Bronezhilet

It's almost like admins can do admin stuff.

It's almost like admins can do admin stuff.

1
 

Show your work on the hydrodynamics calculations you're citing as evidence
 
https://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Britain-Germany-Coming-Great/dp/0345375564
 
https://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Sea-Naval-History/dp/1107036909/ref=pd_sim_14_41?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107036909&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admiralty-Evolution-Warfare-Trafalgar/dp/0140096507/ref=pd_sim_14_43?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0140096507&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-History-1660-1783-Classic-Reprint/dp/1440080003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-1&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Interest-America-Power-Present-Future-ebook/dp/B004TRQVWQ/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-4&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Revolution-1793-1812-Classic-Reprint/dp/B008ZT5YKY/ref=pd_sbs_14_9?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B008ZT5YKY&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Naval-War-1812-Complete-History/dp/0486818977/ref=pd_sbs_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0486818977&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgievich-Gorshkov/dp/0870219618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-1&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Gorshkov-Challenged-U-S-Navy/dp/1682473309/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-6&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Flood-Tide-America-1944-1945-ebook/dp/B01BJSJMHI/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-3&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Neptunes-Inferno-U-S-Navy-Guadalcanal-ebook/dp/B004C43FXE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-2&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary-ebook/dp/B001L83PM0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-1&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591142474/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Unfinished-Personal-History-Controversy-ebook/dp/B01LXCAJJ1/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-2&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Skagerrak-Battle-Jutland-Through-German/dp/1783831235/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-8&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-Maritime-Classics/dp/1558217592/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-10&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Jutland-30th-June-1916-ebook/dp/B00MDYPLKA/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-19&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Eye-Witness-Account-Great-Battle/dp/B000GL6LGA/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-20&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-German-Perspective-Great-Battle/dp/1860199178/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-22&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Bismarck-Design-Operational-History/dp/1591145694/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925982&sr=1-5&keywords=Denmark+Strait
 
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Bismarck-Destroying-Pride-Hitlers-ebook/dp/B009EE9GAI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-1&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Sink-Bismarck-Cecil-Scott-Forester/dp/0553105418/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-2&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Nine-Days-Bismarck-ebook/dp/B0076BSV2K/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-3&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/index.html
 
https://www.amazon.com/Military-Strategies-Spruance-Halsey-Philippines-ebook/dp/B01L4O5VRC/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-4&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Big-Gun-Naval-Battle-Surigao/dp/1889901083/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-2&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Surigao-Strait-Twentieth-Century-Battles-ebook/dp/B00866HB20/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-1&keywords=surigao
 
That'd be a good place to start

Isn't the Zero basically the Japanese equivalent of Nascar? Only capable of making left turns.

Oooh please show your work. I think I still have a copy of NavCAD 2014 lying around, or I could just teach myself how to use ANSYS.
 
I don't care if it's important or not, when you're citing things that are not documented in builder's trials that you're claiming you've seen calculations of, fucking show your work. 
 
Also, fuck you if you think CFD was viable before like 1978-1979. You cannot model to any useful degree of accuracy how a ship moves through water without using pretty hefty computers, and it's still not as accurate as well done model testing because there's so much turbulence at the stern and the scale is so large. If there's data on that, it's from builder's trials, acceptance trials, or model test data, and the USN was the only organization in the world with a large enough properly instrumented controlled model basin to do that sort of testing until the '60s or '70s. The David Taylor Model Basin was hands-down one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure, and contributed to the success of the US Navy ship design more than any other single facility. 
 
Now, on to your more recent comments:
 
Length to beam ratio matters more than thrust to weight, and the Iowa has better of both because it's not bluff and stubby. They also have a finer prismatic coefficient
 
The 35.2 for six hours was in open ocean in the Pacific, with IIRC reasonably cold water -- ships are faster in colder water because it's marginally denser and you don't melt things quite as quickly. 
 
