Comments on: What a Study of Military Small Arms Innovation Has to Teach Us About Civilian Defensive Firearms: Balancing Competing Features, Ballistic Science and Lethality (1 of 3) https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/ Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:19:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Publication Alert: “The First Rule of Gunfighting is Have a Gun: Technologies of Concealed Carry in Gun Culture 2.0” | Gun Culture 2.0 https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-8234 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:11:01 +0000 http://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/?p=6512#comment-8234 […] history of the dum-dum bullet (Chapter 5) – a perspective that is criticized by Matthew Ford in his book on military weapons that I read […]

Like

]]> By: Matthew Ford https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-8102 Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:22:25 +0000 http://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/?p=6512#comment-8102 In reply to David Yamane.

Good spot. You rightly point out that joules is about energy not velocity.

The quote from Kneubuehl should be “muzzle energy of 7 joules” NOT muzzle “velocity” of 7 joules.

Not sure where the error crept in but it is (as was gently and generously pointed out) an honest error.

If the book ever gets to second edition then I’ll make sure it changes!

Matthew

Like

]]> By: “Gucci Kit” for the Concealed Carry Set | Gun Culture 2.0 https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-8078 Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:20:39 +0000 http://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/?p=6512#comment-8078 […] found some extra material that got left out of my first three posts (here and here and here) reflecting on Matthew Ford’s study of military small arms […]

Like

]]> By: What a Study Military Small Arms Innovation Has to Teach Us About Civilian Defensive Firearms: Defining End Users (3 of 3) | Gun Culture 2.0 https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-8076 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:14:23 +0000 http://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/?p=6512#comment-8076 […] lessons to be learned from Matthew Ford’s book about military small arms innovations. Part 1 considered balancing competing features of weapons, ballistic science and lethality, and Part 2 […]

Like

]]> By: What a Study Military Small Arms Innovation Has to Teach Us About Civilian Defensive Firearms: Defining the Battlefield (2 of 3) | Gun Culture 2.0 https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-8069 Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:59:52 +0000 http://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/?p=6512#comment-8069 […] This is the second of three planned posts reflecting on the civilian defensive firearms lessons to be learned from Matthew Ford’s book about military small arms innovations. Yesterday I wrote about balancing competing features of weapons, ballistic science and lethality. […]

Like

]]> By: khal spencer https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-8064 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:14:23 +0000 http://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/?p=6512#comment-8064 In reply to David Yamane.

Which is why we use hollow points…

Liked by 1 person

]]> By: matthewcarberryblog https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-8063 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:51:43 +0000 http://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/?p=6512#comment-8063 In reply to David Yamane.

I prefer parsecs per liter. Sure it means a few more conversions, but it ends up being more useful.

Liked by 1 person

]]> By: David Yamane https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-8062 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:40:20 +0000 http://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/?p=6512#comment-8062 In reply to khal spencer.

Yes makes sense. I know part of the issue in ballistic science was what measures to use. Energy, energy transfer, velocity, wound cavitation.

Liked by 2 people

]]> By: khal spencer https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-8061 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:45:12 +0000 http://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/?p=6512#comment-8061 Joules is an energy term, not a velocity term. The muzzle energy is a function of projectile mass and velocity.

I suspect it was some sort of honest editing mistake since his next comment is about energy. Just found this.
http://wredlich.com/ny/2013/01/projectiles-muzzle-energy-stopping-power/

Liked by 1 person

]]> By: David Yamane https://gunculture2point0.com/2018/10/18/what-a-study-military-small-arms-innovation-has-to-teach-us-about-civilian-defensive-firearms-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-8060 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:09:17 +0000 http://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/?p=6512#comment-8060 In reply to khal spencer.

That’s a quote from the author. Is that scientifically incorrect?

Liked by 1 person

]]>