims by either method - and that you definitely don't make the money that buys the groceries, pays the mortgage, buys the truck and puts the fuel in it, etc from being a "prospector". Prospecting is mostly a hobby that gets you out in the bush in your truck and lets you get an ATC so you can justify buying and carrying all those hand cannons of yours, while the serious money comes from the family fortune, the wife, or a previous occupation which you did very well at. But, maybe I'm wrong...

Where did you say you are right now?

Something about sitting in an office...

That's right. In my office, out here in the sticks... whether it's my place in Montana or my place in the Kootenays. I don't have to travel more than about 20 minutes from either house to be out hunting black bear, grizzly bear, and cougar - the last elk I shot was ten minutes from the house via mountain bike. Meanwhile, you struggle daily with survival in the urban sprawl that is the Lower Mainland, correct? I understand that dealing with rush hour twice a day in the 'burbs, surrounded by several million people, can be a real killer. I feel your pain, you ol' bush rat you... it must be hell living in that wilderness.

By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but when you do eventually get around to registering a claim with Mineral Titles Online, you do it...

...while sitting with your ass in a chair in front of a computer monitor, correct?

So... you either spend some time sitting in an office in front of a computer yourself while doing your prospector thing. Or... you don't spend much time sitting in an office because you actually register so few claims that you really need to spend any time in an office doing administrative stuff anyways.

I also can't help but notice that, while you've been a member here about 30% less time than I have, your post count still exceeds mine. So all that time you spend out of the office compared to me, deprived of the Internet, apparently isn't all that bad...

Self employed people have two things - those that actually work at it, rather than playing at something as a hobby, that is - to keep them amused. First, you need an office, because data requires post processing, whoever you're contracting to want maps and reports, etc. Let's not forget that the government requires you to keep a set of books, remit taxes, etc. And of course you need a place to put plotters, digitizers, or whatever the tools of your profession are. Those things don't fit in the wife's panty drawer.

The job isn't over when your rucksack and equipment end up in the back of the truck. Not when you do it for a living instead of a hobby, it isn't. And so some of us need and have offices.

The second thing self employed people have is some flexibility in choosing when they're working and when they're just going to sit in the office and enjoy their view of the Rockies. It doesn't mean you work any less - it just means you have some choice of what days you work and what days you don't work.

If you ever get tired of playing at being a prospector, let me know, a GPS job with a total station is generally a two man crew. The pay ain't bad, actually, and we split the loads equally, so a young pup like yourself with a half decent packboard shouldn't have much trouble keeping up with me in the boonies. You'll get lots of helicopter rides at the beginning and end of each trip - and it's cooler posting here about riding around in helicopters than the difficulties of handgun selection when one is obligated to be jumping in and out of trucks all day. Besides, that jumping in and out of trucks all day while prospecting that you spoke of earlier in this thread is dangerous - you could sprain an ankle doing that, y'know! Or spill your coffee in your lap if you hit a bump! There's a threat to your naughty bits if there ever was one!

One final point. If you are interested in the job, forget this "I'll be away for a couple of days, dear" stuff. Some are, but most are three to six weeks out in the sticks. You'll have internet and phone service to keep you in touch with back home, but you better figure on not seeing your wife and your recent addition to the family for weeks at a time.

And THAT is what is properly called "remote wilderness time" - booting around on roads in your truck for a couple of days with periodic stops to jump in and out just doesn't cut it. Talking about driving around in your truck in your "remote wilderness experience" is an oxymoron.

BTW, are we having fun yet?

 

[Calum]

 

[Boomer]

Rick -

I think we can agree that all manufactured goods are made within certain tolerances, and those manufactured products are designed to operate within certain tolerances. These include the manufactured products which make up our firearms, the components of our ammunition, the tools we use to assemble and test that ammunition, and most other things in our daily lives.

When I am working up a load I can normally find the maximum pressure in 5 rounds - sometimes a couple more - sometimes a couple less. If I see extractor marks on the base of a case, if the load looks promising I might continue with that load to see if it was just one soft case head or if the pressure is too high. However, if I encounter a high pressure danger sign, such as a difficult bolt lift, I have recorded the load that created that pressure is, and I have a recorded the velocity that resulted from that pressure. I do not need to repeat a dangerous situation a dozen times to know that it is dangerous, and I do not need to test my firearms to failure to find out how much pressure they will take. If I am paying attention, I will probably notice that the velocity of my incrementally increased charges has plateaued prior to the difficult bolt lift. The load on the low side of the plateau is what will give me the performance I need from the bullet I have chosen, and from that point I begin working up an accuracy load (if accuracy is specifically what I am interested in) which must prove itself over a number of firings across the chronograph, and at targets at various ranges.

During the loading process the handloader mitigates the elements which might lead to a pressure spike. Any pressure spike of significance will show up as higher than normal velocity. If the pressure spike does not result in higher velocity, and if it does not leave a warning sign on the case it is insignificant. If the a detonation occurs the velocity will be lower, but the shooter won’t care, because he’ll be combing iron out of his whiskers - the same way he would have had there been a strain gauge glued to his barrel. In the real world, the chronograph is a useful way to measure pressure, just like a recreational GPS is a useful devise to measure distance. Neither will give the results within 8 decimal places, but both provide useful information to the user.

