J David has 0 to say about my claim

Two things.

First, I also missed the "3/4 second" reference in J David's post; if it was there.

Second, even if he DID make that claim... Four shots means three 'split' times from between the first and fourth shots. Three splits over 3/4 second is .25 second split times; simple math.

And you yourself have said:

andy said:

My idea of controling a powerful defensive pistol is .17 second splits, on repeat hits to the 10" chest circle, at 6 ft, one handed,or at 10ft,both hands on the gun.

Click to expand...

(From the a thread in the "Handguns" section.)

So you say it can be done with a "powerful" pistol, on a "ten inch" target, at "six feet", "one handed" with ".17 second splits". (Your words.)

But you now say it can't be done with a single-action auto in .25acp at contact distance, at a 47% slower speed (.17 vs .25 second splits)...?

And before we get into the "10-inch versus eyeball" target size debate, consider this. Figure his barrel was two inches from the eyesocket, and the eye is 1 1/2" inches (approx) in diameter. That's the equivalent of a 90" target at 10 feet. [1.5 / 2 x 120] A 10" diameter target has 78.5 square inches of target area; a 90" diameter target has 6,361; making it more than 80 times as big a target.

Heck, let's say the attacker's got tiny eye sockets; just 1" in diameter. That's still the equivalent of a target 60" in diameter at ten feet. (Or 2,827 square inches of target; still 36 times[/i] larger than the target you list.)


So we've got a similar-functioning weapon action (SA auto), in a MUCH less-recoiling caliber, firing 47% slower, at a target that's at least36 TIMES larger (really more like 80 times larger), than what you yourself say your "idea of control" is.

Or saying it without the number clutter: Firing a weapon with an almost identical action, with a MUCH less recoiling round, shooting MUCH slower, at a MUCH larger target.

And yet you say it's impossible...?

GK - not listening again.

I didn't say "he" could do it. I said based on the numbers I laid out (which were based on numbers you've laid out), either:

1 - It's possible, or

2 - It's impossible.

That's all; no commentary on his ability whatsoever. Never having met the man, much less seeing him shoot, there's no way a person can comment on his ability, anymore than I can comment on his bowling skill or golf game.

In a fight, going from "locked in a life & death struggle" to "dead and still on the floor" is not going to happen in half a second. Even an animal, head-shot with a centerfire rifle, doesn't fall that fast. (Been there, done that, as they say.)

- And the animal isn't tensed, muscles locked, and pumped with adrenaline when shot, as would have been the case here.

- And the animal doesn't have an equal-size, still-upright animal holding them up, as was the case here.

- And that's with a powerful, centerfire rifle, not a .25 pocket pistol, as was the case here.

So no, the guy's not going to go from 'struggling' to 'dead and lying on the floor', in half a second.


Again I ask. What's wrong with my math?

This is why I always tell my boys, "Emotion is the enemy."

Emotions, whether negative (anger, jealousy, etc) or positive (jocularity, pride, etc), are the antithesis of reason. Sometimes that isn't a bad thing; an emotional thing can be very positive, such as watching a hilarious comedy, attending a loved-one's wedding, or seeing your kid win the big game. "Experiencing" emotion is pretty much unavoidable as a human being.

But letting actions or decisions be controlled (or even influenced) by emotion is ALWAYS a mistake.

What do I care if Rich, Bill, or GK agree or disagree with each other, or even with me? It costs me nothing, and it's not important enough (or at least shouldn't be important enough) to make me respond in a way I'd be embarrassed for my kids to read. Not belittling Rich, Bill, or GK; but their opinion of me or my stance on something is irrelevant to my life. And here's the important part: My opinion of them should mean equally little in their lives. If we step back for a minute, we have to realize how impersonal and low-impact these types of forums really are. (No offense, Rich. ) For all we really "KNOW", Rich, Bill, and GK could in fact be the same person, couldn't they...? Doubt it, personally, but I can't "know" for certain. And if I can't "know" a person's identity, how can I in good conscience let their opinions substantially influence my life?

In the strictest sense, we're like a bunch of strangers who are sitting in a dark room. Can't see each other, can't make eye contact, can't tell if we're talking to ten people or one person using different voices, or even talking to one person with multiple personalities. Yet many of us get fighting mad over what's said by these faceless, anonymous voices that are rambling in the darkness; that makes no sense to this big dumb *******. My suggestion would be to get over it; get past it; get through it; or somehow deal with it.

Just my (unemotional) opinion.


OK; flamethrowers back "on"... :flamethr: