08-21-2010, 10:26 AM
To Scott:
Once again, you call people who have far more knowledge than you, for a far longer period, on this subject "silly". At best that is ill-judged. At worst ill-mannered ( and certainly name calling such as that is not acceptable on this forum). To quote Tom Cruise; "Put your manners back".
Otherwise you may find that people who have been patient with a relative newcomer to this subject pointing out in full all the flaws in your hypotheses......and then you might find your use of that word coming back to haunt you..... :roll: :roll:
To "Immortal":
You might want to check facts, figures and information before venturing an opinion such as the above ( see e.g. Scott's equally controversial and anecdotal, but opposite views to yours on arrows penetrating bronze armour). The contest between armour of all sorts and offensive weapons is an old one - there is even a science called 'ballistics' going back a long time. The contest between firearms and modern armour is not at all irrelevant. The laws of physics remain the same, whether we are considering the penetration of an iron spear against a bronze breast-plate, or depleted uranium rounds against composite 'chobham" armour.
Since the pistol was not invented until well after 1500 ( allegedly by Camillo Vitelli in Pistoia Italy), it follows that pistol 'proof' marks could not have appeared before renaissance times.
Once again, you call people who have far more knowledge than you, for a far longer period, on this subject "silly". At best that is ill-judged. At worst ill-mannered ( and certainly name calling such as that is not acceptable on this forum). To quote Tom Cruise; "Put your manners back".
Otherwise you may find that people who have been patient with a relative newcomer to this subject pointing out in full all the flaws in your hypotheses......and then you might find your use of that word coming back to haunt you..... :roll: :roll:
To "Immortal":
You might want to check facts, figures and information before venturing an opinion such as the above ( see e.g. Scott's equally controversial and anecdotal, but opposite views to yours on arrows penetrating bronze armour). The contest between armour of all sorts and offensive weapons is an old one - there is even a science called 'ballistics' going back a long time. The contest between firearms and modern armour is not at all irrelevant. The laws of physics remain the same, whether we are considering the penetration of an iron spear against a bronze breast-plate, or depleted uranium rounds against composite 'chobham" armour.
Since the pistol was not invented until well after 1500 ( allegedly by Camillo Vitelli in Pistoia Italy), it follows that pistol 'proof' marks could not have appeared before renaissance times.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
