From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:200911162316018930-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-11-16 23:00:07 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> wrote in message
>> news:BIydndIRzdLn2p_WnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:TLSdnSSh4oDtqp_WnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I had a S & W 22 caliber revolver that would jam after firing about a
>>>> dozen rounds through it. The clearance between the rear of the cylinder
>>>> and the frame was too small, and I was never able to get it
>>>> fixed......If I cleaned it after a couple of cylinder full's, then it
>>>> would work for another two, but cleaning it that often was a PITA, so I
>>>> never used it.
>>>
>>> That's interesting, but between the *rear* of the cylinder and the
>>> frame? Are you sure?
>>>
>>> I've seen revolvers that would develop that problem at the *front* of
>>> the cylinder, as leading built up between that part and the rear of the
>>> barrel. But I can't see what could cause interference at the rear of the
>>> cylinder, unless leading at the front of the chambers prevented new
>>> cartridges from being inserted fully.
>>>
>> Yes. this was a stainless steel 22 caliber 6 shot revolver with a 4 or 5
>> inch barrel. (I forget) Powder would get in between the ridge on the
>> cases and the cylinder, which would make the cases extend slightly too
>> far to the rear, and the cylinder would refuse to turn, causing the gun
>> to jam......I was unable to get anyone to fix it, although I didn't
>> really try too hard. (I had too many other guns to worry about it)
>
> I find that difficult to believe of a S&W 22. The K-22 was a great
> revolver and you could fire hundreds of accurate rounds out of it at the
> range. The Model 17 chambered for 22 LR is very reliable and accurate.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>
Well, it's true. I had to clean the powder out of the rear of the cylinder
with a toothbrush every time I emptied it before I reloaded another 6
rounds, or it would jam. I gave the gun away to a San Francisco County
policeman that I knew back then.....I don't know whether he still has it or
not. Perhaps he was able to get someone to fix it, but I don't know how you
could do it, other than replacing the cylinder with another one from the
factory.

From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009111623594627544-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-11-16 22:49:25 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> said:
>
>>
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:TLSdnSSh4oDtqp_WnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>> I had a S & W 22 caliber revolver that would jam after firing about a
>>> dozen rounds through it. The clearance between the rear of the cylinder
>>> and the frame was too small, and I was never able to get it
>>> fixed......If
>>> I cleaned it after a couple of cylinder full's, then it would work for
>>> another two, but cleaning it that often was a PITA, so I never used it.
>>
>> That's interesting, but between the *rear* of the cylinder and the frame?
>> Are you sure?
>>
>> I've seen revolvers that would develop that problem at the *front* of the
>> cylinder, as leading built up between that part and the rear of the
>> barrel.
>> But I can't see what could cause interference at the rear of the
>> cylinder,
>> unless leading at the front of the chambers prevented new cartridges from
>> being inserted fully.
>
> Yup.
> Deleading the forcing cone. Standard clean-up.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>
This was definitely a problem at the rear of the cylinder. Cleaning the rear
of the cylinder with a toothbrush every time I extracted the six empty cases
and before I replaced them with six more fresh ones, would "fix" the
problem, so I could fire it indefinitely, but that was a pain so I gave the
gun to a friend of mine.

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> wrote in message
news:Yv6dnY7TVa0GxJ_WnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3OmdnRx419o02Z_WnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> wrote in message
>> news:DbydnWauBrt3qZ_WnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
>>>
>>> My problem now will probably be finding a good place to shoot. I have
>>> "lifetime" privileges (because I was one of those who helped finance it)
>>> to the state association's pistol range, which is next to (and on land
>>> leased from) a commercial range which is within 10 miles of me. The
>>> problem there is that the lease has long expired, and the last time I
>>> was out there the commercial range owner was already getting grumpy
>>> about shooters using that range for free instead of paying to shoot at
>>> his range. And the range was originally intended just for competition
>>> shooters in registered matches and tournaments, which I have not been
>>> one of since the '70s. And that range owner is already facing legal and
>>> financial problems because of homeowners' complaints about bullets
>>> arriving on their property, even though there's probably at least a mile
>>> and a good-sized hill between the range and their homes. It's hard to
>>> imagine anyone at the range shooting over the hill, but who knows. Since
>>> I haven't been out there for a few years I don't know what the situation
>>> is now, but my guess is my "lifetime" privileges have expired.
>>>
>> If you want to continue shooting fine weapons at a very reasonable price,
>> consider buying yourself an air pistol. They are extremely well made, the
>> ammo is very cheap, and you can fire them in your living room and/or
>> basement without disturbing the neighbors. They are also more accurate
>> than firearms. Their initial expense is greater. (a good one will run you
>> over a thousand dollars) but after that, the ammo is very cheap. (around
>> a penny each round)
>
> Yep. I've got a nice one, a Gamo Compact (dunno why they call it that --
> it's not at all compact, except I suppose compared to some of the really
> long European ones). It's well under a thousand dollars, usually under
> $250 in fact, and much less than that when I bought mine several years
> ago. It's super accurate, has nice adjustable grips in the European style,
> nice sights and a superb trigger.
> http://www.airgundepot.com/gaaicotapi1.html
>
> I also have a Webley Nemesis, very nice pistol also but a bear to charge.
> Both these pistols are single-stroke pneumatics, i.e. one long swing of
> the top end compresses the air. Undoubtedly that's a lot easier for a
> younger man than it is for me. I can manage the Gamo for a while but I
> don't do much shooting with the Webley.
>
> I'd never be able to use any of those humungously long air pistols. I'm
> not anywhere near steady enough to handle that much sight radius.
>
I used to own a Webly "Hurricane", and also a Feinwickbrau gun that was
larger and better built, but I don't remember too much about it now. (This
was about 30 years ago) I spend many hours shooting the hurricane, and
became very good with it. I could hit a silver dollar at 50 feet free
standing with that gun.

