casette shifting, again

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:01:31 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/19/2018 5:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:20:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:41:14 -0800, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 12/15/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:39:19 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/15/2018 3:04 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Emanuel, with all due respect, you should
spend the winter reading a physics book or
two. Or three. Skip the parts on electricity,
atomic physics, etc. Concentrate on forces,
motion, work, energy etc. - the parts that
apply to bicycles. [...]

Blah blah blah, you have told me this at least
a dozen times by now. Probably because it is
easier to be didactic/demeaning than to
actually answer the questions.


more.

I left school without having slept through even one physics
class. My reference work here is a 1955 high school textbook
for $1 (9 Kr). I don't know all of even that, but I
understand the world well enough to know that this headline
last week:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...soon-2022.html

was completely ridiculous. The chamber pressures are in the
same range, but not power, not even within a magnitude*!
Power is work over time. Without some grasp of the actual
world, you would not have laughed aloud when reading the
headline, etc.

*A typical 120mm tank round is 7.5 kilos of depleted uranium
moving at 1700 m/s. The new 6.8 rifle typically moves 7.5
grams at 850 m/s. That's why you need basic physics.

BTW, here's an interesting case that crossed my desk: https://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...killed-in-tank https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...explosion.html Interesting object lesson for re-loaders. I'm representing a party on a collateral insurance issue. I've represented a couple big gun makers in over-pressure cases. Reloads. Too much powder or the wrong powder can blow-up guns large and small.

-- Jay Beattie.

One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been
"de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order".
The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means
that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and
cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and
barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch.

cheers,

John B.

I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge.


Yes, I read that part too. I used to hand load for varmint rifles and
of course we were always trying for that little extra speed, but we
were also careful to inspect cartridge cases for signs of over
pressure. I simply can't imagine anyone just shoveling in 8 ounces of
extra powder. Particularly after someone "in the business" told not
to.

That extra 8 ounces blew my mind also.

When I was maybe 30, I was helping my dad, a long-time pistol round
reloader, mostly out of [my] curiosity. There was another seasoned
reloader there also. I measured one shell's worth of powder and was
surprised how excited they both got, exhorting me to avoid compressing
or tamping down the powder ?while scooping? (details and wording are
foggy years later). I was warned that any hint of ?compression? in the
powder could result in a overload that could destroy a pistol.

Who'd think you'd need to be careful working with explosives?

Mark J.

True. Gun powders are manufactured as grains and any packing or
tamping down would allow more grains in the same space (measure). More
explosive in the same place equals higher pressures. People that are
loading right up to the maximum will weigh the powder rather then use
a mechanical measure.

cheers,

John B.

John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic.

The is utter bull****.

Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and
marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec).

There is an old saying, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool
then to open one's mouth and prove it" that apparently you never
heard. Or if you did you ignored it.

example:
http://gundata.org/cartridge/103/.45-70-government/

Which was preceded by the .50-70 with a supersonic muzzle velocity of
1,849 f/s (400 gr. bullet) Muzzle energy was 3,037 ft/lbs

Or even better the .500 Black Powder Express at 1,900 f/s with the
440 grain bullet. 3,530 ft/lbs

In contrast the .30-06 with 220 gr. (largest listed) bullet at a brisk
2,500 ft/sec produces 2,981 ft/lbs of energy.

Them old time buffalo hunters were tough!

But real men used a 4 bore gun firing 2,000 gr. bullets at about 1,400
f/s. for a muzzle energy of ~ 8,700 ft/lbs :-)

cheers,

John B.

On 20/12/18 2:07 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:01:31 -0600, AMuzi wrote:


example:
http://gundata.org/cartridge/103/.45-70-government/

Which was preceded by the .50-70 with a supersonic muzzle velocity of
1,849 f/s (400 gr. bullet) Muzzle energy was 3,037 ft/lbs

Or even better the .500 Black Powder Express at 1,900 f/s with the
440 grain bullet. 3,530 ft/lbs

In contrast the .30-06 with 220 gr. (largest listed) bullet at a brisk
2,500 ft/sec produces 2,981 ft/lbs of energy.

Them old time buffalo hunters were tough!

Puts my .338 Win Mag into perspective, with average energy listed as
3916 ft/lbs, and recoil described as "rather powerful, leading to some
hunters preferring not to use the round."

Yes, I can attest that it isn't my go to rifle for a spot of plinking!

On the plus side, "The cartridges have the ability to take down targets
up to 850 yards before noticeable trajectory and wound penetration
drop-off occurs."

Given the distance I've seen some wild dogs around here, perhaps I
should take the time to tune up an accurate load!


But real men used a 4 bore gun firing 2,000 gr. bullets at about 1,400
f/s. for a muzzle energy of ~ 8,700 ft/lbs :-)



You'd need real men to carry one I should imagine!

