On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:01:36 +1300, Tom wrote:

Too true Tom. But often ballisticians (or at the least the US ones)
(and marketing wonks) consider groove diameter, rather than purely
bore diameter to be the deciding/naming convention factor, so there is
indeed some sloppy terminology. It is indeed a .30 caliber, using a
.308 diameter bullet. As far as going against convention..then
perhaps so did the originators of the .243, the 270, the .223, the
.257 Roberts, the 264 Mag, the 375 H&H, and so forth? G
Oddly enough..its the Euros that do the bore diameter thingy..the 303
Brit, the 6/7/8 mms...and then of course..the 6.5s

As far as possibly exceeding my experience..unless you have fired more
than somerwhere over 80,000 rounds through the Fals...shrug

Your L1A1 is an interesting rifle, able to accept inch or metric
magazines.

Btw..Ive several Lithgow SMLEs in the collection.

Gunner

Well I'm glad we've got that sorted. However I'm at a loss
as to why you would have fired so much through such a weapon.
My expenditure of ammo was courtesy of the military where the
rifle was regarded as the "mechanical musket" not anyone's
favourite weapon and one never bothered to keep count especially
when using the L2A1 version..

Tom

I entered into a lot of combat rifle matches, "practical rifle
shooting"/tactical rifle:

Some examples:
http://www.guntactics.com/page6.php
http://www.ashlandlakegunclub.org/tact_2005-06-04.html

And did a fair amount of practice..and taught a few classes to various
select individuals and small groups.

I was buying 7.62 Nato, by the double spam cans each month for a few
years. Shrug..it was cheaper then..and I was in better financial shape
too...shrug again. Not to mention better physical shape..some of those
courses were pretty physical. Matchs often included current SWAT guys,
currerent and former mercs, and fellow travelers. Most were by
invitation only, and seldom open to the public. Bunch of hard assed
shooters competing against each other..with me..the harmless lovable
fuzzball, sorta along for the ride.

When California put the Fal on the banned list..I sold all of mine out
of state rather than registering them. Now Ive got "California Legal"
toys. FN-49 is an interesting arm, when properly setup and so forth.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 00:54:48 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:06:11 GMT, Don Bruder wrote:


(That's *NOT* saying that a .30-06 isn't "high powered enough"... How
could anyone sane make that claim when it's generally considered to be
"plenty of rifle" for practically anything that walks, flies, crawls, or
slithers on the north American continent? Never mind the crazy folks
who have used it for taking African "big game", up to and including
rhinos and elephants...)

Karamojo Bell used the 7x57 as his official elephant management rifle,
during his tenure as a government game manager. FMJs. Something like
250 elephants IRRC

Gunner


I've read damned few books of that nature in my lifetime. I'm not keen on
reading unless it's something that interests me, and I'm more inclined to
read books that instruct me in things that I desire to learn, but on the
recommendation of a long past friend, I read the book Karamojo Safari.
It's been so damned many years since I read it that my memory is not good,
but one of the things I recall is that Bell shot over 1,000 elephants,
almost always 1 shot kills, and with nothing larger than a 7 mm rifle.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. In the book, comments were made how
he would stand on the body of a fallen elephant to shoot another.

As Iggy said, I'm also against such slaughter, but it's interesting that
such a small weapon is so effective against such large game. Makes me
wonder why I needed the .458 Magnum Ackley built for me in the late 50's.

Harold


Ayup..those were far different days with a different outlook. Much of
what Bell shot went to the nearest starving village so it wasnt a
waste. Bell was also a superlative shot and could put that lil bullet
EXACTLY where he wanted it. Fred Bear killed a couple elephants with
a bow and arrow. One shot kills.

However..the key is to let the critters hold one, exactly in the right
place when they are not trying to stomp you into mush. Once you let em
get the wind up...all bets are off with dangerous game. Esicmos have
killed polar bears for years with 22mag and 22 hornet rifles for
years. But then...the bad shots..and the unlucky didnt make it
home..so they tended to be weeded out of the gene pool sooner or
later. Polar bears are one of the few animals that will actively hunt
you, while you are actively hunting them.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 01:52:26 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"DeepDiver" wrote in message
...
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

Makes me wonder why I needed the .458 Magnum Ackley built
for me in the late 50's.

Clearly, you don't. Please send it to me immediately.


I was told it was a perfectly effective elephant gun, which I firmly
believe. Since owning it, I've not been plagued by so much as one of them.
:-)

Harold

Reminds me of one of my wierdest moments ever (and no, I wasn't doing
drugs). Some of my friends and I were swattting tennis balls around
at Alvin Junior College one night in the late '60's-early '70's when I
happened to glance toward the northeast. Bearing down on us at a fast
clip was a full grown elephant. I hollered at my friends, and
everybody turned to watch dumbstruck. Within a few seconds the thing
was getting pretty close, and I was trying to decide which way to run.
At that point, a voice called Harry!....Harry!....Damn it Harry, you
get back here right now!!! That last was roared by somebody really
****ed off. At that, the elephant skidded to a halt about 30 yards
away, turned right around, and went shuffling back to his trainer.

I didn't notice the small circus at the strip mall 'til after, as the
pucker factor diminished.

Pete Keillor

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 00:54:48 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:06:11 GMT, Don Bruder wrote:


(That's *NOT* saying that a .30-06 isn't "high powered enough"... How
could anyone sane make that claim when it's generally considered to be
"plenty of rifle" for practically anything that walks, flies, crawls,
or
slithers on the north American continent? Never mind the crazy folks
who have used it for taking African "big game", up to and including
rhinos and elephants...)

Karamojo Bell used the 7x57 as his official elephant management rifle,
during his tenure as a government game manager. FMJs. Something like
250 elephants IRRC

Gunner


I've read damned few books of that nature in my lifetime. I'm not keen
on
reading unless it's something that interests me, and I'm more inclined to
read books that instruct me in things that I desire to learn, but on the
recommendation of a long past friend, I read the book Karamojo Safari.
It's been so damned many years since I read it that my memory is not
good,
but one of the things I recall is that Bell shot over 1,000 elephants,
almost always 1 shot kills, and with nothing larger than a 7 mm rifle.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. In the book, comments were made
how
he would stand on the body of a fallen elephant to shoot another.

As Iggy said, I'm also against such slaughter, but it's interesting that
such a small weapon is so effective against such large game. Makes me
wonder why I needed the .458 Magnum Ackley built for me in the late 50's.

Harold


Ayup..those were far different days with a different outlook. Much of
what Bell shot went to the nearest starving village so it wasnt a
waste. Bell was also a superlative shot and could put that lil bullet
EXACTLY where he wanted it. Fred Bear killed a couple elephants with
a bow and arrow. One shot kills.

