TexasCHLforum.com

AlaskanInTexas wrote:I'll start with my displays of ignorance:

1. I understand that lead and copper are soft, but I cannot understand how barrels are able to tolerate tens of thousands of rounds without quickly wearing out. It's because the copper and lead are soft, and they are softer under heat. They are definitely softer than steel. Abrasion from particulates like carbon are more likely to wear out barrels than the metals with which the bullets are made.

2. I don't understand why most center fire handguns are chambered for big slow bullets instead of small fast bullets, like rifles. Because even if cartridge size weren't an issue, controlling a 800 ft-lb .44 magnum is hard enough.....imagine controlling a 2,820 ft-lb handgun. See #3 for the rest of the answer.

3. I don't understand how projectiles fired from my magnum rifles can hit with 3,000+ feet pounds of energy, but the stock does not hit my shoulder with the same amount (though it often feels like it does!). Don't confuse energy with velocity. Your bullet weighs maybe 180 grains. Your rifle weighs maybe 59,500 grains (8.5 lb). Your bullet's muzzle velocity is maybe 2,960 fps. Your rifle weighs 330.5 times as much as the bullet. Physics says that the reaction must be equal to the action. The rearward velocity of the buttstock would be the same as the muzzle velocity of the bullet if the gun weighed the same as the bullet, but it doesn't. In other words, the variables of mass and velocity are not the same on both ends of the transaction. The rifle weighs 330.5 times the bullet weight. Divide the muzzle velocity of the bullet by 330.5, and your rifle recoils backward at 9 fps. So you experience the mass of a 59,500 grain object hitting your shoulder at 9 fps, while the buck experiences the mass of a 180 grain object hitting its shoulder at 2960 fps. The math may not be perfect, but the principle is there. In order to keep the balance of energy the same on both sides of the transaction, the variables must result in the same numerical value. If a given variable on Side A of the transaction is much larger than its counterpart on Side B of the transaction, then the multiplier on Side A must be much smaller than its counterpart on Side B to compensate for the difference.

[....edited to remove an unintentional "$" from in front of the "2,960." Force of habit, I guess.....]

4. I don't understand why a good 1911 costs more than a riding lawnmower; it seems like the lawnmower requires more in material costs, and I would expect the engine at least to be built with some significant attention to tolerances. By your analogy, a lawnmower would also cost more than a 5 carat diamond ring. Also, it has to do with the economies of scale. A lawnmower is mass produced on an assembly line. They are made by the millions. A quality 1911 is an entirely hand made piece, manufactured in lower volumes. The lawnmower will save your lawn from the HOA. A 1911 will save your life. Which is worth more?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

AlaskanInTexas wrote:I'll start with my displays of ignorance:

1. I understand that lead and copper are soft, but I cannot understand how barrels are able to tolerate tens of thousands of rounds without quickly wearing out. It's because the copper and lead are soft, and they are softer under heat. They are definitely softer than steel. Abrasion from particulates like carbon are more likely to wear out barrels than the metals with which the bullets are made.

2. I don't understand why most center fire handguns are chambered for big slow bullets instead of small fast bullets, like rifles. Because even if cartridge size weren't an issue, controlling a 800 ft-lb .44 magnum is hard enough.....imagine controlling a 2,820 ft-lb handgun. See #3 for the rest of the answer.

3. I don't understand how projectiles fired from my magnum rifles can hit with 3,000+ feet pounds of energy, but the stock does not hit my shoulder with the same amount (though it often feels like it does!). Don't confuse energy with velocity. Your bullet weighs maybe 180 grains. Your rifle weighs maybe 59,500 grains (8.5 lb). Your bullet's muzzle velocity is maybe $2,960 fps. Your rifle weighs 330.5 times as much as the bullet. Physics says that the reaction must be equal to the action. The rearward velocity of the buttstock would be the same as the muzzle velocity of the bullet if the gun weighed the same as the bullet, but it doesn't. In other words, the variables of mass and velocity are not the same on both ends of the transaction. The rifle weighs 330.5 times the bullet weight. Divide the muzzle velocity of the bullet by 330.5, and your rifle recoils backward at 9 fps. So you experience the mass of a 59,500 grain object hitting your shoulder at 9 fps, while the buck experiences the mass of a 180 grain object hitting its shoulder at 2960 fps. The math may not be perfect, but the principle is there. In order to keep the balance of energy the same on both sides of the transaction, the variables must result in the same numerical value. If a given variable on Side A of the transaction is much larger than its counterpart on Side B of the transaction, then the multiplier on Side A must be much smaller than its counterpart on Side B to compensate for the difference.

