From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:obCdnVikMdzMOJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:SaadnV19A4R5A53WnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:drWdnZCm3ZhcB53WnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:hdpqqa$7q1$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu...
>>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The bothersome one is Fahrenheit to Centigrade (or Celsius as they've
>>>>> decided to call it for some silly reason), or vice versa of course.
>>>>> Probably most people who've developed B&W film know that 68 F = 20 C,
>>>>> but since the conversion is non-linear it's not something that you can
>>>>> approximate instantly in your head.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHAT??? It most certainly IS linear!
>>>
>>> Not the conversion.
>>>
>>> 20 C is 68 F, but 10 C is *not* 34 F.
>>>
>>> 10 kg. on the other hand is about 22 lbs., therefore 5 kg is 11 lbs., 20
>>> kg is 44 lbs., 100 kg is 220 lbs., and so on. That's what I mean by
>>> linear.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's also easy:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> F = (9/5)C + 32
>>>>
>>>> and C = (F-32) * 5/9
>>>
>>> I know all that. It's not easy to do in your head, as is the conversion
>>> from lbs. to kg, which is a simple multiplication.
>>>
>> The Kg to pounds conversion both pass through zero....That is, 0 pounds
>> is also 0 kilograms. but the temperature conversion doesn't share this
>> feature.
>
> Right, and that is what makes it much more difficult to do in your head,
> unless moving in some convenient increment. For example, every 10 degrees
> C = 18 degrees F, so if you start with 20 C which we know without doing
> the math is 68 F, moving up or down from there by 10s C is just a matter
> of adding or subtracting 18s F. So that's easy. Less convenient numbers in
> either scale are not so easy.
>
>> They both pass through -40 degrees, however......
>
> Which is little help, as far as convenience goes.

It helps me, because I can never remember the conversion formula, so I have
to develop it every time I need it.......IOW, I have to solve the two
equations in two unknowns in order to come up with the A, and B in F=A x C
plus B. The common -40 degree point helps me to do this more easily.


From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-15 16:47:38 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009111515591582327-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2009-11-15 15:09:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>> news:TumdnbSxOMgAFmLXnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:qrKdnVfcUtJk02LXnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2009111406385244303-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>>> On 2009-11-14 04:27:19 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au>
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>> Savageduck said:
>>>>>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago I read that left-hand drive is safer overall, because
>>>>>>>>>>>> when a
>>>>>>>>>>>> person is startled they tend to raise their non-dominant hand to
>>>>>>>>>>>> protect
>>>>>>>>>>>> their head. If at the time they are steering a car on the left
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> road, 9 out of 10 will therefore sverve into oncoming traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently the effect is statistically significant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems we left our history far behind. Have you ever noticed
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> good old Wells Fargo stage coach driver sat, ...on the right,
>>>>>>>>>>> shotgun
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the left.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't see many of them 'round these here parts. :- )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note the driver on the left.
>>>>>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Concord_stagecoach_1869.png
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, that was the right, the shot gun was on the left.
>>>>>>>> Now I don't know my left from my right!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I worked that out. :- )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder why they did it that way, since the driver is on the ejector
>>>>>>> side...? Maybe the convention pre-dates the widespread use of
>>>>>>> repeating
>>>>>>> rifles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it was a case of right handed shotgun shooters out numbering
>>>>>> left handed shooters. That way they wouldn't have to replace a driver
>>>>>> every time a left handed guard blew the driver away. Maybe a
>>>>>> qualification for shotgun guards was to be right handed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe there was a rule of the road that stagecoach robbers had a "rob
>>>>>> from left side" only sense of etiquette. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Savageduck
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it had something to do with which side the shells were ejected
>>>>> from when the rifle action was worked....It would be very annoying to
>>>>> the driver if the hot shell casings were ejected into his face while he
>>>>> was trying to get away from the bad guys.....
>>>>
>>>> I think most Winchester lever actions eject more or less straight up.
>>>> Marlins I believe have always ejected to the right, but most of the
>>>> rifles in stagecoach days were surely Winchesters.
>>>>
>>> Straight up wouldn't be too bad. The operator would learn to tilt the
>>> weapon in the right direction before working the action, so the empty
>>> shells would go where he wanted them to go.....Also, it would be just as
>>> easy to shoot for both left and right handers.....
>>
>> ...but remember accurate fire from a moving, rough riding stagecoach with
>> a rifle would be a rare thing.
>> There was a reason the favored weapon was a shotgun. Many of those guards
>> used a Greener 10 gauge, loaded with OO buck, that is a heavy load of
>> lead. Greener also developed the first decent choke for shotguns and self
>> ejector, making the lighter 12 gauge practical. It was the most copied
>> design for double barreled shotguns until John Moses Browning
>
> John Mose Browning, not Moses. Probably it's a common mistake.


