Hacker News Reader

Comment by kens | Hacker News Reader

Given the HN article earlier today about people claiming they were humbled when they aren't, I find it amusing that the article quotes the CEO saying: "We are both humbled and proud that the P320 was selected by the U.S. Army as its weapon of choice."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13480255

View on HN

>Given the HN article earlier today about people claiming they were humbled when they aren't

The article was crap -- it's just that humbled, like words often do, has shifted meaning in the last few decades to mean something between "proud to" and "I didn't believe that I'm that worthy, but if you say so", etc.

It happens all the time with all kinds of words, e.g.:

"The oldest meaning of awesome is “something which inspires awe”, but the word is also a common slang expression in English, originally from the United States. As the original meaning of awesome has become somewhat antiquated in general use, the term awe-inspiring is now generally used for the same meaning."

It's believable though. The most powerful military force on the planet chooses something your company makes to become the standard issue. It's hard to believe that wouldn't feel humbling. What a sense of pride that must give them. Do those two feelings cancel each other out? It's important to not try to frame everything you read based on whatever article was recently up-voted here.

>* It's hard to believe that wouldn't feel humbling.*

The parent's point is that it wouldn't feel humbling in any original meaning of the word. You wouldn't feel "lowered in stature" etc for being chosen, but the opposite.

But of course this ignores that the word has shifted in use.

Yeah you're right when you mention the shift in use. Reminds me of people who use "begs the question" incorrectly (basically everyone and all the time) but how most people think of it now. Very pedantic though. (Pedantic is the HN norm though, so, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.)

agreed. Everyone in that company knows the responsibility of quality as the product leaves their hands. They know that they are building for the United States military and that those weapons are now apart of history. So it is in fact bigger than they are as individuals. It's also a polite way of speaking of appreciation when you know that others companies that also produce things of great quality weren't chosen and you were. It means you feel a bigger responsiblity to take on. And that's humbling.

That was the second thing I though of, right after "darn, no 10mm auto"

.40 S&W is basically an American 10mm. Both 9mm and 40cal are still on the table.

They're both American-- the FBI created the 10mm because they wanted more "stopping power" after the Miami shootout. When they realized the recoil made it un-shootable and the grip was too large for half of their agents, they cut it down by a bit and the .40 S&W was born.

Not quite, the 10mm existed prior to the FBI selecting it as their cartridge of choice. After determining the recoil was a little excessive for some of their agents they put out a request to manufacturers for something similar but with a little less "oomph." S&W developed the .40S&W cartridge that was eventually adopted but hilariously they weren't the first manufacturer to put out a gun chambered in their own new round. Glock "appropriated" some of the cartridges that S&W were showing off at a trade show, made some minor modifications to their Glock 17 to accommodate the cartridge, and submitted the new gun to the FBI before S&W. The FBI ended up choosing Glock.

I'd say .40 S&W is mostly a slower 10mm and is much less interesting than 10mm.

All but the hottest 10mm loads have the same ballistic characteristics as 40SW these days. Sure, the Army could specify a hot load for the pistol but that's unlikely considering past choices.

The hot 10mm rounds are usually reserved for subs like the MP5/10 or special units. Grunts would get regular loads similar in every manner to a 40cal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com