As to why Yamato would run, for the same reason Bismarck would -- because it's asinine to go on a todesritt into the waiting lap of a superior force. Knowing the IJN, though, they'd do it and get shredded because all the Iowa has to do is sorta turn around and lead them on until they run out of gas.
 
The Yamato supposedly had some IR equipment of some sort, but even the best IR night vision equipment of 1945 Japan would be laughably useless compared to a functional and well-designed fire control radar.
 
Honestly, I'm kind-of dissappointed in you. You're failing to mention the issues the Iowas had as a result of their extreme fineness forward, namely being quite wet forward of the B turret in rough seas, or that the bulbous bow wasn't as refined as that on the Yamatos, or the pile of other minor flaws in the design. 
 
Oh wait, that'd require you to know what you're talking about, and have some understanding of naval architecture. 
 
Overall, 2/10 the German naval architect who put a twin 6" mount on the bow of an already-front-heavy destroyer was better informed than you and he designed a ship that would sink itself in the intended operating environment

Micropenis, then.

I would, at least, like to compliment Peasant for sticking to his guns despite being horrendously overmatched qualitatively and quantitatively, and getting slaughtered as a result. In this, he does the IJN proud.

Tsushima Strait was in 1905. I think you're conflating it with Surigao Strait. There's a big fucking difference, as I outlined in an edit to my initial post in this thread. To summarize, the IJN beat the shit out of the Imperial Russian Navy because their ships were a knot faster, slightly more maneuverable, and had a gun armament biased towards heavy guns. The same thing also happened at the Battle of the Yellow Sea the year before. 
 
Mechanical accuracy means dick all if you can't point the gun in the right direction because the FCS is primitive and incapable of working when you're turning.
 
Spotter aircraft are going to get killed either by 5"/38 fire if it's close enough to give meaningful corrections, or by fighter cover, or by the Curtis SC Seahawks on the Iowa. 
 
Yamato was capable of 27 knots, period. I don't have access to the data anymore (it's probably in the SNAME or RINA journal, or at the DTMB), but I saw some hull testing on the design that they did after the war at the David Taylor Model Basin and it was kinda meh -- it's a pretty efficient hull design with a good bulbous bow, but the Iowa hull form is better suited to high speed, and the powerplant is 62,000hp more powerful than that of the Yamatos. It turns out, when you design a ship that's bluffer, 25,000 tons heavier, and less powerful, it's like five knots slower than a ship with a crazy long L:B and a super fine entry. The Iowas were designed from the get-go to be insanely fast, and they accomplished that handily.
 
Oh, and for the sake of argument, if we assume the Iowas could only sustain 30kts (which, again, is not accurate), they were still 2.5-3 knots faster than the Yamatos, which is double or treble the speed advantage that Togo had over Rozhestvensky at Tsushima. 

@Peasant As Tsushima Strait showed, even a handful of knots speed advantage can provide a decisive advantage. The Iowa class might sacrifice some protection, but in exchange they gain between five and seven knots on the Yamatos. This would allow them to dictate the conditions of the engagement, and as seen at Tsushima (And also at Yellow Sea but I digress), a force with even a 1-3 knot advantage could and would dictate the terms of engagement. 
 
Additionally, the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun with 16" AP shell Mark 8 is so close in performance to the Japanese 18.1" in armor penetration that the difference is immaterial -- it's within +/- 0.75" either way, which is getting awfully close to the tolerancing for the armor. The mounts for the Mark 7 gun were also significantly faster in elevation, 12 degrees/sec vs 8, increasing the rate of fire by reducing the depression to loading/elevation to firing solution time. The Iowas also depressed the gun to the loading angle during run-out, further improving the rate of fire. Their turrets were also twice as fast in train, 4 degrees/second vs 2 degrees/second for the Yamato. This allows tracking at greater ranges and high speeds, especially during the vessel's own maneuvers. I don't really want to do the math to figure out the maneuvers required to invalidate a fire control solution for the Yamato based on train rate, but it's almost certainly not relevant outside maybe 5,000yd in antiparallel courses, but during heavy maneuvering it would be invaluable. 
 
