Firearm Forums - Arms Locker banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know you guys flunked math, but let me TRY to explain to you what that 20" pattern MEANS. The Area of a circle is determined by multiplying "pi" (3.14) x the square of the radius. The radius being half of the diameter. So a 20" circle has a 10" radius. That means that the 20" circle's area is 100 (10 squared) x 3.14, which comes out at 314 square inches. Your 9 pellets of 00 buck are randomly distributed over that 314 square inches, so there's 35 square inches for each pellet. The chest vitals of a man's chest are either 12" x12" if he's frontal, or about 8"x12" if he's sideways. For convenience, we say it's a 10" circle. No, dummies, a 10" circle does NOT half half the area of a 20" circle. It has 5 squared x 3.14, or about 78 square inches. 78 isn't even 1/4 of 314 dummies.

So what you get is at best TWO lousy 00 pellets on the chest being all you can expect. At 20 yds, the pellets, even if they WERE started at "magnum" velocities of 1400 fps, are down to 1100 fps at best. Each 00 pellet weighs a whopping 60 grs, so each pellet, at 1100 fps, has a whole 160 ft lbs. From a rifle barrel, a .22 stinger has 160 ft lbs, guys. So would you EXPECT a couple of .22 stingers to the chest to stop a serious attacker, hmm? hell no, and you likewise shouldn't expect a couple of 00 pellets to do so, either, for the same reason. They just aint GOT enough poop to incapacitate a man at that range.

You can't COUNT on buckshot stopping a man, unless you get over HALF of the pellets into his chest, and bud, given errors in aiming, POOR sights and triggers on shotguns, lack of adequate practice, and typical shotgunner's laziness and bs about pointing it north and hitting south, that 50% hits on the chest does NOT occur at much range at all. NOt even at ranges that are EASY head shots with a good rifle. Like at 50 ft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
A 10 inch circle has exactly 1/4 of the area of a 20 inch circle.

The formula is pi * r^2 or you can write it as (pi * d^2 ) /4

A .223 shoots only one "pellet" at a time. So, at close range a 12 ga. is more likely to hit than a .223 rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Wlll, Unregistered, Andy, 223fan, not only did you flunk math (GBullet is absolutely correct), you also don't know what lead weighs. A pellet of 00 Buck (.33" diameter) does NOT weigh 60 grains.

Weight of a sphere of lead is figured like this:

(r^3)*12010. That 12010 figure takes in several constants, and I don't want to confuse you.

A pellet of 00 Buck weighs 54 grains.

DC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
that only means that a 00 pellet has

LESS energy than I said. 223 can wear a suppressor, so you flinch less, dont lose your night vision from firing it, and the enemy can't tell exactly where you are, from the blast and flash. The 223, with a can, is JUST as tame to use as is the .22lr conversion unit (without the can) That means that the 5-10k rds of practice per year (90% with the .22 unit) makes you a LOT more likely to hit (at speed) than the typical bozo is with a 12 ga pump. He's also then a LOT better able to handle ranges at which the 12 ga is quite hopelessly outclassed. (like 30m and beyond). :)

Just because you are too lazy, inept, cheap and chicken[bleep] to make or buy a can for 223 does not mean that everyone suffers from your handicaps. It just means that you are lazy, inept, cheap and chicken[bleep], and that's ALL it means.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
But the short range is a beauty of the shotgun. It allows you to defend against an assailant with less chance of hurting a neighbor or friend.

A shotgun is not the only tool, but is a valuable tool, nonetheless.

A turkey's head is a difficult target. If the CAR-15 in .223 or .22LR is so much more effectice than the shotgun, why is it not the turkey hunter's favorite?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
i'ts not that guys wouldn't PREFER

to use the suppressed rifle for hunting, believe that, dummy. it's because the "laws' say that you can't do so. So the shotgun is what you SHEEP end up THINKING is "so effective". :) You dont hunt turkey with 20" riot barrels, OR buckshot. If you do, you have to settle for bow and arrow type ranges, 20m and less, just like I said.. Bs like this the BEST you can come UP with? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Andy/223, I would have thought an old gunfighter like you would remember the basic rules. Evidently you've forgotten #'s 22 & 23, so I'll put them here to refresh your fantastic memory.

22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

23. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.


Courteous, polite & professional, 3 things you ain't.

DC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
GBullet said:
But the short range is a beauty of the shotgun. It allows you to defend against an assailant with less chance of hurting a neighbor or friend.

A shotgun is not the only tool, but is a valuable tool, nonetheless.

A turkey's head is a difficult target. If the CAR-15 in .223 or .22LR is so much more effectice than the shotgun, why is it not the turkey hunter's favorite?
Actually, I love using a .22wmr for turkey hunting (fall). AND, I HAVE used a .223 for turkey - it just wasted a bit more meat that I would have liked, so I use the .22wmr.

GK, is not exactly the person to have any discussion with that involves math.

Watch his threads on probability, and you'll see.

Civility, rational debate, normal social skills are foreign concepts to GK, if he holds to his normal pattern. (Everyone who doesn't agree 100% exactly with what he spews, is a stupe, or if you make the big time, a JJ)

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
u r the dumb<font color=red>[**censored**]</font> who "thinks" that

a 95%probabilty of a shot's stopping a man is only 20% better than a 75% sort of load. :) Dumbass, a 95% load fails 5 times in 100 shootings, and a 75% load fails 25 times in 100 shootings. So the 95% load is five times the better choice, not 1/5th better, FIVE TIMES BETTER. That is FACTUAL.

