On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:01:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

Of course they are larger. Now there are various things to
consider....

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-36141.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch.../t-122111.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-90453.html

Thought you might like an additional problem...chamber throats along
with forcing cone angles (I ream to 11' btw)

Gunner

"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

Gunner Asch on Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:14:50 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:01:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

Of course they are larger. Now there are various things to
consider....

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-36141.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch.../t-122111.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-90453.html

Thought you might like an additional problem...chamber throats along
with forcing cone angles (I ream to 11' btw)

"Forcing cone angle can be from 3 degrees to 45" Oy.

I just spent 2 hours trying to fix the bloody drawing. It doesn't
reuse line items - you erase point 4 and make a new point it is point
5. I'm up to point 1504, circle 359 - and it is still not even
approaching done. It looks "okay" but - unclosed circles, and such.
More problems than I can handle.

Gunner

"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Steve W." on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:09:52 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:

Oh..and Im sure you know why the 357 mag was made 1/10 of an inch
longer...right?

So you had to buy the new revolver to shoot it.

Sort of. It was made longer so it will not function in .38 special
weapons. The .357 is loaded to 2+ times the pressures of the .38
special. As such it can do very serious damage if you try to use it in a
.38 Special firearm. BUT the inverse is that if you have a revolver
chambered in .357 mag. you can use .38 special ammo in it for a reduced
pressure load for plinking and practice. Then work your way up to full
bore .357 loads.

One of those "Oh .. thit!" moments, I'd just bought a 38 special
when I wanted a 357. I'd wanted a 357 for just that reason. But
"Thirty eight special" just rolled off my tongue. Nerts.

It's similar to a pistol or single shot .22LR. In those you can shoot
.22 LR, .22Long, .22 Short, .22CB and .22BB

Yep.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:11:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Steve W." on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:09:52 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:

Oh..and Im sure you know why the 357 mag was made 1/10 of an inch
longer...right?

So you had to buy the new revolver to shoot it.

Sort of. It was made longer so it will not function in .38 special
weapons. The .357 is loaded to 2+ times the pressures of the .38
special. As such it can do very serious damage if you try to use it in a
.38 Special firearm. BUT the inverse is that if you have a revolver
chambered in .357 mag. you can use .38 special ammo in it for a reduced
pressure load for plinking and practice. Then work your way up to full
bore .357 loads.

One of those "Oh .. thit!" moments, I'd just bought a 38 special
when I wanted a 357. I'd wanted a 357 for just that reason. But
"Thirty eight special" just rolled off my tongue. Nerts.

Plus P and Plus P+ 38 Special loads work nicely on human targets. The
best man stopper so far historically has been the .45 ACP followed by
a Plus P 38 with good 125gr JHPs.

I keep the old faithful 158gr Nyclad Hollow points in several of my
38s and dont feel unequipped.



It's similar to a pistol or single shot .22LR. In those you can shoot
.22 LR, .22Long, .22 Short, .22CB and .22BB

Yep.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:11:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:14:50 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:01:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

Of course they are larger. Now there are various things to
consider....

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-36141.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch.../t-122111.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-90453.html

Thought you might like an additional problem...chamber throats along
with forcing cone angles (I ream to 11' btw)

"Forcing cone angle can be from 3 degrees to 45" Oy.

I just spent 2 hours trying to fix the bloody drawing. It doesn't
reuse line items - you erase point 4 and make a new point it is point
5. I'm up to point 1504, circle 359 - and it is still not even
approaching done. It looks "okay" but - unclosed circles, and such.
More problems than I can handle.

Practice makes Perfect my son. You wanted a difficult project to keep
you amused ..and you picked a very good one!



Gunner

"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 20:08:33 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
:

Certainly. But when he's got it, what is he going to do with it?

He's going to draw stuff, John! Half the 'fun' of designing a replica of
anything without original prints is trying to draw something that looks
right, then checking the fit of all the things you DO know the dimensions
of.

Since the only dimensions he can get are the cartridge and the bullets, he
starts there. Likely someone knows exactly what round it was chambered
for. Once he knows that, he can certainly come close on what size/weight
of projectile it had.

LLoyd

Right, I understand. I'm just distracted by the need to the bullet
(i.e., projectile) dimensions. Not condemning the guy, just wondering.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:01:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 08:09:57 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 09:43:40 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:03:50 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

So, my questions:
1) Does anyone have the specs for the bullets themselves? Or a
link to where those same specs can be found?

Bullet diameter is 0.251".

Length?
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. I believe that all the
Browning cartridges head space on the case mouth, at least the ones I
had anything to do with did (although on second thought some of them
are semi-rimed I think). I think that you are talking about the
dimensions of the part of the bullet that sticks out of the case,
which, other then overall length, isn't much of consideration, at
least for a .25 Browning.

Right now, I have a bullet 7.49 mm long (from base to point) which
merely sits on the cartridge - because I have an additional 0mm for
the cartridge/brass to grasp.

Sort of. SAAMI specifies a maximum overall length of 0.910" and a
minimum length of 0.860. the case length is specified as 0.615 -
0.020. Subtract one from the other tells you how much pullet
protrusion you can have in a "standard cartridge".

But, I'm a bit vague about why you are worrying about "bullet"
dimensions/

Because I want it Right! And it gives me a great excuse for why
I'm not getting anything else done between terms.



Yes, sort of. The specification for the .25 ACP shows a bullet
diameter of 0.251 -.0060. the forcing cone starts at a diameter of
0.2562, is 0.0259 long and ends at bore diameter which is 0.243.
However, that specification is for a integral chamber but I suspect
that a revolver would use a similar dimension.