The Iowa class fire control system was fundamentally more advanced than that of the Yamato, and I'm not sure how you arrived at the position that a system requiring manual data transfer and manual tracking of the calculated fire control solution is superior to a system that does not provide those opportunities for human error. Furthermore, the Japanese fire control radars (principally the Type 22 Mod 4) were nowhere near as capable as the Mark 13, nor did the fire control system incorporate a stable vertical, which is a significant problem in a ship that will be expected to maintain a fire control system during maneuver. 
 
Having written that before your most recent post, I'll include a TL;DR:
 
1. They're inferior to a degree that is only very slightly outside the tolerances for the thickness of battleship armor. It's immaterial.
2. You still have to hit the enemy ship, and the mediocrity of the fire control system on Yamato precludes that.
3. Your statement on speed in a gun duel is categorically and demonstrably false, and has been known to be so since 19-0-fucking-5. The IJN won the battles of Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait because of their fleet's superior speed and maneuverability. 
4. The Iowa class' gun mounts reload faster -- see the middle of the second paragraph above for more details. 
5. I don't follow your point, the 5"/38 is a fine DP gun. The 5"/54 that replaced it was better, but the /38 is a great gun and it gets the job done. Heavy secondary low angle armament went out of style with Dreadnought.
6. I'm not sure where you get inefficient engines and inferior electronics from the Iowas. Their powerplant was perfectly fine and extremely reliable, and met specifications, and the electronics fit was in every way superior to that of the Yamato class.
7. Battleships do as they're told. 
8. The Yamato has inferior firepower due to the slower rate of fire. 
9. The Yamato most likely does not win because the Iowa-class would dictate the terms of the engagement, and could simply disengage at will and return in more favorable circumstances, like at night.

The test pilot of the Akutan Zero about the Zero:
 

"If only they'd fought the battle of Jutland again like we designed for".
 
Poor argument.

"Yamato best BB as long as it doesn't meet enemies"

"Yamato best BB as long as it doesn't meet enemies"

[BMPT HATE Intensifies]

" De tekniska studierna delades upp i kompetensuppbyggande studier och försök, konceptstudier samt projektstudier. Fysiskt skydd kom att prioriteras före beväpningssystem, ledningssystem och rörlighetssystem. Tre huvudkrav kom att bli konceptstyrande:
Skjutning under gång varvet runt (360º) med huvudvapnet Direktutblick för vagnchefen från vagnens högsta punkt Överlevnad för vagn och besättning vid en träff i ammunitionslagringen Vidare beaktades de typiskt svenska förhållandena som normalt resulterade i speciella krav på försvarsmaterielen – den korta värnpliktsutbildningen följd av korta repetitionsövningar (dvs materielen måste vara lätt att handha) och det faktum att materielen under större delen av sin livslängd skulle ligga i mobiliseringsförråd med ett minimum av underhåll.
 
 
 
Skydd
I projekt Strv 2000 tillmättes skyddet i vid bemärkelse stor betydelse – eller stridsvagnens överlevnadsförmåga vad avser skydd mot upptäckt-identifiering-träff, skydd mot verkan och skydd mot efterverkan. Kraven sattes mycket högt både vad gäller låga signaturer inom våglängdsområdena för IR och radar, men framförallt för det ballistiska skyddet. Dessa inkluderade mycket förutseende krav på skydd mot minor och takverkande stridsdelar.

Grundprincipen för vagnens uppbyggnad var ett minimiskrov i pansarstål som var tillräckligt tjockt för att kunna ta upp krafterna vid körning och skjutning. Det skulle också kunna ta upp de krafter som en yttre skyddsmodul kunde åstadkomma då den träffats.
 
