From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009092915080580278-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-09-29 10:09:13 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net>
> said:
>
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:fI-dnVrWwvvYp1_XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2009092908424593099-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>>>
>>>> My understanding was Colt's first rifles were .44 cap&ball revolver
>>>> actions based on the 1860 Army. Our old pals Horace Smith and Daniel
>>>> Wesson had produced a lever action repeating pistol, the "Volcanic
>>>> pistol". They failed as a business and the design was incorporated into
>>>> the Henry rifle and Winchester eventually ate them up. They went their
>>>> own way producing the first rimfire pistols in 1863.
>>>
>>> I thought a little earlier than that, but I could be wrong.
>>
>> No, I was right. Just Googled it and this source says S&W started
>> manufacturing their first revolver in 1856:
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/smith-wesson
>>
>> That's actually a bit earlier than I thought. I thought it was about
>> 1859.
>> But I was fairly sure that some Union officers were buying S&W Model 1s
>> as
>> personal weapons at the very beginning of the so-called Civil War (1861).
>
> Well I am relieved to find some common ground in this current polarized
> mess we are living in.
> Who ever said guns weren't fun?

<chuckle>

No argument there.


From: Neil Harrington on

"mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote in message
news:h9u1mh$ruf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009092915080580278-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2009-09-29 10:09:13 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net>
>> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fI-dnVrWwvvYp1_XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2009092908424593099-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>
>>> [ . . . ]
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding was Colt's first rifles were .44 cap&ball revolver
>>>>> actions based on the 1860 Army. Our old pals Horace Smith and Daniel
>>>>> Wesson had produced a lever action repeating pistol, the "Volcanic
>>>>> pistol". They failed as a business and the design was incorporated
>>>>> into
>>>>> the Henry rifle and Winchester eventually ate them up. They went their
>>>>> own way producing the first rimfire pistols in 1863.
>>>>
>>>> I thought a little earlier than that, but I could be wrong.
>>>
>>> No, I was right. Just Googled it and this source says S&W started
>>> manufacturing their first revolver in 1856:
>>> http://www.answers.com/topic/smith-wesson
>>>
>>> That's actually a bit earlier than I thought. I thought it was about
>>> 1859.
>>> But I was fairly sure that some Union officers were buying S&W Model 1s
>>> as
>>> personal weapons at the very beginning of the so-called Civil War
>>> (1861).
>>
>> Well I am relieved to find some common ground in this current polarized
>> mess we are living in.
>> Who ever said guns weren't fun?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>>
> I have a 30-40 Craig as well as several handguns and I try to shot as
> often as I can.
> Target shooting, for me at least, is relaxing, like fishing; a chance to
> empty ones mind of the day to day BS.

I agree. Unfortunately I do almost no shooting anymore, since I live in town
now. When I lived out in the country I had a shed full of reloading
equipment and built a little shooting bench out behind that. Nothing but
woods as far back as any bullet could go, so I could shoot rifles or
handguns there whenever I wanted. I do miss that a lot.


From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009092916423151816-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-09-29 15:28:31 -0700, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2009092915080580278-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2009-09-29 10:09:13 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fI-dnVrWwvvYp1_XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2009092908424593099-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>
>>>> [ . . . ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding was Colt's first rifles were .44 cap&ball revolver
>>>>>> actions based on the 1860 Army. Our old pals Horace Smith and Daniel
>>>>>> Wesson had produced a lever action repeating pistol, the "Volcanic
>>>>>> pistol". They failed as a business and the design was incorporated
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> the Henry rifle and Winchester eventually ate them up. They went
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> own way producing the first rimfire pistols in 1863.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought a little earlier than that, but I could be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No, I was right. Just Googled it and this source says S&W started
>>>> manufacturing their first revolver in 1856:
>>>> http://www.answers.com/topic/smith-wesson
>>>>
>>>> That's actually a bit earlier than I thought. I thought it was about
>>>> 1859.
>>>> But I was fairly sure that some Union officers were buying S&W Model 1s
>>>> as
>>>> personal weapons at the very beginning of the so-called Civil War
>>>> (1861).
>>>
>>> Well I am relieved to find some common ground in this current polarized
>>> mess we are living in.
>>> Who ever said guns weren't fun?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>>>
>> I have a 30-40 Craig as well as several handguns and I try to shot as
>> often
>> as I can.
>> Target shooting, for me at least, is relaxing, like fishing; a chance to
>> empty ones mind of the day to day BS.
>
> Is that the Americanized spelling of "Krag" as in Krag-Jorgensen?
> It is commonly mispronounced in the US as "Craig", correctly pronounced
> "Krag" to rhyme with "flag."

"Krag" is the pronunciation I've always heard.

>
> It was our weapon for the Spanish-American War.

It was for Teddy Roosevelt's troops anyway, but there weren't enough of them
yet to equip the whole army. If I'm not mistaken some of Teddy's wealthy
troops even bought their own. The black units were still equipped with
single-shot trapdoor Springfields in .45-70 -- bad luck, since apart from
being very unequal against the Spanish 7mm Mausers, they produced the usual
signature of black-powder firearms, a nice big cloud of smoke when fired.