From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

--
I can't speak for all revolvers but a mate used S&W's for both
centerfire and .45 guns and the cylinder certainly indexed better then
that and the forcing cone on both guns was not that big.

But I did know a bloke that shot a revolver in both the .22 and the
centerfire matches and he had the cylinders marked on both guns and
fired all his slow fire using one chamber.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

With the "new" software, I can assemble all the parts and check
for fit/ clash, and "that's not gonna work" elements.

Is it sophisticated enough to handle an interference fit between thin
brass and soft lead?

"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:l0f6a7$344$1
@dont-email.me:

Is it sophisticated enough to handle an interference fit between thin
brass and soft lead?

Some of the separate 'plugin' accessory computers for high-end CAD will do
that sort of thing for you. It's not usually an _inherent_ part of any 3D
CAD to do that work.

Lloyd

On 9/5/2013 9:29 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
on Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:19:31 -0500
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 9/5/2013 1:41 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
6.35 mm "Pistola Con Caricato

I had to Google that one, pytor.

Fugly little bruiser, isn't it.

That it is.

In the 1920s steel was still becoming steel.
It wouldn't take special alloys for this one.

The .25 doesn't look like much at first glance.
It's a straight walled cartridge, center-fire,
with a semi-rimmed head.

Here are a whole bunch of diameters for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.25_ACP
That should be a fair start.

That is, and gives me cartridge dimensions. Which is fair, but
I'm after the dimensions of the actual "bullet" (the lead pellet) the
round launches. I know the pellet is at least (23.11 - 15.62 =) 7.49
mm - but that is just from the tip of the pellet to the edge of the
cartridge rim.

Warning - bad ASCII art ahead B-)

Brass Cartridge length:
0------------v = 15.62 -.51 mm
__________
| |____
| |_____)
|_________ |

OAL Length -------^ is 23.11 mm

My question is How far left of the "v" (15.62) is the bullet seated? 1
mm? 2 mm? (Bullet over all length is 7.49 mm +????mm)


Here is one...

http://www.ranchdogoutdoors.com/bin/...let_sketch.jpg

http://www.ranchdogoutdoors.com/bin/...amber01_70.jpg

http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/25_acp.html

That's all I found though...

John B. on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:33:55 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 20:08:33 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
m:

Certainly. But when he's got it, what is he going to do with it?

He's going to draw stuff, John! Half the 'fun' of designing a replica of
anything without original prints is trying to draw something that looks
right, then checking the fit of all the things you DO know the dimensions
of.

Since the only dimensions he can get are the cartridge and the bullets, he
starts there. Likely someone knows exactly what round it was chambered
for. Once he knows that, he can certainly come close on what size/weight
of projectile it had.

LLoyd

Right, I understand. I'm just distracted by the need to the bullet
(i.e., projectile) dimensions. Not condemning the guy, just wondering.

I just want them. For completeness. I am not OCD! I just want
them - so that everything is "right".
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 08:31:21 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .

With the "new" software, I can assemble all the parts and check
for fit/ clash, and "that's not gonna work" elements.

Is it sophisticated enough to handle an interference fit between thin
brass and soft lead?

If I tell it to, I think it will.

Hey, if Boeing can use it to build aircraft ... okay, good point.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Gunner Asch on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 04:15:13 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:11:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:14:50 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:01:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

Of course they are larger. Now there are various things to
consider....

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-36141.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch.../t-122111.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-90453.html

Thought you might like an additional problem...chamber throats along
with forcing cone angles (I ream to 11' btw)

"Forcing cone angle can be from 3 degrees to 45" Oy.

I just spent 2 hours trying to fix the bloody drawing. It doesn't
reuse line items - you erase point 4 and make a new point it is point
5. I'm up to point 1504, circle 359 - and it is still not even
approaching done. It looks "okay" but - unclosed circles, and such.
More problems than I can handle.

Practice makes Perfect my son. You wanted a difficult project to keep
you amused ..and you picked a very good one!

there is amused, and then there is frustrated. There's wire frame
and there is "sketcher" - solids. Wire-frame lets you draw a circle
tangent to these three points. Sketch doesn't.
As I have said, I could probably knock this out on the drafting
table with paper and pencil faster.
But I am exploring some of the other areas of the program.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Gunner Asch on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 04:13:34 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:11:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Steve W." on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:09:52 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:

Oh..and Im sure you know why the 357 mag was made 1/10 of an inch
longer...right?

So you had to buy the new revolver to shoot it.

Sort of. It was made longer so it will not function in .38 special
weapons. The .357 is loaded to 2+ times the pressures of the .38
special. As such it can do very serious damage if you try to use it in a
.38 Special firearm. BUT the inverse is that if you have a revolver
chambered in .357 mag. you can use .38 special ammo in it for a reduced
pressure load for plinking and practice. Then work your way up to full
bore .357 loads.

One of those "Oh .. thit!" moments, I'd just bought a 38 special
when I wanted a 357. I'd wanted a 357 for just that reason. But
"Thirty eight special" just rolled off my tongue. Nerts.

Plus P and Plus P+ 38 Special loads work nicely on human targets. The
best man stopper so far historically has been the .45 ACP followed by
a Plus P 38 with good 125gr JHPs.