However..the key is to let the critters hold one, exactly in the right
place when they are not trying to stomp you into mush. Once you let em
get the wind up...all bets are off with dangerous game. Esicmos have
killed polar bears for years with 22mag and 22 hornet rifles for
years. But then...the bad shots..and the unlucky didnt make it
home..so they tended to be weeded out of the gene pool sooner or
later. Polar bears are one of the few animals that will actively hunt
you, while you are actively hunting them.

Gunner

Ha! That be that case, it's a perfect reason to have the .458, a decision
I've never regretted, although it's never killed anything worthy of mention.
One porcupine, which, today, would have been enjoyed as a living creature
instead. We all grow up eventually. :-)

Harold

In , on 11/02/05
at 11:38 AM, Gunner Asch said:

But then...the bad shots..and the unlucky didnt make it
home..so they tended to be weeded out of the gene pool sooner or later.
Polar bears are one of the few animals that will actively hunt you, while
you are actively hunting them.

Have you read the Jim Corbett books on maneaters in Northern India in the
early part of the 20th century? Absolutely chilling - some of the tigers &
one leopard had over 400 humans killed before he got them. I'll never
forget his assertion that "Man has just one advantage over the tiger - the
tiger thinks that Man can smell, so will ALWAY approach you downwind" he
then goes on to explain how tricky this makes susbsequent events when you
happen to be following a trail UPWINDGG

-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

wrong, it is momentum that is equal in absolute value (and has
opposite sign tot he momentum of the bullet), but energies are
different.


I'll admit that I'm getting in a little over my head here, so please feel
free to set me straight.


My understanding is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Therefore, the energy that is applied to the bullet must be absorbed by the
gun and the shooter in the opposite direction.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:27:03 GMT, Dave Lyon wrote:

My understanding is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Therefore, the energy that is applied to the bullet must be absorbed by the
gun and the shooter in the opposite direction.

Yes. Only reason it doesn't hurt you is because it's more spread out
(area), and dampened by the mass of the firearm. You still get the same
energy delivered to you (more, actually, due to air resistance to the
bullet), it's just spread out over more area _and_ more time so you're
not injured.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:50:03 GMT, Ignoramus26745 wrote:
On 2 Nov 2005 21:35:18 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Yes. Only reason it doesn't hurt you is because it's more spread out
(area), and dampened by the mass of the firearm. You still get the same
energy delivered to you (more, actually, due to air resistance to the
bullet), it's just spread out over more area _and_ more time so you're
not injured.

OK, today I am actually sober.
Let's not confuse energy with momentum.

I think that's what is happening, yes.

Newton's law states that the action (FORCE) is equal (but in opposite
direction) to opposing action (force).

OK. But that force is more spread out both in area and time for the
shooter, compared to the impact of the bullet.

The law of conservation of energy is a fully different law. It means
that energy cannot be created from nowhere. It keeps oil prices
high. In the case of shooting guns, the energy of bullets is given to
them by the burning gunpowder. Once the bullet flies out, gunpowder is
spent and burned. Unless the bullet weighs exacty as much as the gun,
there is no reason to expect energies of the gun and the bullet to be
the same.

One of us is confused.

I think Dave needs to take a basic Physics course to get
Energy and momentum along with force and acceleration
definitions straight and maybe a little more of Newtons
other laws clear. :-)
...lew...

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:54:36 GMT, Lew Hartswick wrote:
I think Dave needs to take a basic Physics course to get

You give no context, maybe you're talking about me? If so, pardon me
for having decades between physics and today, and perhaps you could
explain in English how my statements are factually inaccurate. For the
record, I contend that the same amount of force will push on your
shoulder, as is imparted to the bullet - but your shoulder is not
injured because the force is more spread out in both area, and in time.
What part of that is wrong, exactly, and why (assuming your
non-attributed response was in fact to me)?

Dave Hinz

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 02:04:17 GMT, Ignoramus26745 wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 01:24:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:54:36 GMT, Lew Hartswick wrote:
I think Dave needs to take a basic Physics course to get

You give no context, maybe you're talking about me? If so, pardon me
for having decades between physics and today, and perhaps you could
explain in English how my statements are factually inaccurate. For the
record, I contend that the same amount of force will push on your
shoulder, as is imparted to the bullet - but your shoulder is not
injured because the force is more spread out in both area, and in time.

This is basically correct, if force in this context is understood as momentum.

How about "oompf"?

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:54:36 GMT, Lew Hartswick wrote:
I think Dave needs to take a basic Physics course to get

You give no context, maybe you're talking about me? If so, pardon me
for having decades between physics and today, and perhaps you could
explain in English how my statements are factually inaccurate. For the
record, I contend that the same amount of force will push on your
shoulder, as is imparted to the bullet - but your shoulder is not
injured because the force is more spread out in both area, and in time.
What part of that is wrong, exactly, and why (assuming your
non-attributed response was in fact to me)?


Momentum is equal to mass times velocity. Conservation of
momentum says that the total momentum of gun + bullet is
the same before and after the bullet is fired. In order for
momentum to be conserved, the ratio of the speeds (absolute
velocities) of the bullet and gun must be inversely
proportional to their masses.

But kinetic energy is 1/2 mass x velocity squared. It's
that velocity squared term that leads to the unequal
division of kinetic energy between gun and bullet.

As an example, the gun weighs 100 units of mass to the
bullet's 1 unit. Momentum is conserved by the gun recoiling
at 1/100 the speed of the bullet.

KE of the bullet is
1/2 * 1m * (100v)^2 = 5000 mv^2

For the gun
1/2 * 100m * (1v)^2 = 50 mv^2

Ned Simmons

Reminds me of one of my wierdest moments ever (and no, I wasn't doing
drugs). Some of my friends and I were swattting tennis balls around
at Alvin Junior College one night in the late '60's-early '70's when I
happened to glance toward the northeast. Bearing down on us at a fast
clip was a full grown elephant. I hollered at my friends, and
everybody turned to watch dumbstruck. Within a few seconds the thing
was getting pretty close, and I was trying to decide which way to run.
At that point, a voice called Harry!....Harry!....Damn it Harry, you
get back here right now!!! That last was roared by somebody really
****ed off. At that, the elephant skidded to a halt about 30 yards
away, turned right around, and went shuffling back to his trainer.

I didn't notice the small circus at the strip mall 'til after, as the
pucker factor diminished.

Pete Keillor


LOL! That's gotta make you wonder what you were smokin'

"Ignoramus26745" wrote in message
...
On 2 Nov 2005 21:35:18 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:27:03 GMT, Dave Lyon
wrote:

My understanding is that every action has an equal and opposite
reaction.
Therefore, the energy that is applied to the bullet must be absorbed by
the
gun and the shooter in the opposite direction.