I used to occasionally hunt pheasant with a guy who had an ancient
Damascus-barreled double. Since those barrels were unsafe with smokeless
powder, he loaded his own shells with black powder. It was a hoot to see his
method when a pheasant went up. He would fire and immediately drop to one
knee so he could peer under the smoke to see if the bird came down. This
meant he never got to fire the second barrel, of course.

> When it was out performed by the Mauser it was replaced by the Springfield
> M1903, our Mauser design.
> The Krag had a great action, but an awkward magazine.

I never owned a Krag, but I did have a nice '03 Springfield when I lived out
in the boondocks. That was a really lovely rifle, although not quite as good
a service rifle as the '98 Mauser it was based on, in the opinion of
Townsend Whelen. He felt the Springfield made a better sporter than a
service weapon, and as a matter of fact you could at one time have
Springfield Armory make you up a sporter. (I mean the real, original
Springfield Armory, not the modern company that uses that name.)

Now those were the days when the government actually did useful stuff. ;-)

Reminds me, I must go up to the Armory one of these days and take pictures
(if they allow that inside). It's a National Park now, I think only 60 miles
or so from where I live, but I've never been there.


From: Ray Fischer on
J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:44:17 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>
>>> Be sure to write the first time you encounter a CHP officer with your
>>> idea that you have an inherent right to carry a concealed weapon
>>> without a permit. I'd be interested to see how that plays out.
>>>
>>> I have spent many happy hours arguing exactly that with California
>>> Police officers......My wife's grandson-in-law happens to be one. In
>>> many cases they agree with my position on the matter.
>>
>> This is the ChrisH School of Reasoning. If you know one person who
>> shares your opinion, that means "everyone" agrees with you.
>
>I had a police officer explain matters to me this way:
>
>"If you shoot me when I come to enforce a gun ban, I won't hold it against
>you."

"Because you'll be dead."

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7ie5qjF312h2aU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net>
> wrote:
>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:7i8u6lF30hncfU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> In rec.photo.digital Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>> No one has ever said that the bumblebee can't fly. Clearly it
>>>>>> can, it happens every day. Science has never been so blind as to
>>>>>> make such a claim. But what Science HAS said, is that the bumblebee
>>>>>> is UNSTABLE in flight, an aerodynamically unsound design. This
>>>>>> doesn't mean or even imply that it can't fly. Just that there would
>>>>>> be easier and better ways to achieve flight.
>
>>>>> Not so. What science said until recently was simply that according to
>>>>> our understanding of fixed wing aeroplane flight the bumblebee had
>>>>> insufficient wing area to fly.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>> Not that it was unstable. It is in fact
>>>>> unusually stable in flight due to its relatively low centre of gravity
>>>>> and large effective dihedral.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> I don't believe dihedral has anything
>>>> to do with it.
>>>
>>> I didn't say it had anything to do with the claim of bees not being
>>> able to fly. You raised the red herring of that claim having something
>>> to do with stability.
>
>> No, that wasn't me, that was Peter. I don't believe bumblebees either
>> have
>> or require stability in the sense that fixed wing aircraft do.
>
> You're quite right, I should have checked the headers.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Given a bee's
>>> bent and rather unaerodynamic shape, and the fact that it flies with
>>> its undercarriage down, it would be hard to decide what the
>>> longitudinal aerodynamic axis of a bee's body in flight actually
>>> was. The bee wing angle of attack varies all the time as the wing
>>> moves. But what the angles are doesn't matter. All that matters for
>>> dihedral to work is that lift is being generated by wings. It doesn't
>>> matter how. Since bees do actually fly then lift is obviously being
>>> generated therefore dihedral effects occur.
>
>> I still don't believe that dihedral has anything to do with it. As long
>> as
>> the bumblebee can produce thrust, which obviously it does, and
>> instantaneously direct that thrust as required to either move or stay in
>> position, it shouldn't need dihedral or anything else for stability.
>
>> Consider the Harrier, for example. When it's hovering its wings (which
>> don't
>> have dihedral anyway, they have pronounced anhedral) aren't doing
>> anything;
>> the aircraft is just sitting on its thrust. I think that is basically
>> what
>> the bumblebee is doing.
>
> Like many fighter aircraft the Harrier has anhedral so that when in
> rapid forward flight it can use the instability to increase the speed
> with which it can change direction. It's too unstable for purely human
> control, and relies on assisting the pilot with high speed computer
> control to make it manageable.

Sure. I assume most fighters are like that now.

