On 3/30/14, 9:14 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 15:28:26 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/30/14, 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:11:27 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/30/14, 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 05:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 5:30:34 AM UTC-7, John H. wrote:

I'm wondering if the .45ACP capability of the S&W is worth it. How hard is .45 Colt to come by. I

sure don't ever see it in my favorite, most beloved, WalMart store.

Probably harder than you think, and more than you care.

I like the LC but not every place has it because there's not much demand for it.

I think the attractiveness of .45 ACP is that they tend to go cheaper
than .45 LC

If you shoot a lot, this can make a lot of difference.



The attractiveness of the .45 ACP has a lot to do with the fact that the
round, its size, its casing, its powder charge, were redesigned for
semi-auto pistols, while the .45 LC round is used mostly in revolvers
and "cowboy" style lever-action rifles. There are far more "Automatic
Colt Pistols" in use these days, I would guess, than .45 LC wheel guns.
You are also correct that the ACP rounds are cheaper..about half the
price these days of a LC round.

http://tinyurl.com/kw9qz8b

The real problem with .45LC is the archaic history of it. A commercial
loader is pretty much limited to 14,000 PSI pressures where a .45 ACP
can load over 20,000 PSI.
Those are both over 100 years old tho. When you look at modern stuff
like .357SIG you see what you can do with a modern round in a modern
gun.

If you have a modern gun, know what it is capable of and load yourself
you could get .45LC up to .44mag performance. The problem is if some
yahoo put that round in an old .45, you have a grenade.
Personally, if I wanted a big bore revolver, I would go with a .44 mag
in the first place. Then I would have a great range of off the shelf
ammo. You can shoot anything from a very modest .44 spl to a hot .44
mag. Wheel gun guys should really look at reloading anyway. Catching
the brass in not a problem and cheap cast bullets are a viable
alternative to pricy factory jacketed stuff for your day to day
plinking.
If you are willing to cast your own bullets, you can shoot .45 for
about 6-8 cents a shot. That assumes your time is not as important as
your money. I used to reload pistol but I never fooled with shotgun
and I did not cast my own bullets.



I would guess a huge percentage of guys shooting .45 Colt are engaged in
"cowboy" shooting, and are not looking for high pressures. I've even
seen some .45 in what was called Smith & Wesson .45, a round shorter
than the .45 Colt round.

If you are not in actual "cowboy" competition I am still not sure what
the attractiveness if .45LC is.
I imagine you could shoot a "SA Army" type, 44 mag revolver, with .44
spc loads.
It gives you some real bang if you need it., soft pop if you don't.



You are mentally limiting what others might do by what you might do.
Some like the Colt round and pistol for nostalgic reasons, I'd bet. I
know I do.

On 3/31/14, 1:26 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 22:07:52 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I would guess a huge percentage of guys shooting .45 Colt are engaged in
"cowboy" shooting, and are not looking for high pressures. I've even
seen some .45 in what was called Smith & Wesson .45, a round shorter
than the .45 Colt round.

If you are not in actual "cowboy" competition I am still not sure what
the attractiveness if .45LC is.
I imagine you could shoot a "SA Army" type, 44 mag revolver, with .44
spc loads.
It gives you some real bang if you need it., soft pop if you don't.



You are mentally limiting what others might do by what you might do.
Some like the Colt round and pistol for nostalgic reasons, I'd bet. I
know I do.


... and you say I am the dinosaur


You like obsolete computers and operating systems. There's nothing
obsolete about a .45 Colt round; it still does the job, and against
modern adversaries. It's not like trying to run complex, contemporary
software in a decades old computer with a decade old OS.

On 3/31/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 07:53:17 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 1:26 AM, wrote:

You are mentally limiting what others might do by what you might do.
Some like the Colt round and pistol for nostalgic reasons, I'd bet. I
know I do.


... and you say I am the dinosaur


You like obsolete computers and operating systems. There's nothing
obsolete about a .45 Colt round; it still does the job, and against
modern adversaries. It's not like trying to run complex, contemporary
software in a decades old computer with a decade old OS.

My OS is not obsolete, for all the same reasons.

What will W/8 do that I can't? (Apple too for that matter)



I don't stay down to speed, as it were, on XP or the computers on which
it runs. I suppose I could run XP on my iMac but why would I want to do
that?

On 3/31/14, 2:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:34:48 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 07:53:17 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 1:26 AM, wrote:

You are mentally limiting what others might do by what you might do.
Some like the Colt round and pistol for nostalgic reasons, I'd bet. I
know I do.


... and you say I am the dinosaur


You like obsolete computers and operating systems. There's nothing
obsolete about a .45 Colt round; it still does the job, and against
modern adversaries. It's not like trying to run complex, contemporary
software in a decades old computer with a decade old OS.

My OS is not obsolete, for all the same reasons.

What will W/8 do that I can't? (Apple too for that matter)



I don't stay down to speed, as it were, on XP or the computers on which
it runs. I suppose I could run XP on my iMac but why would I want to do
that?

Andy Grove and Bill Gates summed it up. Bill wrote software to sell
Grove's new hardware. A perfect storm of planned obsolescence.
I am surprised an anti-corporation guy like you falls for it.
The only reason you need more speed is because the bloated software
needs it. A clean XP machine runs as fast as a W/8 machine. It is just
not dragging around an extra gig of software behind it.