Snipped the other Dave's comments


OK, today I am actually sober.

Let's not confuse energy with momentum.

Apparently I am (still).


Momentum is mass multiplied by speed. Energy is mass multiplied by
speed squared, divided by 2. Momentum is a vector and has direction
(the direction of movement), and energy is scalar, it is a single
value.

So, momentum is the same thing as acceleration?



Newton's law states that the action (FORCE) is equal (but in opposite
direction) to opposing action (force). Note also that acceleration is
proportional to force (another newton's law, a = F/m). From here, you
would quickly see that any interaction between two bodies changes
their momentums by the same amount, only of the opposite direction.

I understand this part.



The law of conservation of energy is a fully different law. It means
that energy cannot be created from nowhere. It keeps oil prices
high.

Yep, I get this part.

In the case of shooting guns, the energy of bullets is given to
them by the burning gunpowder. Once the bullet flies out, gunpowder is
spent and burned.

Yep, still with ya.

Unless the bullet weighs exacty as much as the gun,
there is no reason to expect energies of the gun and the bullet to be
the same.


This is where I get lost. If the acceleration of both items is proportional
to their weight, why wouldn't their energy be the same? I understand that
the larger item is moving slower, and the smaller one is faster. I don't
understand why their ability to do a given amount of work would be
different.

If I apply 1000 newtons of force to any size object to get it moving,
assuming we didn't loose anything to friction, won't we need 1000 newtons to
make it stop? Doesn't that mean they have the same energy?

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 23:32:07 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Ned
Simmons quickly quoth:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:54:36 GMT, Lew Hartswick wrote:
I think Dave needs to take a basic Physics course to get

You give no context, maybe you're talking about me? If so, pardon me
for having decades between physics and today, and perhaps you could
explain in English how my statements are factually inaccurate. For the
record, I contend that the same amount of force will push on your
shoulder, as is imparted to the bullet - but your shoulder is not
injured because the force is more spread out in both area, and in time.
What part of that is wrong, exactly, and why (assuming your
non-attributed response was in fact to me)?


Momentum is equal to mass times velocity. Conservation of
momentum says that the total momentum of gun + bullet is
the same before and after the bullet is fired. In order for
momentum to be conserved, the ratio of the speeds (absolute
velocities) of the bullet and gun must be inversely
proportional to their masses.

But kinetic energy is 1/2 mass x velocity squared. It's
that velocity squared term that leads to the unequal
division of kinetic energy between gun and bullet.

As an example, the gun weighs 100 units of mass to the
bullet's 1 unit. Momentum is conserved by the gun recoiling
at 1/100 the speed of the bullet.

KE of the bullet is
1/2 * 1m * (100v)^2 = 5000 mv^2

For the gun
1/2 * 100m * (1v)^2 = 50 mv^2

IOW, if one thinks a rifle recoil is forceful (spread out over
a larger area of your chest and shoulder) imagine the force on
that tiny point of skin as a bullet hits you.

Ouch! That HAS to hurt.

-
Don't be a possum on the Information Superhighway of life.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Database-Driven Websites

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

IOW, if one thinks a rifle recoil is forceful (spread out over
a larger area of your chest and shoulder) imagine the force on
that tiny point of skin as a bullet hits you.

Ouch! That HAS to hurt.

If properly placed, it only hurts for an instant

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:18:16 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 00:54:48 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:06:11 GMT, Don Bruder wrote:


(That's *NOT* saying that a .30-06 isn't "high powered enough"... How
could anyone sane make that claim when it's generally considered to be
"plenty of rifle" for practically anything that walks, flies, crawls,
or
slithers on the north American continent? Never mind the crazy folks
who have used it for taking African "big game", up to and including
rhinos and elephants...)

Karamojo Bell used the 7x57 as his official elephant management rifle,
during his tenure as a government game manager. FMJs. Something like
250 elephants IRRC

Gunner


I've read damned few books of that nature in my lifetime. I'm not keen
on
reading unless it's something that interests me, and I'm more inclined to
read books that instruct me in things that I desire to learn, but on the
recommendation of a long past friend, I read the book Karamojo Safari.
It's been so damned many years since I read it that my memory is not
good,
but one of the things I recall is that Bell shot over 1,000 elephants,
almost always 1 shot kills, and with nothing larger than a 7 mm rifle.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. In the book, comments were made
how
he would stand on the body of a fallen elephant to shoot another.

As Iggy said, I'm also against such slaughter, but it's interesting that
such a small weapon is so effective against such large game. Makes me
wonder why I needed the .458 Magnum Ackley built for me in the late 50's.

Harold


Ayup..those were far different days with a different outlook. Much of
what Bell shot went to the nearest starving village so it wasnt a
waste. Bell was also a superlative shot and could put that lil bullet
EXACTLY where he wanted it. Fred Bear killed a couple elephants with
a bow and arrow. One shot kills.

However..the key is to let the critters hold one, exactly in the right
place when they are not trying to stomp you into mush. Once you let em
get the wind up...all bets are off with dangerous game. Esicmos have
killed polar bears for years with 22mag and 22 hornet rifles for
years. But then...the bad shots..and the unlucky didnt make it
home..so they tended to be weeded out of the gene pool sooner or
later. Polar bears are one of the few animals that will actively hunt
you, while you are actively hunting them.

Gunner

Ha! That be that case, it's a perfect reason to have the .458, a decision
I've never regretted, although it's never killed anything worthy of mention.
One porcupine, which, today, would have been enjoyed as a living creature
instead. We all grow up eventually. :-)

Harold

Unless that porky is eating the siding off your house. Which they do
indeed do on occasion.

There is nothing wrong with hunting. ETHICAL hunting. Butchery for
butchery's sake is wrong. Unfortunately there are a very small number
of knuckleheads who give the rest of us a bad name.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:34:33 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 23:32:07 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Ned
Simmons quickly quoth:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:54:36 GMT, Lew Hartswick wrote:
I think Dave needs to take a basic Physics course to get

You give no context, maybe you're talking about me? If so, pardon me
for having decades between physics and today, and perhaps you could
explain in English how my statements are factually inaccurate. For the
record, I contend that the same amount of force will push on your
shoulder, as is imparted to the bullet - but your shoulder is not
injured because the force is more spread out in both area, and in time.
What part of that is wrong, exactly, and why (assuming your
non-attributed response was in fact to me)?


Momentum is equal to mass times velocity. Conservation of
momentum says that the total momentum of gun + bullet is
the same before and after the bullet is fired. In order for
momentum to be conserved, the ratio of the speeds (absolute
velocities) of the bullet and gun must be inversely
proportional to their masses.