This has got to be the first time I have heard "Mose"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moses_Browning
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbrowningJ.htm
http://www.american-inventor.com/john-moses-browning.aspx
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/81839/John-Moses-Browning

so if you have a citation for "Mose" it would be interesting to see.

>
>> made his innovations and introduced the Winchester 1893 pump, perfecting
>> it with the 1897.
>>
>> You might say Greener was Britain's contribution to the American West.
>
> Are you sure those guards used Greeners? There were American 10-ga. shotguns
> too, and I would think that Greeners would be pretty expensive for that
> purpose -- though not nearly as expensive as the "London-made" guns of
> course.

Greeners were first introduced in the US around 1869 and their
reputation for function and reliability was so good they quickly became
the favored shotgun for guards and Law enforcement. They were certainly
the best of shotguns in those days.

Greener also made some of the most expensive custom double rifles, but
these were mainly used in Africa and the colonies.

Good guns always commanded high prices, as they do today.
I know, my Kimber set me back $1200.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-LAc.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jvmdnal1zfWVO53WnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:M8GdnRU1VM7-OZ3WnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:x6-dnSa8S4SdPp3WnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:neednVO9LNjsEJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:SbedneirUt0bC2LXnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0088dc12$0$26871$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>>>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Years ago I read that left-hand drive is safer overall, because
>>>>>>>> when a person is startled they tend to raise their non-dominant
>>>>>>>> hand to protect their head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I question that. In the only near-head-on accident I ever had in my
>>>>>>> life, I instinctively threw up my right hand (the dominant one) just
>>>>>>> before impact. Broke my right wrist on the windshield.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have more faith in a statistical analysis of scientific data than
>>>>>> in a single anecdote. :- )
>>>>>
>>>>> I would too if it really were a statistical analysis of scientific
>>>>> data. Without having seen such analysis I'm inclined to doubt it. Ask
>>>>> a hundred people to pick something up from the table, and see which
>>>>> hand they use. I'll bet 128,000 zorkmids most of 'em use the dominant
>>>>> hand, unless they have a beer in it. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, and I'll bet that 90% or more of the, "statistics" you hear on TV
>>>> haven't been developed with anything like scientific methods.....I know
>>>> this from the fact that 90% of them have changed/reversed over the
>>>> years. I now eat exactly the opposite of what I was told to eat as a
>>>> tad for my good health, and half of that will be changed in the next
>>>> few years......You can usually tell by asking yourself, "How do they
>>>> know that?" If you can't figure out any way they could know, then you
>>>> should assume that they can't know, and the conclusions they draw are
>>>> bogus.....
>>>
>>> And as a general rule, any assertion that begins with "Studies show . .
>>> ." without actually identifying a source for the alleged studies, can
>>> safely be taken as no more than someone's unsupported opinion.
>>>
>> Or, if you can't identify a population and a control group from which the
>> data could be drawn, then you know it's just somebody's raw guess......
> For example, I remember not too long ago that the telly told me how many
> babies die from, "secondhand smoke" I immediately asked myself, How do
> they know this?. If their mothers smoked, then the babies died from first
> hand smoke.

No, first-hand smoke would require the babies themselves to have smoked.
:-)

> And, if the mothers didn't smoke, then what was the case? Did the mothers
> suddenly start smoking at birth? Did the fathers smoke. "And if so, how
> much time did the fathers spend blowing smoke in the babies faces? Anyway,
> I decided that it was just another bogus anti-smoking statistic, developed
> with no meaningful population and certainly, with no control group.