I det fall den yttre skyddsmodulen använde sig av principen med ett spontaninitierat tungt explosivt reaktivt pansar (t ex i kompositionen 15/3/9) – effektivt inte bara mot riktad sprängverkan, utan även kinetisk energi – kunde dessa krafter på grundstrukturen bli relativt stora. De försök som gjordes mot frontalt monterade moduler med denna typ av skydd visade att det var möjligt att kraftigt störa en penetrerande pilprojektil.

Tanken var också att Strv 2000 skulle använda en stor andel keram i skyddskonstruktionen. Det faktum att den totala andelen keram skulle komma att uppgå till flera ton i respektive stridsvagn gjorde att ett det så kallade Skyddskeramprojektet startade upp 1988. Under ett par års tid gjordes försök med många olika typer av keram - Al2O3(aluminiumoxid), B4C (borkarbid) och TiB2 (titanborid) – men trots ett brett deltagande från svensk industri, FOA och FMV, blev det inte så mycket mer än en medioker referenskeram.

Inspirerade av den valda skyddslösningen i den amerikanska stridsvagnen M1A1 DU där Chobhampansaret uppgraderats med skikt av utarmat uran, gjordes provskjutningar i Sverige även mot denna typ av material. Resultaten visade på möjligheten att nå bättre skyddsprestanda om volymen och inte vikten var gränssättande.

Stor möda lades även på att åstadkomma en från besättningen separerad ammunitionslagring som skulle tåla såväl krutbrand som en detonation efter direktträff på en RSV-stridsdel med övertändning som följd. Den lösning som utarbetades fungerade och hade stora likheter med motsvarande utrymmen i Leopard 2 och M1A1 med så kallade ”blow off panels”, men hade en utvecklad princip för att förhindra total övertändning med total utslagning som följd. Skotten var placerade längst bak i chassiet. "
 
Translation:

" The technical studies are divided up into competence building studies and trials, concept studies and project studies. Physical armor is prioritzed over weapon systems, FCS and mobility systems. Three main requirements have steered the concept:
 
        - Firing while on the movie, 360 degrees with the main weapon.
        - Direct sight for the vehicle commander from the tanks highest point. 
        - Survival of the tank and crew in case of a hit to the ammunition storage. 
 
Furthermore, the typical Swedish environment is considered, which normally results in special requirements for defense materials - the short conscription followed by short repletion exercise (meaning that the material needs to be easy to handle) and the fact that the material in bigger parts of its lifetime will be located at mobilization storage with a minimum of maintenance. 
 
Armor:
In project Strv 2000 is armor of the highest importance - or the tanks survival chance against discovery - identification - hit, protection against impact, after armor protection. High requirements are sett for a low signature in the visual spectrum, for IR and for radar, men but most of all the armor. These include requirements for mine protection and roof armor. 
 

 
 
The principle of the tank construction is a minimal hull of armor steel, made strong enough to absorb the force when driving and firing. It should also be able to take up the force that a outer armor module would achieve when hit.

 
 
In the case of the outer armor module, the use of the principle with a spontaneously initiated heavy explosive reactive armor (composition 15/3/9) - effective not only against directed explosive force (I assume HEAT) but also kinetic energy - could these forces on the hull be reality large.

 
 
It was also thought that Strv 200 would use a large amount of ceramics in the armor construction. The fact that a big portion of ceramics would come to make up several tons in the tank in question, caused the so called ceramic armor project to be started in 1988. In a couple of years time a few tests were done with several different ceramics - Al2O3(aluminium oxide), B4C (boron carbide) and TiB2 (titan boride) - but even with a board cooperation between Swedish industry, FOA and FMW, the ceramics turned out the not be much more than a mediocre reference ceramics. 

 
Inspired by the armor solution chosen by the US tank M1A1, in which the Chobham armor was upgraded with a layer of depleted uranium, a firing trial was held in Sweden against this type of material. The results showed a possibility of better armor performance if volume and not the weight was the restricting factor.
 