But kinetic energy is 1/2 mass x velocity squared. It's
that velocity squared term that leads to the unequal
division of kinetic energy between gun and bullet.

As an example, the gun weighs 100 units of mass to the
bullet's 1 unit. Momentum is conserved by the gun recoiling
at 1/100 the speed of the bullet.

KE of the bullet is
1/2 * 1m * (100v)^2 = 5000 mv^2

For the gun
1/2 * 100m * (1v)^2 = 50 mv^2

IOW, if one thinks a rifle recoil is forceful (spread out over
a larger area of your chest and shoulder) imagine the force on
that tiny point of skin as a bullet hits you.

Ouch! That HAS to hurt.

Trust me..it does. However..seldom is the velocity of the bullet shed
instantly. Even in a soft medium, it tends to slow down
gradually,(relatively speaking) in in a hard medium, much of the
kenetic energy is disappated via heat, and the disintergration of the
bullet.

Even in soft skin targets, Ive noticed steam rising. Red mist a ground
squirrel with a 22-250, and you may notice some of the released heat
rising as steam.

Gunner


-
Don't be a possum on the Information Superhighway of life.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Database-Driven Websites

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:41:50 GMT, Ignoramus12686
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:24:15 GMT, Dave Lyon wrote:

"Ignoramus26745" wrote in message
...
On 2 Nov 2005 21:35:18 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:27:03 GMT, Dave Lyon
wrote:

My understanding is that every action has an equal and opposite
reaction.
Therefore, the energy that is applied to the bullet must be absorbed by
the
gun and the shooter in the opposite direction.


Snipped the other Dave's comments


OK, today I am actually sober.

Let's not confuse energy with momentum.

Apparently I am (still).


Momentum is mass multiplied by speed. Energy is mass multiplied by
speed squared, divided by 2. Momentum is a vector and has direction
(the direction of movement), and energy is scalar, it is a single
value.

So, momentum is the same thing as acceleration?

No, it is not the same thing. Acceleration is tha rate of change of
speed of movement. Momentum is mas multiplied by speed of movement.

Unless the bullet weighs exacty as much as the gun,
there is no reason to expect energies of the gun and the bullet to be
the same.


This is where I get lost. If the acceleration of both items is proportional
to their weight, why wouldn't their energy be the same?

Acceleration (speed increase) is inversely proportional to the weight.

Energy is mass by speed squared. If one object's mass is 10 times the
mass of another object, that another (lighter) object would fly 10 times
faster than the heavy object. The energy of the lighter object would
be a result of 10 times greater speed, squared (100 times), divided by
the difference of mass, 10, so it would be 100/10 = 10 times greater
than the energy of heavy object.

I understand that
the larger item is moving slower, and the smaller one is faster. I don't
understand why their ability to do a given amount of work would be
different.

If I apply 1000 newtons of force to any size object to get it
moving, assuming we didn't loose anything to friction, won't we need
1000 newtons to make it stop? Doesn't that mean they have the same
energy?

No.

For example, you can accelerate a sledgehammer using, say, 100 newtons
of force. That would accelerate it relatively slowly.

Then the sledgehammer would hit concrete, stopping very quickly. That
could easily produce, say, 10,000 newtons of force, although acting
for much shorter time than it took you to accelerate the sledgehammer.

The time multiplied by force value, though, would be identical for you
accelerating the sledgehammer as well as for concrete stopping it. In
the above example, it would take concrete 100x less time to stop the
sledgehammer compared to the time it took you to accelerate it.

i

I like to use the analogy of the vault door.

With one finger pushing firmly, you can close a several thousand pound
vault door over a couple minutes.

Swing a 16lb sledge at the same door..and you may move it a few
inches, and have the sledge rebound nearly out of your hands.

Gunner


"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Let the record show that Gunner wrote back on
Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:18:07 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Even in soft skin targets, Ive noticed steam rising. Red mist a ground
squirrel with a 22-250, and you may notice some of the released heat
rising as steam.

Is that "steam" or just the rising 'warm air' heated by the exposed
internal parts of the squirrel; where his former body core (and higher
temps) are now exposed to the air and cooling?

Could be either way and a bit of both, would depend on conditions,
etc...
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:18:16 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:




Ha! That be that case, it's a perfect reason to have the .458, a
decision
I've never regretted, although it's never killed anything worthy of
mention.
One porcupine, which, today, would have been enjoyed as a living creature
instead. We all grow up eventually. :-)

Harold

Unless that porky is eating the siding off your house. Which they do
indeed do on occasion.

There is nothing wrong with hunting. ETHICAL hunting. Butchery for
butchery's sake is wrong. Unfortunately there are a very small number
of knuckleheads who give the rest of us a bad name.

Gunner

I don't have a problem with those that hunt, particularly if they consume
the game. I know two families of men that hunt as a way of life. They're
damned serious about it----and have hunted pretty much anything that is
legal here in the States. Mountain goats, bison, etc.., as the luck of the
draw dictates. These people have eaten anything they've shot, including
ducks.

My comment is about me, and the lack of pleasure I derived from my one and
only successful deer hunt. I drew out on a doe permit and got a clean head
shot. The critter dropped in its tracks and had no idea it was shot, but I
didn't feel very good about having shot it.

On the other hand, if some good hearted soul that has been successful in the
hunt and enjoys sharing the kill, I can't think of anything more enjoyable
than a nice pot of stifatho, a Greek stew made of venison and whole small
onions in tomato sauce and spices. Oh, yeah, with a loaf of french bread!

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

There is nothing wrong with hunting. ETHICAL hunting.
Gunner

I don't have a problem with those that hunt, particularly if they consume
the game.
snip
My comment is about me, and the lack of pleasure I derived from my one
and only successful deer hunt. I drew out on a doe permit and got a clean
head shot. The critter dropped in its tracks and had no idea it was shot,
but I didn't feel very good about having shot it.

On the other hand, if some good hearted soul that has been successful in
the
hunt and enjoys sharing the kill, I can't think of anything more enjoyable
than a nice pot of stifatho, a Greek stew made of venison and whole small
onions in tomato sauce and spices. Oh, yeah, with a loaf of french bread!

I have similar feelings. While I *am* opposed to trophy hunting, I do
support those who hunt ethically and governed by sustainable conservation.
In fact, as wild habitat diminishes and natural predators are driven out or
killed, hunting becomes a necessity for proper wildlife management.
Otherwise, foraging animals like deer will overpopulate and die off in large
numbers due to famine or disease.

That said, I have no desire to make a sport of hunting for myself. It just
isn't my thing, although I'd have no problem doing so if survival dictates.
Part of my Navy AOCS training included a couple of days in the wild, living
off the land. It doesn't take much hunger to motivate the natural predatory
instincts in us. I did manage to kill a small rabbit (using an improvised
sling shot) from which several of us made a rabbit soup.