Yes, in that sort of case they might be attributing the deaths of all babies
who had a smoking parent to second-hand smoke, regardless of what the babies
actually died from. Without knowing the details of how the figure was
arrived at it's impossible to evaluate the claim.


From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009111517220470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-11-15 16:47:38 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net>
> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2009111515591582327-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2009-11-15 15:09:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:TumdnbSxOMgAFmLXnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:qrKdnVfcUtJk02LXnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:2009111406385244303-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>>>> On 2009-11-14 04:27:19 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au>
>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Savageduck said:
>>>>>>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago I read that left-hand drive is safer overall,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is startled they tend to raise their non-dominant hand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> protect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their head. If at the time they are steering a car on the left
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> road, 9 out of 10 will therefore sverve into oncoming traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently the effect is statistically significant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems we left our history far behind. Have you ever noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> good old Wells Fargo stage coach driver sat, ...on the right,
>>>>>>>>>>>> shotgun
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the left.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't see many of them 'round these here parts. :- )
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note the driver on the left.
>>>>>>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Concord_stagecoach_1869.png
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, that was the right, the shot gun was on the left.
>>>>>>>>> Now I don't know my left from my right!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I worked that out. :- )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder why they did it that way, since the driver is on the
>>>>>>>> ejector
>>>>>>>> side...? Maybe the convention pre-dates the widespread use of
>>>>>>>> repeating
>>>>>>>> rifles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it was a case of right handed shotgun shooters out numbering
>>>>>>> left handed shooters. That way they wouldn't have to replace a
>>>>>>> driver
>>>>>>> every time a left handed guard blew the driver away. Maybe a
>>>>>>> qualification for shotgun guards was to be right handed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe there was a rule of the road that stagecoach robbers had a
>>>>>>> "rob
>>>>>>> from left side" only sense of etiquette. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Savageduck
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe it had something to do with which side the shells were ejected
>>>>>> from when the rifle action was worked....It would be very annoying to
>>>>>> the driver if the hot shell casings were ejected into his face while
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> was trying to get away from the bad guys.....
>>>>>
>>>>> I think most Winchester lever actions eject more or less straight up.
>>>>> Marlins I believe have always ejected to the right, but most of the
>>>>> rifles in stagecoach days were surely Winchesters.
>>>>>
>>>> Straight up wouldn't be too bad. The operator would learn to tilt the
>>>> weapon in the right direction before working the action, so the empty
>>>> shells would go where he wanted them to go.....Also, it would be just
>>>> as
>>>> easy to shoot for both left and right handers.....
>>>
>>> ...but remember accurate fire from a moving, rough riding stagecoach
>>> with
>>> a rifle would be a rare thing.
>>> There was a reason the favored weapon was a shotgun. Many of those
>>> guards
>>> used a Greener 10 gauge, loaded with OO buck, that is a heavy load of
>>> lead. Greener also developed the first decent choke for shotguns and
>>> self
>>> ejector, making the lighter 12 gauge practical. It was the most copied
>>> design for double barreled shotguns until John Moses Browning
>>
>> John Mose Browning, not Moses. Probably it's a common mistake.
>
>
> This has got to be the first time I have heard "Mose"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moses_Browning
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbrowningJ.htm
> http://www.american-inventor.com/john-moses-browning.aspx
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/81839/John-Moses-Browning
>
> so if you have a citation for "Mose" it would be interesting to see.
>
>>
>>> made his innovations and introduced the Winchester 1893 pump, perfecting
>>> it with the 1897.
>>>
>>> You might say Greener was Britain's contribution to the American West.
>>
>> Are you sure those guards used Greeners? There were American 10-ga.
>> shotguns
>> too, and I would think that Greeners would be pretty expensive for that
>> purpose -- though not nearly as expensive as the "London-made" guns of
>> course.
>
> Greeners were first introduced in the US around 1869 and their reputation
> for function and reliability was so good they quickly became the favored
> shotgun for guards and Law enforcement. They were certainly the best of
> shotguns in those days.
>
> Greener also made some of the most expensive custom double rifles, but
> these were mainly used in Africa and the colonies.
>
> Good guns always commanded high prices, as they do today.
> I know, my Kimber set me back $1200.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-LAc.jpg
>
>
Nice looking autoloader....Is it 9 mm?

