Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,172 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just learned a new gun term, in a column by Clint Smith about the .41 Magnum in the new issue of GUNS magazine: cross-sectional density.

Now, I know what "cross section" means and I know what "sectional density" is but the CSD term is a new one on me. Can anyone tell me how it is calculated?

In the same piece, he talks about a group he shot at 10 yards "free hand." I have no idea what "free hand" pistol shooting means, either. :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
Snake45 said:
I just learned a new gun term, in a column by Clint Smith about the .41 Magnum in the new issue of GUNS magazine: cross-sectional density.

Now, I know what "cross section" means and I know what "sectional density" is but the CSD term is a new one on me. Can anyone tell me how it is calculated?

In the same piece, he talks about a group he shot at 10 yards "free hand." I have no idea what "free hand" pistol shooting means, either. :?
Hmmm...I used to have a sectional sofa, and Marty McFly's dad told his soon to be wife that he was her density,
but damned if i can figure out how to plug them into an equation.

Sorry, Snake. Couldn't resist. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
.
When I first read this I figured he was probably using the terms interchangeably.

FWIW, Wiki says:
Sectional density is the ratio of an object's mass to its cross-sectional area. (emphasis mine)
Source

They give the formula for the SD of a bullet as SD = mass ÷ diameter of bullet-squared. Units are Kg/meter-squared or lb./inch-squared. There are two references linked. Assume also that "free hand" just means unsupported.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
It is a common attribute among some of the big-name firearms instructors (as it may have been among some gun writers of yore) to develop their own unique terminology. If they are well enough known to accumulate their share of acolytes, use of that vocabulary by the acolytes serves as a sign of membership in "the club."

I have long decried the erroneous use of the term "center of mass," typically to describe the upper thoracic region on the human body (the actual center of mass of the human body is normally just below the navel). I recently saw a video in which an instructor referred to the head, the upper thorax and the pelvis as "centers of gravity."

I have graduated from an NRA Pistol Instructor course and three NRA-LEAD Instructor Development Schools and I don't recall any vocabulary or grammar tests in any of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
...And, gee, I thought that "cross sectional-density" had something to do with the thickness of anger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
Nah, Steve, it's the skull, the skull. :neer: :neer: :cluebat: :lol: :lol:
(Just kidding!!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
TommyGunn said:
Nah, Steve, it's the skull, the skull. :neer: :neer: :cluebat: :lol: :lol:
(Just kidding!!)
Yeah, perhaps we need to get with the guy who founded the St. Gabriel Posenti Society and ask him to change the patron saint of handgunners to Humpty Dumpty:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
spwenger said:
Yeah, perhaps we need to get with the guy who founded the St. Gabriel Posenti Society and ask him to change the patron saint of handgunners to Humpty Dumpty...
Naaaah...
Too thin-skinned.
:lol:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
now children... play nice :wink:

but how come nobody has suggested that he didn't know what he was talking about... :?

happens to me all the time :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,499 Posts
Charlie Petty said:
but how come nobody has suggested that he didn't know what he was talking about...
Well, it could be another editor who changed Colonel Cooper's Gunless Phantom to Gutless Phantom, being unable to understand that the US of A would build a fighter without a gun or the editor that followed every .38 special with the numbers 9.35 mm (or whatever G&A did in the horrible old days of KM signs on the National Defense Interstate Highways.)

Geoff
Who notes authors ALWAYS blame the editors...some even say their sacred text was improved! :shocked:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
some even say their sacred text was improved!
I certainly do. Back when Bill Parkerson was editor ofThe American Rifleman and I was the newbie I always compared the text I sent with what actually ran. Almost without exception his copy read better. He never changed the tone or a fact or conclusion it just was more polished. I learned a lot from him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Charlie Petty said:
some even say their sacred text was improved!
I certainly do. Back when Bill Parkerson was editor ofThe American Rifleman and I was the newbie I always compared the text I sent with what actually ran. Almost without exception his copy read better. He never changed the tone or a fact or conclusion it just was more polished. I learned a lot from him.
A really great editor is a kind of "transparent clean-up" man, who preserves the style and intent of the writer while making him look wiser and more polished. Another good example was William Shawn, of The New Yorker.
Years ago, The American Rifleman was one of those very few publications, the language, grammar, and usage of which were consistently exemplary. I'm sad to write that this is no longer true.
(It's no longer true of The New Yorker, as well.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
Steve M1911A1 said:
[quote="Charlie Petty":1171ejh0]
Years ago, The American Rifleman was one of those very few publications, the language, grammar, and usage of which were consistently exemplary. I'm sad to write that this is no longer true.
(It's no longer true of The New Yorker, as well.)
[/quote:1171ejh0]

True of a great many things. I've read a bunch of old books and the degradation of the language over the decades, particularly vocabulary, is shocking. But then, so is the comprehension level of many of the folk we're now burdened with. I found a paperback of Churchill's The River War* and found it a good read on several levels, but it wasn't an easy read. Someone who borrowed it returned it later that day, and not because he finished it.

*The British war(s) in the Sudan [Chinese Gordon/Kitchner vs the Dervishes], back when wars were expected to pay for themselves.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top