Btw, that Stifatho sounds great. Do you have a family recipe? (I hope your
good-hearted friend has enough to share!)

- Michael

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:32:00 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the record show that Gunner wrote back on
Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:18:07 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Even in soft skin targets, Ive noticed steam rising. Red mist a ground
squirrel with a 22-250, and you may notice some of the released heat
rising as steam.

Is that "steam" or just the rising 'warm air' heated by the exposed
internal parts of the squirrel; where his former body core (and higher
temps) are now exposed to the air and cooling?

Even on a warm day, some steam can be noted. Its the result of the
kinetic energy dump....velocity to friction I believe.

Could be either way and a bit of both, would depend on conditions,
etc...

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"DeepDiver" wrote in message
...
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

There is nothing wrong with hunting. ETHICAL hunting.
Gunner

I don't have a problem with those that hunt, particularly if they
consume
the game.
snip
My comment is about me, and the lack of pleasure I derived from my one
and only successful deer hunt. I drew out on a doe permit and got a
clean
head shot. The critter dropped in its tracks and had no idea it was
shot,
but I didn't feel very good about having shot it.

On the other hand, if some good hearted soul that has been successful in
the
hunt and enjoys sharing the kill, I can't think of anything more
enjoyable
than a nice pot of stifatho, a Greek stew made of venison and whole
small
onions in tomato sauce and spices. Oh, yeah, with a loaf of french
bread!

I have similar feelings. While I *am* opposed to trophy hunting, I do
support those who hunt ethically and governed by sustainable conservation.
In fact, as wild habitat diminishes and natural predators are driven out
or
killed, hunting becomes a necessity for proper wildlife management.
Otherwise, foraging animals like deer will overpopulate and die off in
large
numbers due to famine or disease.

That said, I have no desire to make a sport of hunting for myself. It just
isn't my thing, although I'd have no problem doing so if survival
dictates.
Part of my Navy AOCS training included a couple of days in the wild,
living
off the land. It doesn't take much hunger to motivate the natural
predatory
instincts in us. I did manage to kill a small rabbit (using an improvised
sling shot) from which several of us made a rabbit soup.

Btw, that Stifatho sounds great. Do you have a family recipe? (I hope your
good-hearted friend has enough to share!)

- Michael



Sigh! The friends of which I speak are not local, one family in Utah, the
other in Oregon. I, like you, must go without. That's why pork is
mentioned in the recipe. It is very best made with game meat, however.

This meal is like no other. Truly a delight. Because Susan also makes a
wonderful lamb stew, we don't use lamb for this one, but it, too, would make
exceptional stifatho.

French bread? It's never any better than when you've warmed the loaf in
the oven, then served hot. Don't cut it in thin slices, but instead large
pieces, which are torn and dipped in the sauce. The crust gets crisp and
crunchy instead of soggy and tough-----and if you're inclined, a nice rose
wine doesn't hurt the cause, either. .

Michael, knowing that you're near, Susan could be talked into making a batch
(with pork) if you'd like to pay a visit. Let us know.

Enjoy!

Harold

STIFATHO


3½ lbs. stew meat (venison, elk or pork work well)

3½ lbs. boiling (small) onions, peeled

12 cloves garlic, minced

1 can tomato paste

2 cans tomato sauce

4 tsp. mixed pickling spices (tied securely in gauze bag)

Salt and pepper to taste (it takes a lot)

½ cup olive oil

½ cup vinegar

1+ cup water

In a large pot, brown meat in hot oil. Drain off fat. Add remaining
ingredients and bring to a boil. Lower heat and simmer until onions are
tender. Add water as necessary, but sauce should be thick and rich. Onions
should be whole, not falling apart. The spices can also be placed in a tea
brewing device. Regardless lf how they are introduced to the stew, they
should be removed and discarded when the stew is served.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
Let the record show that Gunner wrote back
on
Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:18:07 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Even in soft skin targets, Ive noticed steam rising. Red mist a ground
squirrel with a 22-250, and you may notice some of the released heat
rising as steam.

Is that "steam" or just the rising 'warm air' heated by the exposed
internal parts of the squirrel; where his former body core (and higher
temps) are now exposed to the air and cooling?

Could be either way and a bit of both, would depend on conditions,
etc...

I'm inclined to think it's to do with the velocity of the bullet, which
vaporizes lots of the critter as it disintegrates. Ackley used to say
there's nothing (game animals) on the US continent that can't be taken just
as well with a high velocity 22 as any other gun. Hydraulic shock is a good
part of the reason critters die when shot. You can imagine how nuts he
thought I was when I told him I "needed" a .458.

Harold

"Ignoramus12686" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:24:15 GMT, Dave Lyon
wrote:

"Ignoramus26745" wrote in message
...
On 2 Nov 2005 21:35:18 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:27:03 GMT, Dave Lyon
wrote:

My understanding is that every action has an equal and opposite
reaction.
Therefore, the energy that is applied to the bullet must be absorbed
by
the
gun and the shooter in the opposite direction.


Snipped the other Dave's comments


OK, today I am actually sober.

Let's not confuse energy with momentum.

Apparently I am (still).


Momentum is mass multiplied by speed. Energy is mass multiplied by
speed squared, divided by 2. Momentum is a vector and has direction
(the direction of movement), and energy is scalar, it is a single
value.

So, momentum is the same thing as acceleration?

No, it is not the same thing. Acceleration is tha rate of change of
speed of movement. Momentum is mas multiplied by speed of movement.

Unless the bullet weighs exacty as much as the gun,
there is no reason to expect energies of the gun and the bullet to be
the same.


This is where I get lost. If the acceleration of both items is
proportional
to their weight, why wouldn't their energy be the same?

Acceleration (speed increase) is inversely proportional to the weight.

Energy is mass by speed squared. If one object's mass is 10 times the
mass of another object, that another (lighter) object would fly 10 times
faster than the heavy object. The energy of the lighter object would
be a result of 10 times greater speed, squared (100 times), divided by
the difference of mass, 10, so it would be 100/10 = 10 times greater
than the energy of heavy object.

I understand that
the larger item is moving slower, and the smaller one is faster. I don't
understand why their ability to do a given amount of work would be
different.

If I apply 1000 newtons of force to any size object to get it
moving, assuming we didn't loose anything to friction, won't we need
1000 newtons to make it stop? Doesn't that mean they have the same
energy?

No.

For example, you can accelerate a sledgehammer using, say, 100 newtons
of force. That would accelerate it relatively slowly.

Then the sledgehammer would hit concrete, stopping very quickly. That
could easily produce, say, 10,000 newtons of force, although acting
for much shorter time than it took you to accelerate the sledgehammer.