If we were to follow your arguments to their full extent, no one but a statistician could hit anything with a rifle at any range, even if we even knew what that range was.. No one but a statistician could load accurate ammunition. No one but a statistician, could make predictions about how a bullet would react on game at a given velocity. The trouble is many of us in the real world can hit our targets at known and unknown ranges. The groups we fire with our handloads are small enough to embarrass (or encourage) the commercial ammunition manufacturers. Many of us have observed bullet wounds in game, so that we know that low velocity bullets do not simply turn small game to mush through energy transfer, never mind causing temporary wound cavities which flatten dangerous game.

 

[magicchip]

Calum, that pretty much sums up this thread.

 

[NAA]

That pic, like this thread, depicting a clear violation of the laws of physics... to wit: two things trying to occupy the same space at the same time...lol...

 

[Rick]

If I am paying attention, I will probably notice that the velocity of my incrementally increased charges has plateaued prior to the difficult bolt lift.

I can agree with you on velocity plateauing, but it is easily possible to be well over SAAMI spec before seeing marks on cases, sticky bolt lift, etc. If one doesn't care whether or not they're a bit (or maybe more than a bit) over SAAMI spec, then perhaps that is not an issue. And there's more than a few handloaders out there that keep right on going until they do see physical signs.

Any pressure spike of significance will show up as higher than normal velocity. If the pressure spike does not result in higher velocity, and if it does not leave a warning sign on the case it is insignificant. If the a detonation occurs the velocity will be lower, but the shooter won’t care, because he’ll be combing iron out of his whiskers

Velocity correlates to the area under the pressure trace for the bullet's passage down the barrel - not to the highest pressure achieved. If you believe you can not have a pressure spike without either higher velocities or warning signs in one single instance of that pressure spike... well, that's interesting.

If we were to follow your arguments to their full extent, no one but a statistician could hit anything with a rifle at any range, even if we even knew what that range was.. No one but a statistician could load accurate ammunition.

Obviously, you've been having difficulty following my argument.

Do you think there might be a reason that competitive shooters test loads by shooting a series of groups with those loads? Now why would they do that if they don't make their living as statisticians? Do you think it's possible that at the very least they intuitively realize one three shot group or one five shot group doesn't tell them what they need to know about the performance of that load? Do you think they realize that incrementally chronographing one shot of each load really doesn't tell them much of use? I wouldn't even be surprised if, while you think you can determine maximum pressures after about five shots with incremental charges over a chronograph, you test a load by firing more than one group to confirm it. Now why would you be doing that if you don't work as a statistician?

Some things you don't have to be a statistician - or you shouldn't have to be a statistician - to realize.

However (seeing as you feel up to misstating my position, I'm going to have a flier at interpreting yours), you would have us believe that a chronograph can tell you what the operating pressure of a load is - from a single shot no less. It would seem that extreme spreads and pressure fluctuations that could cause high or low values don't occur in your world. It must be an interesting place...

You may well think that assessing the statistical possibilities of events while developing loads is irrelevant. Fair enough, but I note that the casinos in Los Vegas have been getting rich for a long time from people who have no grasp of probability and predictability.

 

[Camp Cook]

WOW I am now even more amazed by you...

I'm going to assume something... Do you go by the user name Kooteney on other chat forums because your style is amazing like his?

If I remember right Kooteney was banned form here....

I'll give you a little tidbit for you to chew on because your assumptions are once again wrong...

Due to an extremely lucrative finacial success I retired at the ripe old age of 42 which is now 5 years ago... (Guess you could say I struck it rich who knows maybe it was from prospecting and being able to sell off to the right junior mining company? I've gotten to love those royalty cheques that keep coming in every month )

So no thanks I really don't need any kind of a job that you could offer...

This may give you an insight into why I have been able to get my thread count up over yours that is if I am to assume that you are not Kooteney which totally changes everything...

If you are this Kooteney then I don't stand a chance so I formally concede to you and humbly bow out of this thread...

 

[Gatehouse]

Rick and Kutenay are not the same person.

 

[G37]

Ok... I've got a Non-Restricted rifle with some 10rnd AR mags... seriously:
.223 remington (18.5" barrel) vs 10mm (5" barrel) (any bullet for either is allowed, please specify)

I know a shotgun would be ideal and what I'd carry (if that was a concern for me)... but the kid in me wants to know which one of the two you'd rather have in a defensive situation versus say... Mmmm... I dunno... a bear?

Anyone?

 

[magicchip]

OK, Calum, I believe you have something meaningful to add to this discussion

 

[Calum]

Indeed I have Magic. With all this talk about 10mm vs .45 something far more important is being overlooked...the real danger, the Internet:

 

[Camp Cook]

Thanks Gatehouse...

I stand corrected...

Rick lets start again if I have written anything that has offended you I apologize.

No hard feelings on my part...

 

[Gatehouse]

Ok... I've got a Non-Restricted rifle with some 10rnd AR mags... seriously:
.223 remington (18.5" barrel) vs 10mm (5" barrel) (any bullet for either is allowed, please specify)

I know a shotgun would be ideal and what I'd carry (if that was a concern for me)... but the kid in me wants to know which one of the two you'd rather have in a defensive situation versus say... Mmmm... I dunno... a bear?

Anyone?

I would hunt bears up to 100 yards away with a 223 and a 53gr TSX bullet. If I was hunitng bears with a handgun, I'd want something more powerful than a 10mm.

Rifles are generally easier to shoot well than handguns.

A 223 TSX will presumably expand to 1.5 it's original diameter (or more) to at least .34 caliber.

I think it would penetrate more than the handgun bullet- Although have not tested each side by side.

I'd go for the 223, wih=th premium bullets.