SO is what I say about hit/miss being EXACTLY the same 2 possible outcomes as the heads/tails of a coin toss. If you can't hit 6 times out of 10 tries, then the hits you get ARE PURE LUCK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
223 fan said:
a 95%probabilty of a shot's stopping a man is only 20% better than a 75% sort of load.
Huh?

Using that logic, a 100 percent stopper is only 25 percent better than a 75 percent stopper.

Let's start over. A 75% load fails five times as often as a 95% load.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,890 Posts
Of course if you're discussing M&S one shot stop "probabilities, they are meaningless numbers to begin with, there is not a statistically significant number of instances in any one caliber/bullet combination. Add to that the criteria are arbitrary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
irregardless, it DOES show that stagnant-

puddle is FOS about the math of it. :) He THINKS he's right,too. That's the FUNNY part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
223 fan said:
irregardless, it DOES show that stagnant-puddle is FOS about the math of it. :) He THINKS he's right,too. That's the FUNNY part.
There is no such word as "irregardless". It should read "regardless".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
You don't understand probabilities. which is why you insist that all random events have a 50-50 outcome - they don't.

Sometimes a purely random event can have a frequency of other than 50% of the time.

Hitting a moving target 5 times out of 10 may or may not be a random event.

It's not totally random, as the direction the rifle is pointed matters. (otherwise, pointing the rifle straight up would be just as effective as aiming - it isn't totally random)

There's lot's of factors in deciding probability.

My favorite discussion you have on probability deals with moving targets. You keep saying it's a 50-50 chance. If so, then the probability favors the shooter a lot more than it favors the guy running.

A probability of 50% means you're likely to get shot as a moving target. Maybe not on the first shot but certainly on a subsequent shot.

let's say you're right about it being a 50-50 deal.

let's say, for the sake of simplicity, it takes you three seconds to go from point a to point b, and I can fire 1 round a second. The odds of you not getting hit by at least one of the shots are .5 x .5 x .5 or .125

which is a 12.5% chance of NOT being hit, or an 87.5% chance of being hit.

Or do you want to argue the math?

And you've yet to show any grasp of probabilities at all. (wanna discuss confidence factors? regression? how about CHI squared tests?)

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
no, stupe, it's NOT a 4 cards in the deck

issue. The odds STAY the same for EACH shot. If 50-50 is what they were for the first shot, that's what EACH shot is. Nothing changes. The deck is "reshuffled" each time, and all the cards are put back into it each time. So the odds of drawing an ace REMAIN 4 out of 52. Your MISS didn't change a THING, except maybe to make the guy move FASTER, dodge MORE often, shoot at you as he runs, get CLOSER to you, scaring you like the <font color=red>[**censored**]</font> that you are. Shots blow your ears out, dazzle your eyes, upset you wben they miss All of those things make the odds of a hit WORSE, not better,dummy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
Re: no, stupe, it's NOT a 4 cards in the deck

223 fan said:
issue. The odds STAY the same for EACH shot. If 50-50 is what they were for the first shot, that's what EACH shot is. Nothing changes. The deck is "reshuffled" each time, and all the cards are put back into it each time. So the odds of drawing an ace REMAIN 4 out of 52. Your MISS didn't change a THING, except maybe to make the guy move FASTER, dodge MORE often, shoot at you as he runs, get CLOSER to you, scaring you like the <font color=red>[**censored**]</font> that you are. Shots blow your ears out, dazzle your eyes, upset you wben they miss All of those things make the odds of a hit WORSE, not better,dummy.
Wrong!

You don't understand probabability at all, as I have stated many times.

The odds of any one shot remains 50-50, but the odds of missing three times in a row is not 50-50

And I find it funny that you chose a non 50-50 distribution to prove your point.

4/52 is not a 50-50 probability is it? (it's a 1-13, which just underscores my point about not all random events being 50-50, and highlights you not having a basic understanding of math)

if you take two cards, one ace, one anything else. (this is a 50-50 distribution, you can draw an Ace, or the other card.)

the odds of three draws in a row (shuffling the two cards each time) of not drawing an ace at least once in the three times is:

.5 x .5 x .5 = .125, or a 12.5% chance that you will not draw the ace at least once.

Flip a coin three times in a row, same thing, there's a 87.5% chance that at least one time out of the three you will get a heads.

You prove your ignorance on math with each post...

Oh, am I supposed to be upset that you called me a name to try and hide the fact you don't have a clue?

Nice try, but you are a joke.

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
You might want to check out this site for an fairly simple explaination of why you're wrong (again).

Who knows, maybe you will even learn something.

To make it really simple, here are all the possible outcomes based on three attempts, each with a 50-50 outcome:

The first column is the first shot, the second the second, and the third the last.

H,H,H (three hits)
M,M,M (three misses)
H,H,M (two hits)
H,M,H (two hits)
M,H,H (two hits)
H,M,M (one hit)
M,H,M (one hit)
M,M,H (one hit)

There are seven possible outcomes where you would be hit at least once. There are four where you would be hit more than once.

There is only one possible outcome where you would not be hit at all.

By the way, this is called proving something. You explain why someone is wrong, give examples of why, that are repeatable and verifiable by anyone. This is not simply declaring someone to be wrong.

Don't hurt yourself trying to understand it. But, feel free to show me where I'm wrong. (not just declare it, but show - as in provide proof.)

And you call me a stupe? Ha ha ha ha guess this makes you something less than a stupe...

Good one boy blunder.

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
Hey gunkid - aren't you going to tell me I'm wrong?

all of a sudden, you're awfully quiet in this thread.

I guess being proved wrong again is something you can't deal with....


:devil:
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top