--
JS

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:11:28 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/12/18 2:07 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:01:31 -0600, AMuzi wrote:


example:
http://gundata.org/cartridge/103/.45-70-government/

Which was preceded by the .50-70 with a supersonic muzzle velocity of
1,849 f/s (400 gr. bullet) Muzzle energy was 3,037 ft/lbs

Or even better the .500 Black Powder Express at 1,900 f/s with the
440 grain bullet. 3,530 ft/lbs

In contrast the .30-06 with 220 gr. (largest listed) bullet at a brisk
2,500 ft/sec produces 2,981 ft/lbs of energy.

Them old time buffalo hunters were tough!

Puts my .338 Win Mag into perspective, with average energy listed as
3916 ft/lbs, and recoil described as "rather powerful, leading to some
hunters preferring not to use the round."

Yes, I can attest that it isn't my go to rifle for a spot of plinking!

On the plus side, "The cartridges have the ability to take down targets
up to 850 yards before noticeable trajectory and wound penetration
drop-off occurs."

Given the distance I've seen some wild dogs around here, perhaps I
should take the time to tune up an accurate load!


But real men used a 4 bore gun firing 2,000 gr. bullets at about 1,400
f/s. for a muzzle energy of ~ 8,700 ft/lbs :-)



You'd need real men to carry one I should imagine!


One has a Gunboy(s) to carry the weapons.

cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:11:28 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/12/18 2:07 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 20:01:31 -0600, AMuzi wrote:


example:
http://gundata.org/cartridge/103/.45-70-government/

Which was preceded by the .50-70 with a supersonic muzzle velocity of
1,849 f/s (400 gr. bullet) Muzzle energy was 3,037 ft/lbs

Or even better the .500 Black Powder Express at 1,900 f/s with the
440 grain bullet. 3,530 ft/lbs

In contrast the .30-06 with 220 gr. (largest listed) bullet at a brisk
2,500 ft/sec produces 2,981 ft/lbs of energy.

Them old time buffalo hunters were tough!

Puts my .338 Win Mag into perspective, with average energy listed as
3916 ft/lbs, and recoil described as "rather powerful, leading to some
hunters preferring not to use the round."

Yes, I can attest that it isn't my go to rifle for a spot of plinking!

On the plus side, "The cartridges have the ability to take down targets
up to 850 yards before noticeable trajectory and wound penetration
drop-off occurs."

Given the distance I've seen some wild dogs around here, perhaps I
should take the time to tune up an accurate load!


But real men used a 4 bore gun firing 2,000 gr. bullets at about 1,400
f/s. for a muzzle energy of ~ 8,700 ft/lbs :-)



You'd need real men to carry one I should imagine!

Out of curiosity, I thought that Australia bought all the guns and
that a private citizen had a certain amount of difficulties in owning
one these days?

cheers,

John B.

On 20/12/18 7:10 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Out of curiosity, I thought that Australia bought all the guns and
that a private citizen had a certain amount of difficulties in owning
one these days?


After a certain mass shooting, the then Prime Minister John Howard
decided to buy back a range of firearms in a knee jerk reaction. The
range included anything with what they considered to have rapid fire
capabilities (auto, semi auto & pump actions).


For example, I had a 1914 Browning .22 short semi auto, that I had
restored to working order. It was very useful for hunting rabbits
around blackberry bushes and such, where the maximum range was about 25
yards. Even that firearm with its limited killing power was bought
back, though I would have preferred to keep it so in my eyes it was
stolen despite the remuneration.

Now, it isn't particularly difficult to own a firearm of the allowed
types (like bolt action rifles and double barrelled shotguns, for example).

There are limitations to who can own a firearm. For example a criminal
record rules you out, IIRC. There is a test to pass and a waiting or
cooling off period before you can obtain a licence, and then you can
apply for a permit to purchase a firearm.

There are strict storage requirements. A steel gun safe is acceptable,
usually bolted to a concrete slab or a building frame - unless it weighs
more than 150 kg. Bolts must be removed from bolt actions, and
ammunition stored separately in a locked container. You can't legally
leave a firearm in your house, even unloaded.

You also must have a genuine reason for owning a firearm. Valid reasons
include being a member of a gun club, for primary production (farmers),
to destroy pest animals on private property (requires a letter of
permission from a land holder), and possibly other genuine reasons I
can't recall.

--
JS

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 20:42:33 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/12/18 7:10 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Out of curiosity, I thought that Australia bought all the guns and
that a private citizen had a certain amount of difficulties in owning
one these days?


After a certain mass shooting, the then Prime Minister John Howard
decided to buy back a range of firearms in a knee jerk reaction. The
range included anything with what they considered to have rapid fire
capabilities (auto, semi auto & pump actions).


For example, I had a 1914 Browning .22 short semi auto, that I had
restored to working order. It was very useful for hunting rabbits
around blackberry bushes and such, where the maximum range was about 25
yards. Even that firearm with its limited killing power was bought
back, though I would have preferred to keep it so in my eyes it was
stolen despite the remuneration.


Were the buy back values even close to the actual value of the weapon?
Today I see a 1914 browning for sale for US$1025 plus insurance and
shipping.
https://tinyurl.com/ycqbmy4l
Wood and metal - fair, bore - good.

cheers,

John B.