4. I don't understand why a good 1911 costs more than a riding lawnmower; it seems like the lawnmower requires more in material costs, and I would expect the engine at least to be built with some significant attention to tolerances. By your analogy, a lawnmower would also cost more than a 5 carat diamond ring. Also, it has to do with the economies of scale. A lawnmower is mass produced on an assembly line. They are made by the millions. A quality 1911 is an entirely hand made piece, manufactured in lower volumes. The lawnmower will save your lawn from the HOA. A 1911 will save your life. Which is worth more?

srothstein wrote:Further support for this argument would be the history of cartridge ammunition. Early on, rifles and pistols were both chambers for the same round, such as the 38-40. You can still find some rifles chambered for pistol rounds (.45 LC, 44 Mag, and 357 mag come to mind). Note that these are considered relatively short ranged for rifles, IMO. As we refined weapons and ammunition, it developed into more specialized usage and each separated into their respective areas.

AlaskanInTexas wrote:Well this has been fun and educational! Makes me wish I had taken more physics and less accounting. I'm still not convinced it costs more to make a 1911 than a riding lawn mower...

gigag04 wrote:

AlaskanInTexas wrote:Well this has been fun and educational! Makes me wish I had taken more physics and less accounting. I'm still not convinced it costs more to make a 1911 than a riding lawn mower...

It has little to do with the cost of making a single lawn mower, but the cost of being able to produce 200,000 lawn mowers.


Custom 1911s are one-offs. Factored into the end price is parts, labor, prestige, and market demand.

gigag04 wrote:

AlaskanInTexas wrote:Well this has been fun and educational! Makes me wish I had taken more physics and less accounting. I'm still not convinced it costs more to make a 1911 than a riding lawn mower...

It has little to do with the cost of making a single lawn mower, but the cost of being able to produce 200,000 lawn mowers.


Custom 1911s are one-offs. Factored into the end price is parts, labor, prestige, and market demand.

AlaskanInTexas wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

AlaskanInTexas wrote:Well this has been fun and educational! Makes me wish I had taken more physics and less accounting. I'm still not convinced it costs more to make a 1911 than a riding lawn mower...

It has little to do with the cost of making a single lawn mower, but the cost of being able to produce 200,000 lawn mowers.


Custom 1911s are one-offs. Factored into the end price is parts, labor, prestige, and market demand.

I don't know how "a good 1911" has morphed into a "custom one-off 1911." I am talking something along the lines of a factory Kimber in the $1,200 range. I don't have any data on this, but I would expect to find that more 1911's are produced in a given year than riding lawn mowers. I could be wildly wrong. My personal view is that it costs more to make a riding lawnmower, in terms of materials and labor than a 1911, and that the increased margin on a 1911 is due to lack of supply and to barriers (both legal and reputational) to entry into the 1911 market.

You know you have strung together too many long nights at work, when you start to compare lawnmowers and guns!

The Annoyed Man wrote:Also, you must not own or have spent much time shooting a quality 1911.

Dave2 wrote:I've always wondered why so many pistol designs are so similar. Almost every 9mm or greater pistol on the market essentially has the 1911 action. It seems like gunsmiths would get bored after a while and come up with something else just to see how well it works (or doesn't).

AlaskanInTexas wrote:I don't have any data on this, but I would expect to find that more 1911's are produced in a given year than riding lawn mowers. I could be wildly wrong.