The best man stopper has been Betty VaVoom wearing three inch
heels and a tight dress.


sf/x: rimshot

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

John B. on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:39:42 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:01:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 08:09:57 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 09:43:40 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:03:50 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

So, my questions:
1) Does anyone have the specs for the bullets themselves? Or a
link to where those same specs can be found?

Bullet diameter is 0.251".

Length?
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. I believe that all the
Browning cartridges head space on the case mouth, at least the ones I
had anything to do with did (although on second thought some of them
are semi-rimed I think). I think that you are talking about the
dimensions of the part of the bullet that sticks out of the case,
which, other then overall length, isn't much of consideration, at
least for a .25 Browning.

Right now, I have a bullet 7.49 mm long (from base to point) which
merely sits on the cartridge - because I have an additional 0mm for
the cartridge/brass to grasp.

Sort of. SAAMI specifies a maximum overall length of 0.910" and a
minimum length of 0.860. the case length is specified as 0.615 -
0.020. Subtract one from the other tells you how much pullet
protrusion you can have in a "standard cartridge".

But, I'm a bit vague about why you are worrying about "bullet"
dimensions/

Because I want it Right! And it gives me a great excuse for why
I'm not getting anything else done between terms.



Yes, sort of. The specification for the .25 ACP shows a bullet
diameter of 0.251 -.0060. the forcing cone starts at a diameter of
0.2562, is 0.0259 long and ends at bore diameter which is 0.243.
However, that specification is for a integral chamber but I suspect
that a revolver would use a similar dimension.

From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

I can't speak for all revolvers but a mate used S&W's for both
centerfire and .45 guns and the cylinder certainly indexed better then
that and the forcing cone on both guns was not that big.

I don't know how "big" is big. Probably a diameter just few
thousands of an inch larger than the bullet or case. All depends,
yada, yada yada.

But I did know a bloke that shot a revolver in both the .22 and the
centerfire matches and he had the cylinders marked on both guns and
fired all his slow fire using one chamber.

What ever works.

I'm just now really coming to grok that the bullet is "tossed"
from the cylinder to the barrel and then propellant gases are leaking
out the gap. "Ve vill haft to do zomsink about dis!" (For
Sicience!)
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 11:11:49 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 04:15:13 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:11:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:14:50 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:01:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

Of course they are larger. Now there are various things to
consider....

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-36141.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch.../t-122111.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-90453.html

Thought you might like an additional problem...chamber throats along
with forcing cone angles (I ream to 11' btw)

"Forcing cone angle can be from 3 degrees to 45" Oy.

I just spent 2 hours trying to fix the bloody drawing. It doesn't
reuse line items - you erase point 4 and make a new point it is point
5. I'm up to point 1504, circle 359 - and it is still not even
approaching done. It looks "okay" but - unclosed circles, and such.
More problems than I can handle.

Practice makes Perfect my son. You wanted a difficult project to keep
you amused ..and you picked a very good one!

there is amused, and then there is frustrated. There's wire frame
and there is "sketcher" - solids. Wire-frame lets you draw a circle
tangent to these three points. Sketch doesn't.
As I have said, I could probably knock this out on the drafting
table with paper and pencil faster.
But I am exploring some of the other areas of the program.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


Thats exactly why I retain a nice big drawing board behind me as I
type. And I have all sorts of Cad/Cam programs on hand. While
Cad/cam may be cooler and High Techy!...I have great..great difficulty
in efficently using any of them to design something. Which I can do
quickly and easily using the drafting table. Yah..I know..Im an
anachronism....shrug

And I do love computers...so this is..... odd.....

Gunner

"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
Thats exactly why I retain a nice big drawing board behind me as I
type. And I have all sorts of Cad/Cam programs on hand. While
Cad/cam may be cooler and High Techy!...I have great..great
difficulty
in efficently using any of them to design something. Which I can
do
quickly and easily using the drafting table. Yah..I know..Im an
anachronism....shrug

And I do love computers...so this is..... odd.....

Gunner

I settled on entering the shape quickly and crudely in an offset
position, similar to a pencil sketch but being sure that a closed
outline really did close, and then individually moving each line
segment or corner to the proper location. The advantage is that if I
was moving say the vertical end of a rectangle in the X direction,
inadvertent Y mouse motion had no effect. It did require paying
attention to the grid and snap-to settings and care in making group
selections.

jsw

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:38:17 -0500, Tim Wescott wrote:

It seems like it'd have a strong impact on the gun operation if it
sticks out the front of the cylinder, though.


Well, IIRC the Belgian Nagant gun used by the Russian Tzar Army (19th
century, mind you, and subsequently the Bolshevik revolutionaries) solved
the problem of blowout from between the cylinder and barrel by having the
bullet retracted into the cartridge, and advancing the cartridge slightly
upon firing so that the front of the cartridge entered the barrel and
sealed the gap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagant_M1895

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 12:23:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 11:11:49 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 04:15:13 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:11:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:14:50 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:01:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

Of course they are larger. Now there are various things to
consider....

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-36141.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch.../t-122111.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-90453.html

Thought you might like an additional problem...chamber throats along
with forcing cone angles (I ream to 11' btw)

"Forcing cone angle can be from 3 degrees to 45" Oy.

I just spent 2 hours trying to fix the bloody drawing. It doesn't
reuse line items - you erase point 4 and make a new point it is point
5. I'm up to point 1504, circle 359 - and it is still not even
approaching done. It looks "okay" but - unclosed circles, and such.
More problems than I can handle.

