|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
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 |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
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. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
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. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
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 |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
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. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
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 |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
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. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
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 |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
casette shifting | Emanuel Berg[_3_] | Techniques | 23 | November 6th 18 11:09 PM |
Friction shifting on a 9 speed cassette? Ease of shifting? Mounting? | [email protected] | Techniques | 5 | October 11th 07 04:02 AM |
Kyserium Casette Hubs | Tom | Techniques | 2 | June 28th 05 10:59 PM |
SS question - casette destruction | DaveB | Australia | 35 | April 4th 05 04:23 PM |
wtb: campy 8-spd casette | rsilver51 | Marketplace | 2 | February 1st 05 10:31 PM |