Re: Studying an opponent and Omega Strikes

On Mar 10, 8:22 pm, Erol K. Bayburt <Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:20:04 -0600, "gleichman"
>
> <Fox1_217NoS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >"Erol K. Bayburt" <Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:jfr5v296k0rllbot72i9dl3vvg2et6rman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>Wrong.
>
> >> Explain please?
>
> >At it's most simple...
>
> [snip explaination]
>
> >I now expect not to be believed. I'm used to that, but in no real more
to
> >debate it yet again. There are good places to go to research this, and
for
> >any interested I suggest doing so.
>
> OK. I am skeptical of some but not all of your claims here, and I
> think a large part of our disagreement comes from different measures
> of "lethality" and from different opinions wrt the im****tance of
> bullet expansion. If one is limited to hardball ammo, that does reduce
> the differences between getting shot with a pistol vs a rifle, and I
> can see the argument for eliminating it.
>
> But I'm not in any better mood to debate this here and now than you
> are. Thanks for explaining your view on the matter.

I think his answer was pretty reasonable. As you did, I found his
first response rather unlikely but his explanation is fairly good
The fact that rifle rounds are usually, especially recently, of a
smaller caliber is telling. However, when he talks of pistol "rounds"
in automatic weapons with long barrels, he is no longer talking about
handguns.

The .44 magnum "round" is extremely powerful if shot from the short
barrel of a handgun but much moreso when fired from the longer barrel
of the carbine chambered for the round.

And, of course, he was talking about hits and not shots. He isn't
arguing that someone would be as likely to hit you with a handgun as
he would with a rifle.

Will in New Haven

--


>
> --
> Erol K. Bayburt
> Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]