Practice makes Perfect my son. You wanted a difficult project to keep
you amused ..and you picked a very good one!

there is amused, and then there is frustrated. There's wire frame
and there is "sketcher" - solids. Wire-frame lets you draw a circle
tangent to these three points. Sketch doesn't.
As I have said, I could probably knock this out on the drafting
table with paper and pencil faster.
But I am exploring some of the other areas of the program.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


Thats exactly why I retain a nice big drawing board behind me as I
type. And I have all sorts of Cad/Cam programs on hand. While
Cad/cam may be cooler and High Techy!...I have great..great difficulty
in efficently using any of them to design something. Which I can do
quickly and easily using the drafting table. Yah..I know..Im an
anachronism....shrug

And I do love computers...so this is..... odd.....

I can just see you at that drawing board, too.

Nicely sharpened mechanical pencil.

Bright fluor light overhead.

Mountain Dew on the side table.

Gunner, whose tongue is black from licking said pencil lead,
huddled over a cocktail napkin, drawing up interference fits.

g

--
It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails,
admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 11:11:49 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:39:42 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:01:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 08:09:57 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 09:43:40 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:03:50 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

So, my questions:
1) Does anyone have the specs for the bullets themselves? Or a
link to where those same specs can be found?

Bullet diameter is 0.251".

Length?
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. I believe that all the
Browning cartridges head space on the case mouth, at least the ones I
had anything to do with did (although on second thought some of them
are semi-rimed I think). I think that you are talking about the
dimensions of the part of the bullet that sticks out of the case,
which, other then overall length, isn't much of consideration, at
least for a .25 Browning.

Right now, I have a bullet 7.49 mm long (from base to point) which
merely sits on the cartridge - because I have an additional 0mm for
the cartridge/brass to grasp.

Sort of. SAAMI specifies a maximum overall length of 0.910" and a
minimum length of 0.860. the case length is specified as 0.615 -
0.020. Subtract one from the other tells you how much pullet
protrusion you can have in a "standard cartridge".

But, I'm a bit vague about why you are worrying about "bullet"
dimensions/

Because I want it Right! And it gives me a great excuse for why
I'm not getting anything else done between terms.



Yes, sort of. The specification for the .25 ACP shows a bullet
diameter of 0.251 -.0060. the forcing cone starts at a diameter of
0.2562, is 0.0259 long and ends at bore diameter which is 0.243.
However, that specification is for a integral chamber but I suspect
that a revolver would use a similar dimension.

From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

I can't speak for all revolvers but a mate used S&W's for both
centerfire and .45 guns and the cylinder certainly indexed better then
that and the forcing cone on both guns was not that big.

I don't know how "big" is big. Probably a diameter just few
thousands of an inch larger than the bullet or case. All depends,
yada, yada yada.

But I did know a bloke that shot a revolver in both the .22 and the
centerfire matches and he had the cylinders marked on both guns and
fired all his slow fire using one chamber.

What ever works.

I'm just now really coming to grok that the bullet is "tossed"
from the cylinder to the barrel and then propellant gases are leaking
out the gap. "Ve vill haft to do zomsink about dis!" (For
Sicience!)

If you are worried about gas leakage between the cylinder and the
barrel look at the Nagant M1895 Revolver that moved the cylinder
forward to seal against the rear of the barrel.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/HC8cJCbYh2txs
Apparently the only revolver to have this function, for some reason
:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:23:11 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 12:23:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 11:11:49 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 04:15:13 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 02:11:09 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:14:50 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:01:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

Of course they are larger. Now there are various things to
consider....

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-36141.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch.../t-122111.html

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch...p/t-90453.html

Thought you might like an additional problem...chamber throats along
with forcing cone angles (I ream to 11' btw)

"Forcing cone angle can be from 3 degrees to 45" Oy.

I just spent 2 hours trying to fix the bloody drawing. It doesn't
reuse line items - you erase point 4 and make a new point it is point
5. I'm up to point 1504, circle 359 - and it is still not even
approaching done. It looks "okay" but - unclosed circles, and such.
More problems than I can handle.

Practice makes Perfect my son. You wanted a difficult project to keep
you amused ..and you picked a very good one!

there is amused, and then there is frustrated. There's wire frame
and there is "sketcher" - solids. Wire-frame lets you draw a circle
tangent to these three points. Sketch doesn't.
As I have said, I could probably knock this out on the drafting
table with paper and pencil faster.
But I am exploring some of the other areas of the program.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


Thats exactly why I retain a nice big drawing board behind me as I
type. And I have all sorts of Cad/Cam programs on hand. While
Cad/cam may be cooler and High Techy!...I have great..great difficulty
in efficently using any of them to design something. Which I can do
quickly and easily using the drafting table. Yah..I know..Im an
anachronism....shrug

And I do love computers...so this is..... odd.....

I can just see you at that drawing board, too.

Nicely sharpened mechanical pencil.

Bright fluor light overhead.

Mountain Dew on the side table.

Gunner, whose tongue is black from licking said pencil lead,
huddled over a cocktail napkin, drawing up interference fits.

g

Licking? No. Now..the inside of my ears...they tend to get blackened
up. Ive had this trait to stick things inside my ear..absentmindedly
cleaning them as I think. Often times using things at hand.
Occasionally it will be a permanent marker...sigh.

Gunner

"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

Gunner Asch on Sat, 07 Sep 2013 12:23:03 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Practice makes Perfect my son. You wanted a difficult project to keep
you amused ..and you picked a very good one!

there is amused, and then there is frustrated. There's wire frame
and there is "sketcher" - solids. Wire-frame lets you draw a circle
tangent to these three points. Sketch doesn't.
As I have said, I could probably knock this out on the drafting
table with paper and pencil faster.
But I am exploring some of the other areas of the program.