On 20/12/18 9:21 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 20:42:33 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/12/18 7:10 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Out of curiosity, I thought that Australia bought all the guns and
that a private citizen had a certain amount of difficulties in owning
one these days?


After a certain mass shooting, the then Prime Minister John Howard
decided to buy back a range of firearms in a knee jerk reaction. The
range included anything with what they considered to have rapid fire
capabilities (auto, semi auto & pump actions).


For example, I had a 1914 Browning .22 short semi auto, that I had
restored to working order. It was very useful for hunting rabbits
around blackberry bushes and such, where the maximum range was about 25
yards. Even that firearm with its limited killing power was bought
back, though I would have preferred to keep it so in my eyes it was
stolen despite the remuneration.


Were the buy back values even close to the actual value of the weapon?
Today I see a 1914 browning for sale for US$1025 plus insurance and
shipping.
https://tinyurl.com/ycqbmy4l
Wood and metal - fair, bore - good.

That is what I had. I think they gave me about $300 AUD in 1997.

--
JS

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:45:45 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/12/18 9:21 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 20:42:33 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/12/18 7:10 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Out of curiosity, I thought that Australia bought all the guns and
that a private citizen had a certain amount of difficulties in owning
one these days?


After a certain mass shooting, the then Prime Minister John Howard
decided to buy back a range of firearms in a knee jerk reaction. The
range included anything with what they considered to have rapid fire
capabilities (auto, semi auto & pump actions).


For example, I had a 1914 Browning .22 short semi auto, that I had
restored to working order. It was very useful for hunting rabbits
around blackberry bushes and such, where the maximum range was about 25
yards. Even that firearm with its limited killing power was bought
back, though I would have preferred to keep it so in my eyes it was
stolen despite the remuneration.


Were the buy back values even close to the actual value of the weapon?
Today I see a 1914 browning for sale for US$1025 plus insurance and
shipping.
https://tinyurl.com/ycqbmy4l
Wood and metal - fair, bore - good.

That is what I had. I think they gave me about $300 AUD in 1997.

Looking at U.S. dollar value 1993 to 2018 the value change seems to be
something like 57% which, if Australia values were similar would make
your A$300 turn into nearly A$500 today.

cheers,

John B.

On 12/20/2018 5:06 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:45:45 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/12/18 9:21 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 20:42:33 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/12/18 7:10 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Out of curiosity, I thought that Australia bought all the guns and
that a private citizen had a certain amount of difficulties in owning
one these days?


After a certain mass shooting, the then Prime Minister John Howard
decided to buy back a range of firearms in a knee jerk reaction. The
range included anything with what they considered to have rapid fire
capabilities (auto, semi auto & pump actions).


For example, I had a 1914 Browning .22 short semi auto, that I had
restored to working order. It was very useful for hunting rabbits
around blackberry bushes and such, where the maximum range was about 25
yards. Even that firearm with its limited killing power was bought
back, though I would have preferred to keep it so in my eyes it was
stolen despite the remuneration.


Were the buy back values even close to the actual value of the weapon?
Today I see a 1914 browning for sale for US$1025 plus insurance and
shipping.
https://tinyurl.com/ycqbmy4l
Wood and metal - fair, bore - good.

That is what I had. I think they gave me about $300 AUD in 1997.

Looking at U.S. dollar value 1993 to 2018 the value change seems to be
something like 57% which, if Australia values were similar would make
your A$300 turn into nearly A$500 today.


There's no good aspect to that policy. Wrong in principle,
wrong in practice.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:21:41 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/20/2018 5:06 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:45:45 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/12/18 9:21 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 20:42:33 +1100, James
wrote:

On 20/12/18 7:10 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Out of curiosity, I thought that Australia bought all the guns and
that a private citizen had a certain amount of difficulties in owning
one these days?


After a certain mass shooting, the then Prime Minister John Howard
decided to buy back a range of firearms in a knee jerk reaction. The
range included anything with what they considered to have rapid fire
capabilities (auto, semi auto & pump actions).


For example, I had a 1914 Browning .22 short semi auto, that I had
restored to working order. It was very useful for hunting rabbits
around blackberry bushes and such, where the maximum range was about 25
yards. Even that firearm with its limited killing power was bought
back, though I would have preferred to keep it so in my eyes it was
stolen despite the remuneration.


Were the buy back values even close to the actual value of the weapon?
Today I see a 1914 browning for sale for US$1025 plus insurance and
shipping.
https://tinyurl.com/ycqbmy4l
Wood and metal - fair, bore - good.

That is what I had. I think they gave me about $300 AUD in 1997.

Looking at U.S. dollar value 1993 to 2018 the value change seems to be
something like 57% which, if Australia values were similar would make
your A$300 turn into nearly A$500 today.


There's no good aspect to that policy. Wrong in principle,
wrong in practice.

?? Buying guns?

Probably a political move to make the proletariat believe that their
guns were not being confiscated :-)

cheers,

John B.