From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-15 17:24:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009111517220470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2009-11-15 16:47:38 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2009111515591582327-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> On 2009-11-15 15:09:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:TumdnbSxOMgAFmLXnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:qrKdnVfcUtJk02LXnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:2009111406385244303-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>>>>> On 2009-11-14 04:27:19 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au>
>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Savageduck said:
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago I read that left-hand drive is safer overall, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is startled they tend to raise their non-dominant hand to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their head. If at the time they are steering a car on the left
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> road, 9 out of 10 will therefore sverve into oncoming traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently the effect is statistically significant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems we left our history far behind. Have you ever noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good old Wells Fargo stage coach driver sat, ...on the right,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shotgun
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the left.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't see many of them 'round these here parts. :- )
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note the driver on the left.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Concord_stagecoach_1869.png
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, that was the right, the shot gun was on the left.
>>>>>>>>>> Now I don't know my left from my right!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I worked that out. :- )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder why they did it that way, since the driver is on the ejector
>>>>>>>>> side...? Maybe the convention pre-dates the widespread use of
>>>>>>>>> repeating
>>>>>>>>> rifles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it was a case of right handed shotgun shooters out numbering
>>>>>>>> left handed shooters. That way they wouldn't have to replace a driver
>>>>>>>> every time a left handed guard blew the driver away. Maybe a
>>>>>>>> qualification for shotgun guards was to be right handed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe there was a rule of the road that stagecoach robbers had a "rob
>>>>>>>> from left side" only sense of etiquette. ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Savageduck
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe it had something to do with which side the shells were ejected
>>>>>>> from when the rifle action was worked....It would be very annoying to
>>>>>>> the driver if the hot shell casings were ejected into his face while he
>>>>>>> was trying to get away from the bad guys.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think most Winchester lever actions eject more or less straight up.
>>>>>> Marlins I believe have always ejected to the right, but most of the
>>>>>> rifles in stagecoach days were surely Winchesters.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Straight up wouldn't be too bad. The operator would learn to tilt the
>>>>> weapon in the right direction before working the action, so the empty
>>>>> shells would go where he wanted them to go.....Also, it would be just as
>>>>> easy to shoot for both left and right handers.....
>>>>
>>>> ...but remember accurate fire from a moving, rough riding stagecoach with
>>>> a rifle would be a rare thing.
>>>> There was a reason the favored weapon was a shotgun. Many of those guards
>>>> used a Greener 10 gauge, loaded with OO buck, that is a heavy load of
>>>> lead. Greener also developed the first decent choke for shotguns and self
>>>> ejector, making the lighter 12 gauge practical. It was the most copied
>>>> design for double barreled shotguns until John Moses Browning
>>>
>>> John Mose Browning, not Moses. Probably it's a common mistake.
>>
>>
>> This has got to be the first time I have heard "Mose"
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moses_Browning
>> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbrowningJ.htm
>> http://www.american-inventor.com/john-moses-browning.aspx
>> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/81839/John-Moses-Browning
>>
>> so if you have a citation for "Mose" it would be interesting to see.
>>
>>>
>>>> made his innovations and introduced the Winchester 1893 pump, perfecting
>>>> it with the 1897.
>>>>
>>>> You might say Greener was Britain's contribution to the American West.
>>>
>>> Are you sure those guards used Greeners? There were American 10-ga. shotguns
>>> too, and I would think that Greeners would be pretty expensive for that
>>> purpose -- though not nearly as expensive as the "London-made" guns of
>>> course.
>>
>> Greeners were first introduced in the US around 1869 and their
>> reputation for function and reliability was so good they quickly became
>> the favored shotgun for guards and Law enforcement. They were certainly
>> the best of shotguns in those days.
>>
>> Greener also made some of the most expensive custom double rifles, but
>> these were mainly used in Africa and the colonies.
>>
>> Good guns always commanded high prices, as they do today.
>> I know, my Kimber set me back $1200.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-LAc.jpg
>>
>>
> Nice looking autoloader....Is it 9 mm?



That sir is a good old 1911 design 45 ACP! Not some pissy 9mm.

9mm indeed?? !!!!

For doublestack I have a Glock Model 23 in 40 S&W.

--
Regards,

Savageduck