Thats exactly why I retain a nice big drawing board behind me as I
type. And I have all sorts of Cad/Cam programs on hand. While
Cad/cam may be cooler and High Techy!...I have great..great difficulty
in efficently using any of them to design something. Which I can do
quickly and easily using the drafting table. Yah..I know..Im an
anachronism....shrug

Two elements: Drafting , and using the computer.
Drafting: Can you visualize the 3D component from the drawings;
can you look at the 3D item and "see" the different views? Can you
then get the mental visuals onto paper is the next big step.
Using the computer is trying to get the software to reproduce what
you "see", and a lot of times, that is the "problem" with CAD = how
the bleep do I get the software to do what I want?
The advantage of the software, though, is when it comes to making
changes. Like when the client wants the widget/building changed to
include/exclude some feature.
If the "back ground" is done "right" then you can make all manner
of changes with a few clicks. E.G. scaling a Mauser Broomhandle up
from 9 mm to 45 ACP. [If memory serves, the 50 BMG is the 30-06 round
scaled up to take a .50 cal bullet. SO, a few tweaks, and any firearm
which will take the one, can now be made in the size to take the
other.] I've been working on some of that. This 6.35 Pistola, has
three parts with 18 holes all concentric. Figure the pattern once,
the rest is "easy". Use the original layout of the three holes, and
there's the barrel configuration.
But as you mentioned, as I've mentioned - if you don't use the
software all day, every day, getting that "easy" item onto the
computer screen can be a brass plated suppository.

Like I said, I'm learning some of the esoteric stuff. Like how to
make a parameter, which is then used in formulas to determine offsets
and diameters.



And I do love computers...so this is..... odd.....

Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 19:05:55 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
Thats exactly why I retain a nice big drawing board behind me as I
type. And I have all sorts of Cad/Cam programs on hand. While
Cad/cam may be cooler and High Techy!...I have great..great
difficulty
in efficently using any of them to design something. Which I can
do
quickly and easily using the drafting table. Yah..I know..Im an
anachronism....shrug

And I do love computers...so this is..... odd.....

Gunner

I settled on entering the shape quickly and crudely in an offset
position, similar to a pencil sketch but being sure that a closed
outline really did close, and then individually moving each line
segment or corner to the proper location. The advantage is that if I
was moving say the vertical end of a rectangle in the X direction,
inadvertent Y mouse motion had no effect. It did require paying
attention to the grid and snap-to settings and care in making group
selections.

I tried something like that. Wound up with so many things which
need to be a set distance from each other ... setting 18 circles to
the same diameter, with another 18 concentric, and then another 24
half circles alternating convex / concave as they enclose the 18 ... I
gave up and sought another way.
I'm sure there is a way to do as you say. On less complex pieces
I do it that way. Just be careful when adjusting dimensions. Nothing
like having what was the right outside line, now a middle line.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

John B. on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:27:13 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

I can't speak for all revolvers but a mate used S&W's for both
centerfire and .45 guns and the cylinder certainly indexed better then
that and the forcing cone on both guns was not that big.

I don't know how "big" is big. Probably a diameter just few
thousands of an inch larger than the bullet or case. All depends,
yada, yada yada.

But I did know a bloke that shot a revolver in both the .22 and the
centerfire matches and he had the cylinders marked on both guns and
fired all his slow fire using one chamber.

What ever works.

I'm just now really coming to grok that the bullet is "tossed"
from the cylinder to the barrel and then propellant gases are leaking
out the gap. "Ve vill haft to do zomsink about dis!" (For
Sicience!)

If you are worried about gas leakage between the cylinder and the
barrel look at the Nagant M1895 Revolver that moved the cylinder
forward to seal against the rear of the barrel.

Made it the only revolver which could work with a silencer
attached, too.

I think it was Webley which made an "Automatic Revolver" that
would fire, rotate the cylinder and fire until you released the
trigger or all cylinders were dry.

Apparently the only revolver to have this function, for some reason
:-)

Mechanical marvels. "Playthings for the rich, comrade." But
still cool.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:37:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:27:13 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

I can't speak for all revolvers but a mate used S&W's for both
centerfire and .45 guns and the cylinder certainly indexed better then
that and the forcing cone on both guns was not that big.

I don't know how "big" is big. Probably a diameter just few
thousands of an inch larger than the bullet or case. All depends,
yada, yada yada.

But I did know a bloke that shot a revolver in both the .22 and the
centerfire matches and he had the cylinders marked on both guns and
fired all his slow fire using one chamber.

What ever works.

I'm just now really coming to grok that the bullet is "tossed"
from the cylinder to the barrel and then propellant gases are leaking
out the gap. "Ve vill haft to do zomsink about dis!" (For
Sicience!)

If you are worried about gas leakage between the cylinder and the
barrel look at the Nagant M1895 Revolver that moved the cylinder
forward to seal against the rear of the barrel.

Made it the only revolver which could work with a silencer
attached, too.

True, but silent or not it was a pretty awkward design :-)

I think it was Webley which made an "Automatic Revolver" that
would fire, rotate the cylinder and fire until you released the
trigger or all cylinders were dry.