>
> When hovering it is sitting on the thrust produced by its engines, and
> is getting no lift at all from the wings. So the stability of the
> Harrier's hovering depends entirely on how the direction of the thrust
> is controlled. Sitting on top of downward thrust is akin to balancing
> a pole. It's basically unstable and continuous correction is needed to
> maintain stability. In the case of the Harrier controlling the
> orientation of the downward thrust is too fast and critical for a
> human pilot to control and needs high speed computer control to
> maintain stability.
>
> Whereas the bee when hovering is still deriving its lift from the
> wings in exactly the same way as it does in forward flight. In that
> respect it's more like a helicopter. So in the case of the bee the
> effective dihedral of the wings combined with its low centre of
> gravity gives a basic stability to the system. Unlike a modern fighter
> aircraft the bee is rather low in computational power so has to rely
> more on inherent stabilities. Since it's also more of tanker than a
> combat aircraft in design it can afford the consequent trade of high
> speed manoeuverability for stability.

I don't know. I should think a lot of that might be built into the
bumblebee's automatic systems (comparable to some "spinal" functions in
vertebrates) and not require much higher-level computational power, or
built-in stability either. But I'll admit I know next to nothing about the
busy little critters.

>
>>>> I'd still like to know where the original "insufficient wing area"
>>>> story
>>>> got
>>>> started, though. Absent some proof of a serious scientific analysis in
>>>> the
>>>> past claiming that, I'm inclined to believe it may be more of an urban
>>>> myth.
>>>
>>> It has been difficult to track down the source of the claim. According
>>> to Wikipedia the earliest published claim comes from the introduction
>>> to "Le Vol des Insectes" in 1934 by the entomologist Antoine Magnan,
>>> who was relying on unspecified calculations done by his assistant
>>> Andre Sainte-Lague.
>>>
>>> But the story was verbally current long before that publication.
>>>
>>> What Wikipedia says about that is that
>>>
>>> "Some credit physicist Ludwig Prandtl (1875-1953) of the University of
>>> Gottingen in Germany with popularizing the myth. Others say it was
>>> Swiss gas dynamicist Jacob Ackeret (1898-1981) who did the
>>> calculations."
>>>
>>> and more generally
>>>
>>> "It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that
>>> bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of
>>> oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations
>>> without flow separation."
>>>
>>>> It's a popular one anyway, and will probably go on forever -- like the
>>>> widely held belief that before Columbus everyone thought the earth was
>>>> flat.
>>>
>>> Such beliefs would soon die out if we gave our children a better
>>> scientific education. The problem is that a lot of people, especially
>>> in the US, think that our children are already being exposed to too
>>> much science,
>
>> I've never heard anyone make that complaint.
>
> I should have been more explicit. I meant too much science compared to
> religion. There are for example a number of religious Americans in
> Britain who are trying to persuade us that we are teaching our
> children too much science and too little balancing religion. One of
> the dangers as they see it is that with too much science and too
> little religion the children might end up believing in Darwinian
> evolution.

Maybe all the religious Americans who do that have gone to Britain. ;-)

Seriously, I am not aware of anything like that in my part of the U.S. It's
possible that it's an issue down in the "Bible Belt," as some parts of the
South are called, but that would still be a relatively small region.

Once every several years I get a phone call from some (usually) explosively
cheerful woman who is insistent on telling me all about "the Good News of
Christ," but I'm afraid I am very unkind to such callers and the
conversations never last long enough that I even know what denomination
she's representing. So I guess we do have *some* ultra-religious types
around here, but we don't run into them very much.

>
>> The problem in the U.S., I think, is that much of our primary education
>> is a
>> waste of time and money. We have some very good schools but apparently a
>> lot
>> more really lousy ones. I have read that young people going from high
>> school
>> into the armed forces (which you would expect high school to be enough to
>> prepare them for) often have to be given remedial education on entering
>> the
>> service, before they can be trained to actually do anything. And I know
>> for
>> a fact that our local community college -- and presumably all community
>> colleges in the state -- routinely gives new students, who of course have
>> graduated from high school, a fairly simple reading comprehension test to
>> see whether they require remedial education in English before they can do
>> anything else.
>
> You're right of course that poor schooling is a major problem. In the
> UK our major problem seems to be the increasingly bad behaviour of
> problem children, which means that higher staff-student ratios are
> required to stop the bad behaviour from making the class impossible to
> teach.
>
>> What is a factor is the problem of teachers' unions, which make it
>> impossible to get rid of worthless teachers. Also, again in the inner
>> cities, is the really big problem of lack of discipline. Where the
>> teachers
>> are afraid of the students -- often with good reason -- the schools are
>> unlikely to produce well-educated graduates.
>
> We have the same problems in the UK.
>
>>> The "according to science bees can't fly" is a very popular
>>> simple way of explaining to ignorant gullible people why they
>>> shouldn't trust science. And so long as plenty of people are making
>>> plenty of money out of encouraging people to distrust science it's
>>> bound to go on.
>
>> Yes, but that is true even among some well (or at least expensively)
>> educated people.
>
> I think you're talking about people who have had a good education
> which included very little science.

For the most part, yes. But I have known at least one physician who was open
to the idea of astrology, and the "psychic power" con artist Uri Geller was
being sponsored by a psychiatrist.

> Not only is that a problem in the
> general population, it's a very serious problem with politicians now
> that our highly technological civilisation is not only capable of
> providing a completely artificial lifestyle to city dwellers, but is
> affecting the life supporting conditions of the entire planet.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm