Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
The point the TK is I think missing is that I didnt talk of power in some abstract scientific sense, I spoke of it in terms in which it was materially comprehensible as defined by the usage of a hand gun.
|
Did you just type "some abstract scientific sense?" I have no idea what the hell the rest of this quote means, other than to say I weigh more than you--Not in some abstract scientific sense, but in terms which it is materially comprehensible as defined by the usage of weight.
Quote:
Now, if a Desert E has 1500 lbs/foot power and the Swith and Weston X Framce has 3000 lbs/foot -we can all see that 3000 is a bigger number than 1500. I propose that I might bring into the equation a rifle that is designed for shooting elephants that perhaps has 4500 lbs/foot power
But in terms of the real situation that a handgun would be used in, 1500 lbs/foot is above the maximum power that a handgun can affectly harness in usage. The gun with 3000 lbs/foot simply wastes 1500 lbs of power because it will never perform any function which would not be done equally as well by 1500.
|
There you go, pretending 1500 ft-lbs has some practical function again.
What is this 'real situation'?
What is this function?
You state that 1500 ft-lbs is "above the maximum power a handgun can affectly [sic] harness". What power DO you feel a handgun can effectively harness? I'd appreciate some links to data backing your opinion up, otherwise it's just an uninformed opinion.
You're actually unintentionally arguing AGAINST the 50AE Desert Eagle by admitting it's more power than can be 'harnessed' usefully.
Either more power is better, in which case you should go with the X-Frame, or more power than is needed to perform a useful task is overkill, in which case the Desert Eagle isn't justifiable over the 500 ft-lbs of the far more versatile and useful .45ACP, or the even more powerful (but still relatively mainstream) 640 ft-lbs of 10mm. Which is it?