 

 
A lot of effort was put into producing the ammunition storage, separated from the crew, which can take a direct hit and detonation from a ATGM. The solution developed was similar to the Leopard 2 or M1A1 with their so called "blow off panels", but was also developed to stop a chain reaction from detonating all the ammunition. The ammunition was placed in the hull rear. "
 
I translated the section covering the armor for you guys. Though I do not see anything indicating that the front engine required longer side armor. The requirements state the coverage, regardless of a front engine.  Though the coverage required is similar to the M1A2 and Leopard 2's turret. 
 
I can translate more if anyone is interested.

That, or the bustle contains extra ammunition (or, more likely, the XM654 supercharged propellant cases). The previous cutaways we got suggest there are two different autoloader configurations considered from the M109A8 - a vertical one (more comparable to the one used on the Crusader) and a horizontal carousel (Meggitt-style).
 

 

 
Who knows, maybe the current configuration uses a blend of the two, with primary (vertical) storage in the turret itself and extra charges (horizontal) and carousel in the bustle?

Looks like the autoloader has been attached as a turret bustle.
 

Moved to the appropriate subforum.

First of all, the provisions you are outlining are not "loopholes" as they are explicitly outlined in Federal law. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1) from the 1968 Gun Control Act, the BATFE advisement about which states:
 
 
Provided that your state has no relevant prohibitions, then, yes you may acquire a handgun from a non-FFL ("unlicensed individual"), usually via gifting. I would be very careful how you conduct this as it's relatively easy to create a condition that could be regulated by state or Federal law. For example, if you live with your parents in a state with no additional regulations and are over 18, your father or mother may gift you a handgun without issue. However, if your father lives in another state, this would fall under interstate commerce and would be illegal, as interstate transactions must go through an FFL (who can't sell you the firearm).

Gun shows are dicey in this way because generally speaking you don't have any way to verify that the seller lives in your state or not. You can ask for ID, but that's not a surefire thing either. If you do decide to go this route, I would definitely insist on seeing an ID and photographing it.
 
Another thing to worry about is accidentally conducting a straw purchase. If, for example, you had the above case with your parent, but instead of a Christmas gift, you reimbursed them for the gun then that would become a straw purchase and a Federal crime. More confusingly, if this handgun were already owned by your parents (if for example it was Grandpa's gun), and you bought it off them, that would not be a straw purchase and would be legal. There are also, so far as I know, no regulations against trades of handguns between individuals who reside in the same state. So, conceivably, you could trade for a privately owned handgun, for example - but we enter yet another grey area if the gun you are trading for was purchased with the knowledge that you'd be trading for it. In this case it's possible that this could be considered a straw purchase in the same way as if you had bought the weapon from them with cash.
 
Given the above, I would go about acquiring a handgun very carefully. Some Don'ts, Dos, and Mays:
 
DON'T arrange for someone else to buy a gun for you from an online store or any place with an FFL. This is one of the key ingredients of a straw purchase - if they can prove you arranged the purchase ahead of time, bad day for you.

DON'T purchase from or trade with people who are not family members or very close friends (e.g., you've been to their house). It's the only way to be sure.
 
DON'T post on online message boards or Facebook groups conspicuous or incriminating requests for handguns

DON'T use Armslist to arrange a private sale. Armslist is a cesspit, full of scams and ne'erdowells, just avoid it. You'll thank me.
 
DON'T go "gun shopping" for a handgun with anyone who might want to sell or gift you a gun unless they agree not to buy anything from that store. Even if it's innocent, "hey dad, I want that one" followed by an attempted sale will give any decent gun store clerk the heebie jeebies.
 
DO let people you know and trust know you want a handgun, and which kind. As long as you don't plan for them to purchase a gun, this is fine. And you may get lucky, or find someone wants to sell a gun you'd be happy with. You never know without bringing it up.
 
DO inform those you know who may be willing to sell, trade, or gift you a handgun what the relevant laws are. Show them the BATFE regulations using your phone or computer. Make sure they do not think they are doing something illegal.