From what I read it only cocked the hammer and rotated the cylinder. I
read one description that said it was popular amount target shooters
which probably would rule out it being a tiny machine gun :-)

Apparently the only revolver to have this function, for some reason
:-)

Mechanical marvels. "Playthings for the rich, comrade." But
still cool.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
--
Cheers,

John B.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 7 Sep 2013
19:05:55 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

I settled on entering the shape quickly and crudely in an offset
position, ...

I tried something like that. Wound up with so many things which
need to be a set distance from each other ... setting 18 circles to
the same diameter, with another 18 concentric, and then another 24
half circles alternating convex / concave as they enclose the 18 ...
I
gave up and sought another way.
I'm sure there is a way to do as you say. On less complex pieces
I do it that way. Just be careful when adjusting dimensions.
Nothing
like having what was the right outside line, now a middle line.
--
pyotr filipivich

I was drafting circuit boards and their machined rf-tight enclosures
etc in the same PC board design program, so the line drawing
facilities were fairly primitive; lines, boxes, circles and circular
arcs. It did have plenty of extra layers I could use to draw and copy
guidelines, usually dark grey rectangular boxes stretched to the
dimension between features and tiled together in the background.
http://www.mentor.com/pcb/pads/overview/

I had noticed that creating an accurately dimensioned shape was slower
than drawing it manually, but editing it was fast and easy.
jsw

John B. on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 18:28:04 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:37:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:27:13 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

I can't speak for all revolvers but a mate used S&W's for both
centerfire and .45 guns and the cylinder certainly indexed better then
that and the forcing cone on both guns was not that big.

I don't know how "big" is big. Probably a diameter just few
thousands of an inch larger than the bullet or case. All depends,
yada, yada yada.

But I did know a bloke that shot a revolver in both the .22 and the
centerfire matches and he had the cylinders marked on both guns and
fired all his slow fire using one chamber.

What ever works.

I'm just now really coming to grok that the bullet is "tossed"
from the cylinder to the barrel and then propellant gases are leaking
out the gap. "Ve vill haft to do zomsink about dis!" (For
Sicience!)

If you are worried about gas leakage between the cylinder and the
barrel look at the Nagant M1895 Revolver that moved the cylinder
forward to seal against the rear of the barrel.

Made it the only revolver which could work with a silencer
attached, too.

True, but silent or not it was a pretty awkward design :-)

Well, one can't expect perfection right out of the bag.

I think it was Webley which made an "Automatic Revolver" that
would fire, rotate the cylinder and fire until you released the
trigger or all cylinders were dry.

From what I read it only cocked the hammer and rotated the cylinder. I
read one description that said it was popular amount target shooters
which probably would rule out it being a tiny machine gun :-)

I do believe you are correct, and I was mistaken in the extent of
its "automation."
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 23:26:33 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 18:28:04 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:37:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:27:13 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

From my reading, forcing cones on revolvers tend to be larger,
because of the issue of indexing. That is, loose tolerances or worn
mechanism may result in a chamber not lining up with the barrel, Sot
he manufacturer just makes a big funnel at the on end of the barrel to
catch the bullet in, and guide it to the center of the barrel.

I can't speak for all revolvers but a mate used S&W's for both
centerfire and .45 guns and the cylinder certainly indexed better then
that and the forcing cone on both guns was not that big.

I don't know how "big" is big. Probably a diameter just few
thousands of an inch larger than the bullet or case. All depends,
yada, yada yada.

But I did know a bloke that shot a revolver in both the .22 and the
centerfire matches and he had the cylinders marked on both guns and
fired all his slow fire using one chamber.

What ever works.

I'm just now really coming to grok that the bullet is "tossed"
from the cylinder to the barrel and then propellant gases are leaking
out the gap. "Ve vill haft to do zomsink about dis!" (For
Sicience!)

If you are worried about gas leakage between the cylinder and the
barrel look at the Nagant M1895 Revolver that moved the cylinder
forward to seal against the rear of the barrel.

Made it the only revolver which could work with a silencer
attached, too.

True, but silent or not it was a pretty awkward design :-)

Well, one can't expect perfection right out of the bag.

Correct. But they started with the S&W "Russian" and seemed to have
gone downhill :-)


I think it was Webley which made an "Automatic Revolver" that
would fire, rotate the cylinder and fire until you released the
trigger or all cylinders were dry.

From what I read it only cocked the hammer and rotated the cylinder. I
read one description that said it was popular amount target shooters
which probably would rule out it being a tiny machine gun :-)

I do believe you are correct, and I was mistaken in the extent of
its "automation."
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:39:06 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

If you are worried about gas leakage between the cylinder and the
barrel look at the Nagant M1895 Revolver that moved the cylinder
forward to seal against the rear of the barrel.

Made it the only revolver which could work with a silencer
attached, too.

True, but silent or not it was a pretty awkward design :-)

Well, one can't expect perfection right out of the bag.

Correct. But they started with the S&W "Russian" and seemed to have
gone downhill :-)

"A designer knows that they are finished, not when there is no
more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 09:27:02 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:39:06 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

If you are worried about gas leakage between the cylinder and the
barrel look at the Nagant M1895 Revolver that moved the cylinder
forward to seal against the rear of the barrel.

Made it the only revolver which could work with a silencer
attached, too.

True, but silent or not it was a pretty awkward design :-)

Well, one can't expect perfection right out of the bag.

Correct. But they started with the S&W "Russian" and seemed to have
gone downhill :-)

"A designer knows that they are finished, not when there is no
more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
--

Yes, I've read that too but it is hardly true today. Automobiles
started out with hand starters, manual transmission and acetylene
lights and look at them now.

pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:57:22 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 09:27:02 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:39:06 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

If you are worried about gas leakage between the cylinder and the
barrel look at the Nagant M1895 Revolver that moved the cylinder
forward to seal against the rear of the barrel.

