When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: Bill Graham on 17 Nov 2009 22:09 "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 17 Nov 2009 22:13 "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 17 Nov 2009 22:42 "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 17 Nov 2009 22:47 "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.
From: Bill Graham on 17 Nov 2009 22:54
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:2vg6g51ukbe7hccongm87dugm6734knoaj(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:33:21 -0500, "J. Clarke" > <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>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. > > > Yes, that's what I said. If hamburger is priced at X per pound, you > can compare that with ground chuck at Y per pound. > >> >>>>> 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. > > I recognize that practices may be different in different areas, and > that one supermarket chain may have a different practice from another, > but Publix, Winn Dixie, and Albertson's all do it the same here. The > shelf tag will show the price of the box/can *and* the price per > common unit. Usually the common unit is an ounce. > Not to disagree, but I am annoyed about the different Ounces.....If you are calculating the price of Gold, you have to use some other ounce than the standard one used in grocery stores.....Exactly why they do this is not at all clear to me, and it is very annoying...... |