If you really want a fast machine, load XP on a machine that was
shipped with W/8 or even 7.
(Like my lap top)

Most "slow" computers are just slowed by the spyware and useless
crapware people get tricked into loading on it.
For the same amount of work you would have to do to move to a new
machine, you could just reload your old one. That is trivial if you
have a good disk image of it when it was clean.



I doubt my MAC OS is as bloated as the typical setup suite on most new
Windoze machines, and I also doubt an obsolete Win XP setup with its old
CPU's, video card, slow drive and limited RAM are going to keep pace.

I'm not aware of any spyware or crapware Apple includes with the OS.
That's much more of a Windoze phenom, eh?

My iMac has a four core i7 CPU, 24 GB's of RAM, a fast video card and a
SSD for its hard drive. I don't think your warp drive XP is going to
transcode videos via Handbrake as quickly as either my desktop or laptop
on OSx.9+

I'm not sure XP has the drivers necessary to operate the hardware on a
contemporary i7 Windoze box.

On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:01:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 2:49 PM, wrote:

Andy Grove and Bill Gates summed it up. Bill wrote software to sell
Grove's new hardware. A perfect storm of planned obsolescence.
I am surprised an anti-corporation guy like you falls for it.
The only reason you need more speed is because the bloated software
needs it. A clean XP machine runs as fast as a W/8 machine. It is just
not dragging around an extra gig of software behind it.

If you really want a fast machine, load XP on a machine that was
shipped with W/8 or even 7.
(Like my lap top)

Most "slow" computers are just slowed by the spyware and useless
crapware people get tricked into loading on it.
For the same amount of work you would have to do to move to a new
machine, you could just reload your old one. That is trivial if you
have a good disk image of it when it was clean.



I doubt my MAC OS is as bloated as the typical setup suite on most new
Windoze machines, and I also doubt an obsolete Win XP setup with its old
CPU's, video card, slow drive and limited RAM are going to keep pace.

Keep pace with what? If your use doesn't change significantly, why
should your software change?

I'm not aware of any spyware or crapware Apple includes with the OS.
That's much more of a Windoze phenom, eh?

My iMac has a four core i7 CPU, 24 GB's of RAM, a fast video card and a
SSD for its hard drive. I don't think your warp drive XP is going to
transcode videos via Handbrake as quickly as either my desktop or laptop
on OSx.9+

I don't know about Apple but most of this junk comes from web sites
you go to, not things you select.


I'm not sure XP has the drivers necessary to operate the hardware on a
contemporary i7 Windoze box.

Why would I buy anything apple?


The only "junk" I get from websites, other than the usual cookie, is
stuff I select to get. And that usually is...nothing.

The software I use for some tasks takes advantage of faster processors,
faster GPU's, faster and more memory, and faster hard drives.

Do any DVD encoding?

On 3/31/14, 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:55:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote:


Do any DVD encoding?

I have no problem burning DVDs. (Copying them, stripping off the
trailers, remastering to strip the DRM, reformatting the video file or
whatever)
I am really getting away from DVD tho. I think any media on bits of
plastic is obsolete technology. I haven't fooled with music CDs for
close to a decade.
About the only thing I use them for is storing drivers and some tools
for when you are building a machine before it gets smart enough to
talk on the network.



Yes, well, on a modern computer with a modern OS, DVD encoding takes
place...faster. A lot faster. And encoding is a tad more than copying or
burning DVDs or stripping out DRM.

On 3/31/2014 9:53 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/31/14, 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:55:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote:


Do any DVD encoding?

I have no problem burning DVDs. (Copying them, stripping off the
trailers, remastering to strip the DRM, reformatting the video file or
whatever)
I am really getting away from DVD tho. I think any media on bits of
plastic is obsolete technology. I haven't fooled with music CDs for
close to a decade.
About the only thing I use them for is storing drivers and some tools
for when you are building a machine before it gets smart enough to
talk on the network.



Yes, well, on a modern computer with a modern OS, DVD encoding takes
place...faster. A lot faster. And encoding is a tad more than copying or
burning DVDs or stripping out DRM.

Sounds like you might be a bootlegging expert.

On 4/1/14, 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:53:41 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:55:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote:


Do any DVD encoding?

I have no problem burning DVDs. (Copying them, stripping off the
trailers, remastering to strip the DRM, reformatting the video file or
whatever)
I am really getting away from DVD tho. I think any media on bits of
plastic is obsolete technology. I haven't fooled with music CDs for
close to a decade.
About the only thing I use them for is storing drivers and some tools
for when you are building a machine before it gets smart enough to
talk on the network.



Yes, well, on a modern computer with a modern OS, DVD encoding takes
place...faster. A lot faster. And encoding is a tad more than copying or
burning DVDs or stripping out DRM.

I have made video files (going from AVI or MOV to WMV). This goes
pretty fast on a dual core 2.5mz machine or even a regular P4 3.0

It is certainly not $800 worth of new machine to save a minute once a
month or so.

I would want to see the speed before I bit anyway.
You are still talking about speed, not the OS.
On the same machine, XP would go faster than W8. If nothing else, you
would have more available RAM after the OS loaded



The time savings available when encoding with a modern computer and OS
is considerable, not just a minute, and the OS certainly is involved. Do
you think that programmers do not write code that takes advantage of
developments and improvements in the OS, as well as in the hardware?

I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus
Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either.