Made it the only revolver which could work with a silencer
attached, too.

True, but silent or not it was a pretty awkward design :-)

Well, one can't expect perfection right out of the bag.

Correct. But they started with the S&W "Russian" and seemed to have
gone downhill :-)

"A designer knows that they are finished, not when there is no
more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Yes, I've read that too but it is hardly true today. Automobiles
started out with hand starters, manual transmission and acetylene
lights and look at them now.

True. But the question is: are the "gizmos" which replace those
items as simple as they can be? (Leaving aside the whole issue of how
complex an automobile is/was compared to operating a horse.) The
principle still holds, no matter how complex something is, there is a
point where one cannot remove some thing without having it "not work".

Even a Rube Goldberg extravaganza can use this principle, of
removing the bits and pieces which don't serve the purpose. Granted,
it is sometimes difficult to be sure what the purpose of a Rube
Goldberg "Device to Fry an Egg" might actually be, so flags, banners,
bells and whistles could be essential parts of the design. Why are
you placing this stick here, when it is neither functional, or
decorative?

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:03:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:57:22 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 09:27:02 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:39:06 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

If you are worried about gas leakage between the cylinder and the
barrel look at the Nagant M1895 Revolver that moved the cylinder
forward to seal against the rear of the barrel.

Made it the only revolver which could work with a silencer
attached, too.

True, but silent or not it was a pretty awkward design :-)

Well, one can't expect perfection right out of the bag.

Correct. But they started with the S&W "Russian" and seemed to have
gone downhill :-)

"A designer knows that they are finished, not when there is no
more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Yes, I've read that too but it is hardly true today. Automobiles
started out with hand starters, manual transmission and acetylene
lights and look at them now.

True. But the question is: are the "gizmos" which replace those
items as simple as they can be? (Leaving aside the whole issue of how
complex an automobile is/was compared to operating a horse.) The
principle still holds, no matter how complex something is, there is a
point where one cannot remove some thing without having it "not work".

Even a Rube Goldberg extravaganza can use this principle, of
removing the bits and pieces which don't serve the purpose. Granted,
it is sometimes difficult to be sure what the purpose of a Rube
Goldberg "Device to Fry an Egg" might actually be, so flags, banners,
bells and whistles could be essential parts of the design. Why are
you placing this stick here, when it is neither functional, or
decorative?

I'm still not sure that tells the whole story. The first Ford V-8, for
example, was a side valve engine with no valve clearance adjustment.
Far more simple then modern overhead valve, variable valve timing,
engines.

Cars today seem to all have air conditioning a device that isn't even
necessary for operation - cars lacked this device for most of
automotive history - for another example.

The thesis just doesn't seem true when applied to consumer end items
where the opposite seems to likely be the guide line.

--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:52:43 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Correct. But they started with the S&W "Russian" and seemed to have
gone downhill :-)

"A designer knows that they are finished, not when there is no
more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Yes, I've read that too but it is hardly true today. Automobiles
started out with hand starters, manual transmission and acetylene
lights and look at them now.

True. But the question is: are the "gizmos" which replace those
items as simple as they can be? (Leaving aside the whole issue of how
complex an automobile is/was compared to operating a horse.) The
principle still holds, no matter how complex something is, there is a
point where one cannot remove some thing without having it "not work".

Even a Rube Goldberg extravaganza can use this principle, of
removing the bits and pieces which don't serve the purpose. Granted,
it is sometimes difficult to be sure what the purpose of a Rube
Goldberg "Device to Fry an Egg" might actually be, so flags, banners,
bells and whistles could be essential parts of the design. Why are
you placing this stick here, when it is neither functional, or
decorative?

I'm still not sure that tells the whole story. The first Ford V-8, for
example, was a side valve engine with no valve clearance adjustment.
Far more simple then modern overhead valve, variable valve timing,
engines.

And if you do not want overhead valves, or adjustable valves, then
the original design was "perfect". OTOH, I recall reading that
setting the valves on a Deusenburg was a forty hour task. _That_
obviously was something which could most likely be aided by some
"efficiency" and simplification in the design. But ... as I
understand it, people who could afford them new (or can afford them
now) can effort the mechanic's charges.

Cars today seem to all have air conditioning a device that isn't even
necessary for operation - cars lacked this device for most of
automotive history - for another example.

So? Cars lacked windshield wipers, and turn signals for a long
time, either. But, they have them now. It is much like the tail fins
of the fifties. They really didn't add anything to the automobile,
but they "looked cool." And so, as a designer, how to I make these
superfluous things in the most efficient manner.
And the question remains: is there anything in this doohickey
which is not necessary for the doohickey to function as desired? My
reference to Rube Goldberg devices is just this: it may be overly
complicated, but are there any elements which can be removed and still
have the device work as intended. I'm thinking of the video of the
mechanical corkscrew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fAr09XtJw0 - a
complicated device which will uncork a bottle, and pour a glass of
wine. I can't get close to it, but it does appear to be a "clean"
design - nothing which does not have a "purpose". Yes, the "simpler"
means by far would be a standard corkscrew from Walmart. But if you
want a corkscrew which pours the wine, and it mechanical and hand
cranked ... this is one of them.


The thesis just doesn't seem true when applied to consumer end items
where the opposite seems to likely be the guide line.