DO make an effort to shoot a variety of handguns before you buy. Since you are under 21, you generally can't rent handguns but you should have no problems accompanying a legal purchaser and shooting any guns they rent. Also, look out for folks who might be happy to let you shoot their guns at the range. A .22 LR rifle is nice for this, since you can shoot it anywhere you can shoot a pistol.

YOU MAY want to arrange a nice gift for someone who seems like they would be willing to gift or trade you a handgun. Doesn't hurt, right?
 
As for which handgun to pick, this choice is very personal. I shoot Glocks well, and most people do, so that's my default for you. Glock 19 or 17. I estimate there is an 80% chance it will work well for you. If not, you can sell it later for close to full value. If you are a part of that 20% of the population who just really does not agree with Glocks, I would give the well respected competing brands (S&W, SIG, CZ, etc, not Springfield) a try and see which one shoots best for you. "Feel" of the handgun can be related to your performance with them, but isn't necessarily. For example, the most comfortable handgun for me is the Browning Hi Power, yet I shoot Glocks better.
 
The biggest mistake in my humble opinion that a first-time handgun shooter can make is saying "hey, I'll buy a full-size or compact (G19) handgun and it'll be both my IDPA/training gun, and when I'm 21 it'll be my CCW too!" No. Do not do this. Yes, people can and have concealed full size guns every day. They are not you. You've never concealed a handgun before. You want the smallest, most concealable gun you can get that still offers good shootability and lethality (that would be a Glock 43 btw, plus maybe the SIG P365 in a couple years once it's debugged). Right now, I would just pick a good gun to build fundamentals on, and worry about what you want to carry when you get closer to getting your license. If after a year or two of actually carrying that smaller gun, you want to go up to a Desert Eagle or whatever, be my guess. But practice carrying with something that's less of a pain in the ass, first.
 
I would also keep an eye out for anything friends or relatives have that might be a good range gun, even if it's not exactly what you want. Remember, guns usually hold their value so if you don't end up liking it, you can sell it and usually lose less than the cost of renting it.
 
For your starter AR-15, there are a lot of good options. The baseline gun people are usually going to tell you to get is the Colt 6920. This gun offers basically zero nice features (like trigger, free float rail, etc) but it is mechanically still one of the best guns you can buy and makes an excellent host for upgrades. Many other guns below the $1000 mark today offer rail systems, triggers, midlength gas, and other upgrades, but in my case there aren't many of those packages that I really like as a whole, and chances are very good their quality won't be quite as high as the 6920. That's not to say the 6920 is the best rifle out there, but in terms of QC it has been the gun to beat for a while now. With a Colt OEM2, you get the rifle and none of the stuff that goes on it, too, and you are left with roughly $250 of your budget to slap on stocks, rails, etc. Even if it doesn't have all the modern creature comforts (it has a carbine gas system and the notorious GI trigger), it's hard to do better than taking one of those and decking it out the way you like. I've owned a 6920 for 8 years, and it's had close to 10,000 rounds through it. Nothing has broken. Everything still works as it should. The original upper still shoots 2 minute with quality ammo. The 6920 isn't good enough anymore that if you get anything else there'll be a riot, but if you do get one, nobody will question it either. And you'll be satisfied, I think.

AS a Security professional, their response fucking offends me. We walk people to their cars, and ensure that they are in their vehicle, with the door locked for threat levels way the fuck below that at my site.  Hell, that's standard proceedure at my site for anyone who requests a ride. Any elevated threat level and we post pictures to all posts of a credible threat, and will pretty much do whatever we can to ensure staff safety, including violating rules on where we are willing to drop people off. FFS, this shit isn't that hard if you have half a brain.  And we don't even have the level of authority that Campus cops would.
 

Your username definitely checks out.

I have discovered, the happiest car in the world.
That front end just shouts "YAY I HAS FOUND TEH WATERS!"