The time multiplied by force value, though, would be identical for you
accelerating the sledgehammer as well as for concrete stopping it. In
the above example, it would take concrete 100x less time to stop the
sledgehammer compared to the time it took you to accelerate it.

i

I'm no mathematician, and have a hard time understanding almost all of this
conversation, but to illustrate a point (if only I knew which
one!)-------the .458 Magnum I own develops 2-1/2 tons of energy at the
muzzle, assuming a maximum load with a 500 grain bullet. It stands to
reason that there's hardly a man alive that could withstand that force on
his shoulder and survive, let alone still be standing. My rifle does NOT
have a muzzle break, and develops 80 foot pounds of recoil (about triple
that of a 12 gauge shotgun) , at least according to the things I read years
ago. It doesn't knock you down. Not unless you're an idiot. :-(
Please, don't ask.

Harold

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:22:15 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Ignoramus12686" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:24:15 GMT, Dave Lyon
wrote:

"Ignoramus26745" wrote in message
...
On 2 Nov 2005 21:35:18 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:27:03 GMT, Dave Lyon
wrote:

My understanding is that every action has an equal and opposite
reaction.
Therefore, the energy that is applied to the bullet must be absorbed
by
the
gun and the shooter in the opposite direction.


Snipped the other Dave's comments


OK, today I am actually sober.

Let's not confuse energy with momentum.

Apparently I am (still).


Momentum is mass multiplied by speed. Energy is mass multiplied by
speed squared, divided by 2. Momentum is a vector and has direction
(the direction of movement), and energy is scalar, it is a single
value.

So, momentum is the same thing as acceleration?

No, it is not the same thing. Acceleration is tha rate of change of
speed of movement. Momentum is mas multiplied by speed of movement.

Unless the bullet weighs exacty as much as the gun,
there is no reason to expect energies of the gun and the bullet to be
the same.


This is where I get lost. If the acceleration of both items is
proportional
to their weight, why wouldn't their energy be the same?

Acceleration (speed increase) is inversely proportional to the weight.

Energy is mass by speed squared. If one object's mass is 10 times the
mass of another object, that another (lighter) object would fly 10 times
faster than the heavy object. The energy of the lighter object would
be a result of 10 times greater speed, squared (100 times), divided by
the difference of mass, 10, so it would be 100/10 = 10 times greater
than the energy of heavy object.

I understand that
the larger item is moving slower, and the smaller one is faster. I don't
understand why their ability to do a given amount of work would be
different.

If I apply 1000 newtons of force to any size object to get it
moving, assuming we didn't loose anything to friction, won't we need
1000 newtons to make it stop? Doesn't that mean they have the same
energy?

No.

For example, you can accelerate a sledgehammer using, say, 100 newtons
of force. That would accelerate it relatively slowly.

Then the sledgehammer would hit concrete, stopping very quickly. That
could easily produce, say, 10,000 newtons of force, although acting
for much shorter time than it took you to accelerate the sledgehammer.

The time multiplied by force value, though, would be identical for you
accelerating the sledgehammer as well as for concrete stopping it. In
the above example, it would take concrete 100x less time to stop the
sledgehammer compared to the time it took you to accelerate it.

i

I'm no mathematician, and have a hard time understanding almost all of this
conversation, but to illustrate a point (if only I knew which
one!)-------the .458 Magnum I own develops 2-1/2 tons of energy at the
muzzle, assuming a maximum load with a 500 grain bullet. It stands to
reason that there's hardly a man alive that could withstand that force on
his shoulder and survive, let alone still be standing. My rifle does NOT
have a muzzle break, and develops 80 foot pounds of recoil (about triple
that of a 12 gauge shotgun) , at least according to the things I read years
ago. It doesn't knock you down. Not unless you're an idiot. :-(
Please, don't ask.

Harold

Try shooting one,while prone. One owned by a fellow with a very short
neck.

My 375 H&H Magnum is a bit rough when prone...the 458 Ackley is a
stone bitch.

Gunner, Member of the Order of the Scarlet Crescent. (2 chevrons)


"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...
"DeepDiver" wrote in message

Btw, that Stifatho sounds great. Do you have a family recipe? (I hope
your
good-hearted friend has enough to share!)

- Michael

Sigh! The friends of which I speak are not local, one family in Utah,
the other in Oregon. I, like you, must go without. That's why pork is
mentioned in the recipe. It is very best made with game meat, however.

There are commerical sources for venison and other game meats. Here is one I
found with a quick Web search that farms their own deer:

http://www.avenison.com/
(They happen to be sold out of most cuts, including the inexpensive stew
meat, although they do have shoulder available.)

And here is one located in Seattle that imports farmed game animals from all
over:

http://www.exoticmeats.com/


This meal is like no other. Truly a delight. Because Susan also makes a
wonderful lamb stew, we don't use lamb for this one, but it, too, would
make exceptional stifatho.

Mmmm... lamb! Speaking of which, I make a pretty mean Moussaka.


French bread? It's never any better than when you've warmed the loaf in
the oven, then served hot. Don't cut it in thin slices, but instead large
pieces, which are torn and dipped in the sauce. The crust gets crisp and
crunchy instead of soggy and tough-----and if you're inclined, a nice rose
wine doesn't hurt the cause, either.

Your Stifatho sounds like it would also be a good candidate for filling a
San Francisco sourdough bread-bowl.


Michael, knowing that you're near, Susan could be talked into making a
batch (with pork) if you'd like to pay a visit. Let us know.

Thank you for your kind and generous invitation (and for your family
recipe). My wife and I would love to visit, as much for the Stifatho as for
a chance to talk shop with you and to learn a thing or two from a master
metalworker. (Ok, to be fair, my wife would not enjoy the latter part at
all, but I certainly would!)

I didn't realize that you were near us; I thought you lived up in Washington
State. (I'm in California's San Francisco Bay Area.) If you don't mind, I'll
contact you offline to discuss further.


Enjoy!

Harold

STIFATHO...

I'm sure I will!

- Michael

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:21:23 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
quickly quoth:

I'm no mathematician, and have a hard time understanding almost all of this
conversation, but to illustrate a point (if only I knew which
one!)-------the .458 Magnum I own develops 2-1/2 tons of energy at the
muzzle, assuming a maximum load with a 500 grain bullet. It stands to
reason that there's hardly a man alive that could withstand that force on
his shoulder and survive, let alone still be standing. My rifle does NOT
have a muzzle break, and develops 80 foot pounds of recoil (about triple
that of a 12 gauge shotgun) , at least according to the things I read years
ago. It doesn't knock you down. Not unless you're an idiot. :-(
Please, don't ask.