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:gMydnWPEnP7wl57WnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:Mf41R7Q2DZALFAXl(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <2009111608013713512-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>>On 2009-11-16 07:31:45 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said:
>>>
>>>> In message <2009111606474899097-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>>> Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>>>> On 2009-11-16 06:07:32 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <2009111605502095335-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>>>>>Savageduck
>>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>>>>>> On 2009-11-16 01:00:35 -0800, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz>
>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:25:50 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>>> <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:DOydnQgIzaeZCmLXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:t28uf5hjm52ous6p5d4sren7rv8k86agfo(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:03:47 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>>> <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Blame Napoleon. He laid down the law for France and at the
>>>>>>>>>>> beginning
>>>>>>>>>>> of the 20th century France dominated the automobile industry.
>>>>>>>>>> But sans Napoleon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hummmm.....I wonder if France had stagecoaches before their
>>>>>>>>> automobiles, and
>>>>>>>>> if so, were they operated from the left or right sides?
>>>>>>>> Where ever they were operated from, ever since Napoleon they drove
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the right.
>>>>>>> Cite. You authority is in as much doubt as ours.
>>>>>> I would be interested too... though it sounds plausible. Napoleon
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> into Standards and making France the Centre Of The World.
>>>>> Napoleon might have set the French standard just to be different to
>>>>>the
>>>>> English.
>>>> Shirley not? :-)
>>>
>>>Don't call me Shirley!
>>>
>>>> Mind you The US did it just to be different to Europe. It was all
>>>> political
>>>
>>>If that were true we would all be riding pogo sticks, and who knows we
>>>might be soon enough.
>>
>> It was true. When the US got going it used different standards to help
>> the indigenous industry and confuse importers as the US had zero
>> industry when it started.
>
> You have some very strange notions, Chris, I'll say that for you.
>
> In the U.S. we used (and still use) the standard units of measure we
> inherited from the English. American inches, feet, yards and miles are
> exactly the same as English inches, feet, yards and miles. Some changes
> were made in liquid measure because the English system was extremely
> confused. For example, I believe they had at least three different sizes
> of barrel according to what liquid was involved, and this confused state
> of affairs was reflected in some smaller units of liquid measure. When
> they finally settled on the Imperial gallon if I recall correctly it was a
> new unit, a compromise between various older units. Very screwed up. The
> U.S. units of liquid measure on the other hand were established in a
> sensible way and have never changed.
>
> How on earth do you think "different standards [would] help the indigenous
> industry and confuse importers"? What reason could there possibly be to
> "confuse importers" in the first place? If imports needed to be controlled
> or limited, that could and would be done via tariffs.
>
Except for barrels of oil versus barrels of other stuff, which seems to be
different for some inexplicable reason......

From: Bill Graham on

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message
news:hdvdc802dap(a)news2.newsguy.com...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:01:52 -0800, J�rgen Exner
>> <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> Same happened to me yesterday in the supermarket. Two products,
>>>>> for one the price given in $/pound, for the other in $/ounce. How
>>>>> do you compare them on the spot? No, I cannot do a multiplication
>>>>> by 16 in my mind on the spot in front of the shelf, I do need
>>>>> paper and pencil.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using the metric system it would have been trivial, even if they
>>>>> had used different sizes, e.g. $/kg and $/100g. Just shift the
>>>>> comma and you are done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not so with the US units. There a pocket calculator seems to be
>>>>> mandatory for grocery shopping.
>>>>>
>>>> You think?
>>>
>>> No, I don't think, I know. It happened yesterday while I was looking
>>> for fresh steaks in the meat aisle in a Safeway store.
>>
>> This doesn't ring of truth. Fresh meat is priced per pound. All the
>> steaks would be priced per pound. Packages have different prices
>> because they contain different amounts of weight. I can't imagine
>> you'd need a calculator to compare prices.
>
> I've never seen fresh meat packaged other than with the price of the
> package
> and the price per pound on it.
>
>>>> Every supermarket in this area has a shelf tag that gives
>>>> the price per common unit on comparable items. In other words, in
>>>> the cereal aisle, the tags will all show the price per ounce for the
>>>> cereal even if the box is labeled by units other than just ounces.
>>>
>>> And yes, I am talking about the price on the label on the shelf
>>> (which happened to match the pricing unit on the individual article,
>>> too).
>>
>> Perhaps where you are it's different, or perhaps you didn't look at
>> the label carefully. Canned or boxed goods, in this area, can all be
>> compared by ounce price regardless of the weight in the can or box.
>>
>> Here's an example:
>>
>> http://www.ses.wsu.edu/Grants/StoreShelf.htm It shows that Jiffy
>> Peanut Butter is 13.24 cents per ounce. That allows you to compare
>> other brands, and other sizes of the same brand, by cost-per-ounce.
>> No calculator needed.
>>
>> I've used this tag feature and found that the "economy" size is not
>> always the most economical size to purchase.
>
> Dunno about where you are but around here sometimes one tag is in cost per
> ounce and another is in cost per pound, on items of the same kind with
> different brands or different package sizes.
>

Very true.....I remember deciding that paper towels were cheaper when
purchased individually than they were when purchased in packages of three at
our local Safeway. When I pointed this out to the clerk she was not
surprised.