Curt Doolittle

Form: Question

  • So, why don’t we just cut out the bureaucracy and license and build Russian mili

    So, why don’t we just cut out the bureaucracy and license and build Russian military hardware? Their equipment is superior because their design process is superior. And their design process is better because of the combination of the economic priority of the military sector, the russian character, design philosophy, and decision process. We win by our men, their character, training, combat philosophy, and maneuver. (really). We know the weakness in russian warfare, and it’s character. We know the strength in anglo-german warfare – and it’s character. (really). We know russian weapons are superior.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-14 09:37:00 UTC

  • Daniel Gurpide: of late you’ve put forth a criticism of nationalism. And I’ve su

    Daniel Gurpide: of late you’ve put forth a criticism of nationalism. And I’ve suggested that I might be wrong, in that I am thinking of monarchies, which are a lower level organization than a state. (family > monarchy > state

    > empire). Can you help me understand what you’re getting at please?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-12 10:56:00 UTC

  • Daniel Gurpide: of late you’ve put forth a criticism of nationalism. And I’ve su

    Daniel Gurpide: of late you’ve put forth a criticism of nationalism. And I’ve suggested that I might be wrong, in that I am thinking of monarchies, which are a lower level organization than a state. (family > monarchy > state > empire). Can you help me understand what you’re getting at please?

  • Daniel Gurpide: of late you’ve put forth a criticism of nationalism. And I’ve su

    Daniel Gurpide: of late you’ve put forth a criticism of nationalism. And I’ve suggested that I might be wrong, in that I am thinking of monarchies, which are a lower level organization than a state. (family > monarchy > state > empire). Can you help me understand what you’re getting at please?

  • AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy

    AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy absorption. Is there any difference? At short range (Pistol) where I can point shoot – I want a slow, fat, heavy bullet that doesn’t go on forever. At medium range (SMG) with I want balanced faster bullet with lower recoil. At longer range I want a faster, longer, thinner but still heavy bullet(Rifle). At longest range I want an aerodynamic bullet with as much mass as possible(Sniper or Vehicle Mounted rifle/MG) As far as I know 45/50 pistol 9mm SMG, .65/.7 Rifle, and .5BMG are pretty much the optimums. And if you’re using two bullets you are firing on a borderline between pistol and smg. So most caliber talk that I know of consists of trying to produce the wrong effect from the wrong size of weapon. Now, I can totally understand the 9mm affectionados. Because at double the rounds and longer distance using sights it’s bridging that distance between a pistol and an smg. A 1911 in 9mm (The original caliber believe it or not) has fewer rounds, but makes a great race gun. A 6″ 1911 with the extended sight picture is probably even better. And so I think the science says and now the logic as well both say that the data is in enough, and that it’s possible to buy ammunition that negates the differences. But if we’re talking about military grade (volume) ammo, I think the story is finished. It’s basic physics. A fat heavy thing transfers more energy faster. Thinner lighter thing more slowly. It’s just resistance. simple stuff.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-10 11:02:00 UTC

  • AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy

    AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy absorption. Is there any difference? At short range (Pistol) where I can point shoot – I want a slow, fat, heavy bullet that doesn’t go on forever. At medium range (SMG) with I want balanced faster bullet with lower recoil. At longer range I want a faster, longer, thinner but still heavy bullet(Rifle). At longest range I want an aerodynamic bullet with as much mass as possible(Sniper or Vehicle Mounted rifle/MG) As far as I know 45/50 pistol 9mm SMG, .65/.7 Rifle, and .5BMG are pretty much the optimums. And if you’re using two bullets you are firing on a borderline between pistol and smg. So most caliber talk that I know of consists of trying to produce the wrong effect from the wrong size of weapon. Now, I can totally understand the 9mm affectionados. Because at double the rounds and longer distance using sights it’s bridging that distance between a pistol and an smg. A 1911 in 9mm (The original caliber believe it or not) has fewer rounds, but makes a great race gun. A 6″ 1911 with the extended sight picture is probably even better. And so I think the science says and now the logic as well both say that the data is in enough, and that it’s possible to buy ammunition that negates the differences. But if we’re talking about military grade (volume) ammo, I think the story is finished. It’s basic physics. A fat heavy thing transfers more energy faster. Thinner lighter thing more slowly. It’s just resistance. simple stuff.

  • AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy

    AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy absorption. Is there any difference? At short range (Pistol) where I can point shoot – I want a slow, fat, heavy bullet that doesn’t go on forever. At medium range (SMG) with I want balanced faster bullet with lower recoil. At longer range I want a faster, longer, thinner but still heavy bullet(Rifle). At longest range I want an aerodynamic bullet with as much mass as possible(Sniper or Vehicle Mounted rifle/MG) As far as I know 45/50 pistol 9mm SMG, .65/.7 Rifle, and .5BMG are pretty much the optimums. And if you’re using two bullets you are firing on a borderline between pistol and smg. So most caliber talk that I know of consists of trying to produce the wrong effect from the wrong size of weapon. Now, I can totally understand the 9mm affectionados. Because at double the rounds and longer distance using sights it’s bridging that distance between a pistol and an smg. A 1911 in 9mm (The original caliber believe it or not) has fewer rounds, but makes a great race gun. A 6″ 1911 with the extended sight picture is probably even better. And so I think the science says and now the logic as well both say that the data is in enough, and that it’s possible to buy ammunition that negates the differences. But if we’re talking about military grade (volume) ammo, I think the story is finished. It’s basic physics. A fat heavy thing transfers more energy faster. Thinner lighter thing more slowly. It’s just resistance. simple stuff.
  • photos_and_videos/TheGreatGame_10155865944942264/23316286_10155867994692264_3764

    photos_and_videos/TheGreatGame_10155865944942264/23316286_10155867994692264_3764

    photos_and_videos/TheGreatGame_10155865944942264/23316286_10155867994692264_3764326139025187025_n_10155867994692264.jpg The difference between de-horning and “melting”. Why can’t I buy a ‘melted’ 1911 without sending it out for a $1500 custom treatment? It’s the age of computer aided manufacturing.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-09 09:27:00 UTC

  • The difference between de-horning and “melting”. Why can’t I buy a ‘melted’ 1911

    The difference between de-horning and “melting”. Why can’t I buy a ‘melted’ 1911 without sending it out for a $1500 custom treatment? It’s the age of computer aided manufacturing.

  • The difference between de-horning and “melting”. Why can’t I buy a ‘melted’ 1911

    The difference between de-horning and “melting”. Why can’t I buy a ‘melted’ 1911 without sending it out for a $1500 custom treatment? It’s the age of computer aided manufacturing.