Harold

My dad's friend who told me to hold his 30.06 away from my shoulder
the first time I'd ever fired one is damned lucky it had only one
round in it. When I got up off the ground, I wanted to see blood
trickling fromhis f*ck*ng HEART. (I believe that was the most angry
I'd ever been by age ten.) Subsequent confirmation many years later
by a chiropractor confirmed that it separated the cartilage at my
right inner collar bone joint.


Try shooting one,while prone. One owned by a fellow with a very short
neck.

My 375 H&H Magnum is a bit rough when prone...the 458 Ackley is a
stone bitch.

Were you almost the owner of a brand new 2-piece collar bone? g


Gunner, Member of the Order of the Scarlet Crescent. (2 chevrons)

"Scarlet Crescent" via Google points to the Polish Army in Napoleon's
time. You don't look that old, G. g

-
Don't be a possum on the Information Superhighway of life.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Database-Driven Websites

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
I'm no mathematician, and have a hard time understanding almost all of this
conversation, but to illustrate a point (if only I knew which
one!)---

----the .458 Magnum I own develops 2-1/2 tons of energy at the
muzzle,

Harold, "tons" is not a unit of energy.


assuming a maximum load with a 500 grain bullet. It stands to
reason that there's hardly a man alive that could withstand that force on
his shoulder and survive, let alone still be standing. My rifle does NOT
have a muzzle break, and develops 80 foot pounds of recoil (about triple
that of a 12 gauge shotgun) , at least according to the things I read years
ago. It doesn't knock you down. Not unless you're an idiot. :-(
Please, don't ask.

Harold

I think I'd better kill this thread before I get ingestion from the all
the missuse of terms. :-) :-)
...lew...

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 06:01:07 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:21:23 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
quickly quoth:

I'm no mathematician, and have a hard time understanding almost all of this
conversation, but to illustrate a point (if only I knew which
one!)-------the .458 Magnum I own develops 2-1/2 tons of energy at the
muzzle, assuming a maximum load with a 500 grain bullet. It stands to
reason that there's hardly a man alive that could withstand that force on
his shoulder and survive, let alone still be standing. My rifle does NOT
have a muzzle break, and develops 80 foot pounds of recoil (about triple
that of a 12 gauge shotgun) , at least according to the things I read years
ago. It doesn't knock you down. Not unless you're an idiot. :-(
Please, don't ask.

Harold

My dad's friend who told me to hold his 30.06 away from my shoulder
the first time I'd ever fired one is damned lucky it had only one
round in it. When I got up off the ground, I wanted to see blood
trickling fromhis f*ck*ng HEART. (I believe that was the most angry
I'd ever been by age ten.) Subsequent confirmation many years later
by a chiropractor confirmed that it separated the cartilage at my
right inner collar bone joint.


Try shooting one,while prone. One owned by a fellow with a very short
neck.

My 375 H&H Magnum is a bit rough when prone...the 458 Ackley is a
stone bitch.

Were you almost the owner of a brand new 2-piece collar bone? g



Gunner, Member of the Order of the Scarlet Crescent. (2 chevrons)

"Scarlet Crescent" via Google points to the Polish Army in Napoleon's
time. You don't look that old, G. g

In shooters vernacular its named for the scarlet half-moon scar
above, near or around the eyebrow, from contact with the fast moving
rear lens bell on a rifle scope.....
I also have one right across the bridge of my (many times broken) nose

I unfortunately and blessed/cursed with long arms and a fairly long
neck. I learned early on not to shoot weapons owned by burly little
****ers with one eyebrow and no neck...as their scopes tend to be just
a smidge too far back...and facial/head wounds tend to be really ugly
and hard to stop.

Gunner

-
Don't be a possum on the Information Superhighway of life.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Database-Driven Websites

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"DeepDiver" wrote in message
...
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...
"DeepDiver" wrote in message

Btw, that Stifatho sounds great. Do you have a family recipe? (I hope
your
good-hearted friend has enough to share!)

- Michael

Sigh! The friends of which I speak are not local, one family in Utah,
the other in Oregon. I, like you, must go without. That's why pork is
mentioned in the recipe. It is very best made with game meat, however.

There are commerical sources for venison and other game meats. Here is one
I
found with a quick Web search that farms their own deer:

http://www.avenison.com/
(They happen to be sold out of most cuts, including the inexpensive stew
meat, although they do have shoulder available.)

And here is one located in Seattle that imports farmed game animals from
all
over:

http://www.exoticmeats.com/

Thanks for the links. I'll have Susan explore at her leisure. We might be
inclined to order for a special occasion, but we're pretty close with money,
living on SS.



This meal is like no other. Truly a delight. Because Susan also makes a
wonderful lamb stew, we don't use lamb for this one, but it, too, would
make exceptional stifatho.

Mmmm... lamb! Speaking of which, I make a pretty mean Moussaka.

That's one that really tugs at my heart strings. While I married a "white
woman" (Susan), she learned to cook the majority of the Greek recipes from
my mother before she died, so I get a generous amount of "soul food".
Moussaka is one of the things she makes. Pastichio is another.

Lamb, when properly prepared, has no equal, not in my estimation. Of
course, one must realize that it is the meat on which I was raised. I had
no clue what a beef steak tasted like until I was a young adult.

Have you tried saganaki? Fried cheese-----served with crackers (I like
Ritz), or french bread, and fresh fruit? One fries a cheese named
kefalotiri, which doesn't melt, but gets nice and chewy until it renders
excessively, at which time it gets crunchy. It's a true delight for
breakfast. You can find the cheese at Greek or Italian deli's.


Your Stifatho sounds like it would also be a good candidate for filling a
San Francisco sourdough bread-bowl.

That would certainly be a nice addition, especially for those that enjoy
sourdough. We aren't prone to buying it, but I enjoy it when dining out.



Michael, knowing that you're near, Susan could be talked into making a
batch (with pork) if you'd like to pay a visit. Let us know.

Thank you for your kind and generous invitation (and for your family
recipe).

My pleasure.

My wife and I would love to visit, as much for the Stifatho as for
a chance to talk shop with you and to learn a thing or two from a master
metalworker.

I hope I could live up to your expectations. My skills are rapidly
rusting----having been away from the machines since '83.

(Ok, to be fair, my wife would not enjoy the latter part at
all, but I certainly would!)

Your wife might find something of interest to discuss with Susan, who
collects art glass, gardens, and enjoys cooking. She's a quiet kind of
person, but very friendly.


I didn't realize that you were near us; I thought you lived up in
Washington
State. (I'm in California's San Francisco Bay Area.)

Oops. My mistake. It's true that I live in Washington State, south of
Seattle by about 100 miles. Only recently, something I read made me think
you were located in the Seattle area. Yep, it's a long drive from San
Francisco! Still, if you ever plan a journey north, we'd certainly welcome
you and yours.

If you don't mind, I'll
contact you offline to discuss further.

No problem. I always enjoy hearing from folks with manners.

Harold

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
snip----
Try shooting one,while prone. One owned by a fellow with a very short
neck.

My 375 H&H Magnum is a bit rough when prone...the 458 Ackley is a
stone bitch.

Gunner, Member of the Order of the Scarlet Crescent. (2 chevrons)

For clarity, my .458 is not an Ackley, but a .458 Winchester, made by
Ackley.

Unlike your 375 H&H, which I imagine has one hell of a sharp kick, the .458
starts shoving------hard, and just keeps doing it, or so it seems. It's
very punishing to shoot-----and should have had a muzzle brake installed
when it was made to make it more "user friendly".

Harold

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
nk.net...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
I'm no mathematician, and have a hard time understanding almost all of
this
conversation, but to illustrate a point (if only I knew which
one!)---

----the .458 Magnum I own develops 2-1/2 tons of energy at the
muzzle,

Harold, "tons" is not a unit of energy.


assuming a maximum load with a 500 grain bullet. It stands to
reason that there's hardly a man alive that could withstand that force
on
his shoulder and survive, let alone still be standing. My rifle does
NOT
have a muzzle break, and develops 80 foot pounds of recoil (about triple
that of a 12 gauge shotgun) , at least according to the things I read
years
ago. It doesn't knock you down. Not unless you're an idiot. :-(
Please, don't ask.

Harold

I think I'd better kill this thread before I get ingestion from the all
the missuse of terms. :-) :-)
...lew...

Patience, lew, I'm a machinist, with no education. Maybe I should have
said that the .458 has 5,000 lb/ft of muzzle energy---dunno-----(but it
sounds like 2-1/2 tons to me)-what really matters is that you get an idea of
the performance of the weapon. Use some Kentucky windage, just as I do
when I must endure comments from those that don't understand machining the
way I do. I may not converse as if I'm a rocket scientist, but when it
comes to chasing that internal thread, you can damned well trust what I have
to say. You don't have to be smart to be a good machinist, something for
which I'm very grateful.

Harold

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:23:15 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
quickly quoth:

Gunner, Member of the Order of the Scarlet Crescent. (2 chevrons)

"Scarlet Crescent" via Google points to the Polish Army in Napoleon's
time. You don't look that old, G. g

In shooters vernacular its named for the scarlet half-moon scar
above, near or around the eyebrow, from contact with the fast moving
rear lens bell on a rifle scope.....
I also have one right across the bridge of my (many times broken) nose

Ah, THAT kind of crescent.


I unfortunately and blessed/cursed with long arms and a fairly long
neck. I learned early on not to shoot weapons owned by burly little
****ers with one eyebrow and no neck...as their scopes tend to be just
a smidge too far back...and facial/head wounds tend to be really ugly
and hard to stop.

Yeah, I've watched enough fights to know that facial wounds bleed
horribly, and I had an accidental meeting with a tubafore porch
railing once whilst chasing a neighbor girl. That one reached out and
caught me by the forehead, then let my legs go out from under me,
dropping my skull onto the cement patio. I felt like I had been neatly
sandwiched between a couple big rigs after that.

I also have scars in both eyebrows from meeting the kitchen floor
after some really nice swan dives out of my high-chair, or so I
understand.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty is easy. * http://diversify.com
It's Charity and Chastity that are hard. * Data-based Website Design
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:57:33 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Lew
Hartswick quickly quoth:

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
I'm no mathematician, and have a hard time understanding almost all of this
conversation, but to illustrate a point (if only I knew which
one!)---

----the .458 Magnum I own develops 2-1/2 tons of energy at the
muzzle,

Harold, "tons" is not a unit of energy.

Not unless you're shooting the air conditioner, eh, Lew?


I think I'd better kill this thread before I get ingestion from the all
the missuse of terms. :-) :-)
...lew...

Two late, lou.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty is easy. * http://diversify.com
It's Charity and Chastity that are hard. * Data-based Website Design
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:23:15 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 06:01:07 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

"Scarlet Crescent" via Google points to the Polish Army in Napoleon's
time. You don't look that old, G. g

In shooters vernacular its named for the scarlet half-moon scar
above, near or around the eyebrow, from contact with the fast moving
rear lens bell on a rifle scope.....

Guilty as charged.

I also have one right across the bridge of my (many times broken) nose

None there, but how's the web of your shooting hand? Got the 1911
hammer bite? Now, I've never had an M-1 thumb, but I got to watch one
happen. (The Hakim and the Ljungman that I have would, I think, make an
M-1 thumb seem mild...you should see those suckers cycle.)

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:55:26 -0800, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:

I also have scars in both eyebrows from meeting the kitchen floor
after some really nice swan dives out of my high-chair, or so I
understand.

Yeah, done that too. When I was about a year old, I learned how to undo
the latches on the tray of my highchair. Broke my upper jaw...

Let the record show that Gunner wrote back on
Fri, 04 Nov 2005 03:56:48 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:32:00 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the record show that Gunner wrote back on
Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:18:07 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Even in soft skin targets, Ive noticed steam rising. Red mist a ground
squirrel with a 22-250, and you may notice some of the released heat
rising as steam.

Is that "steam" or just the rising 'warm air' heated by the exposed
internal parts of the squirrel; where his former body core (and higher
temps) are now exposed to the air and cooling?

Even on a warm day, some steam can be noted. Its the result of the
kinetic energy dump....velocity to friction I believe.

Hmm - learn something new everyday ...


pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:52:47 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"DeepDiver" wrote in message
...
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...
"DeepDiver" wrote in message

Btw, that Stifatho sounds great. Do you have a family recipe? (I hope
your
good-hearted friend has enough to share!)

- Michael

Sigh! The friends of which I speak are not local, one family in Utah,
the other in Oregon. I, like you, must go without. That's why pork is
mentioned in the recipe. It is very best made with game meat, however.



Snip bunch-O-stuff

You're killing me here, Harold.

I just got home from work, dinner is not yet done, and i am now so
hungry I just may pass out. All of this talk of Stifatho, lamb
dinners, pastitiso, and fried kefalotiri is making my mouth water. I
am now too distracted to get much else done. Love all of that stuff.

You are right, properly cooked lamb is second to none.

Like yours, my wife is not Greek, but she has done a great job of
picking up all of the cooking skills for this sort of stuff, after
hanging around my mother for many years.

You keep throwing out offers to serve food like that and I may just
decide that Washington state is local to me (PR of Massachusetts) and
show up for dinner!

Al "Greek boy" A.