My Lady and I had a similar discussion on "Wants" vs "Needs."
there are only so many things which qualify as true "needs": air
water, food and shelter. Much of what we "need" is really a want. Do
people really "need" cars? Do they need windows, doors and heaters?
(What is the hot sports car, the one which comes without a roof,
radio, heater or other heavy weight adding items?)
The issue is: what is wanted? "Simple transportation" - a
horseless carriage powered by a one cylinder gasoline engine? Or a
car with internal environmental controls, an efficient gasoline
engine, tinted windows with electrical controls?

In a sense, as an design engineer, why they want it this way, is
not as important as "how do I make this in the most efficient method,
without unnecessary elements?" Who cares if the entire thing is
"unnecessary" - it pays the bills. Be it tail fins, air conditioners,
slinkys, "Rock'em Sock'em Fighting' Robots" or plastic fake dog poop -
it pays the bills and there's a way to do this without a lot of extra
steps.


tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich.
Discussing the decline in the US's tech edge, James Niccol once 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 Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:50:44 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:52:43 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Correct. But they started with the S&W "Russian" and seemed to have
gone downhill :-)

"A designer knows that they are finished, not when there is no
more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Yes, I've read that too but it is hardly true today. Automobiles
started out with hand starters, manual transmission and acetylene
lights and look at them now.

True. But the question is: are the "gizmos" which replace those
items as simple as they can be? (Leaving aside the whole issue of how
complex an automobile is/was compared to operating a horse.) The
principle still holds, no matter how complex something is, there is a
point where one cannot remove some thing without having it "not work".

Even a Rube Goldberg extravaganza can use this principle, of
removing the bits and pieces which don't serve the purpose. Granted,
it is sometimes difficult to be sure what the purpose of a Rube
Goldberg "Device to Fry an Egg" might actually be, so flags, banners,
bells and whistles could be essential parts of the design. Why are
you placing this stick here, when it is neither functional, or
decorative?

I'm still not sure that tells the whole story. The first Ford V-8, for
example, was a side valve engine with no valve clearance adjustment.
Far more simple then modern overhead valve, variable valve timing,
engines.

And if you do not want overhead valves, or adjustable valves, then
the original design was "perfect". OTOH, I recall reading that
setting the valves on a Deusenburg was a forty hour task. _That_
obviously was something which could most likely be aided by some
"efficiency" and simplification in the design. But ... as I
understand it, people who could afford them new (or can afford them
now) can effort the mechanic's charges.

"Setting the valves" on the old ford engines consisted of grinding the
valve stem to the correct length :-)

Cars today seem to all have air conditioning a device that isn't even
necessary for operation - cars lacked this device for most of
automotive history - for another example.

So? Cars lacked windshield wipers, and turn signals for a long
time, either. But, they have them now. It is much like the tail fins
of the fifties. They really didn't add anything to the automobile,
but they "looked cool." And so, as a designer, how to I make these
superfluous things in the most efficient manner.
And the question remains: is there anything in this doohickey
which is not necessary for the doohickey to function as desired? My
reference to Rube Goldberg devices is just this: it may be overly
complicated, but are there any elements which can be removed and still
have the device work as intended. I'm thinking of the video of the
mechanical corkscrew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fAr09XtJw0 - a
complicated device which will uncork a bottle, and pour a glass of
wine. I can't get close to it, but it does appear to be a "clean"
design - nothing which does not have a "purpose". Yes, the "simpler"
means by far would be a standard corkscrew from Walmart. But if you
want a corkscrew which pours the wine, and it mechanical and hand
cranked ... this is one of them.

The thesis just doesn't seem true when applied to consumer end items
where the opposite seems to likely be the guide line.

My Lady and I had a similar discussion on "Wants" vs "Needs."
there are only so many things which qualify as true "needs": air
water, food and shelter. Much of what we "need" is really a want. Do
people really "need" cars? Do they need windows, doors and heaters?
(What is the hot sports car, the one which comes without a roof,
radio, heater or other heavy weight adding items?)

Exactly. Without poking a stick in anyone's eye, there was a
discussion here about smelly dish washers and I thought, "I don't
believe that I actually know anyone that has a dishwasher". I asked my
wife and she didn't know anyone either.
I'm now wondering whether we are really living the good life?

The issue is: what is wanted? "Simple transportation" - a
horseless carriage powered by a one cylinder gasoline engine? Or a
car with internal environmental controls, an efficient gasoline
engine, tinted windows with electrical controls?

Exactly. But of course, one needs the ABS system, the tinted windows,
the air con with the his and her's controls, the automatic gearbox,
power steering and a two tone paint job, and all the rest.... to drive
down to the super market to get a box of cereal.

At least that is how the T.V. portrays it :-)

In a sense, as an design engineer, why they want it this way, is
not as important as "how do I make this in the most efficient method,
without unnecessary elements?" Who cares if the entire thing is
"unnecessary" - it pays the bills. Be it tail fins, air conditioners,
slinkys, "Rock'em Sock'em Fighting' Robots" or plastic fake dog poop -
it pays the bills and there's a way to do this without a lot of extra
steps.


tschus
pyotr



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

John B.

John B. on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:42:44 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

My Lady and I had a similar discussion on "Wants" vs "Needs."
there are only so many things which qualify as true "needs": air
water, food and shelter. Much of what we "need" is really a want. Do
people really "need" cars? Do they need windows, doors and heaters?
(What is the hot sports car, the one which comes without a roof,
radio, heater or other heavy weight adding items?)

Exactly. Without poking a stick in anyone's eye, there was a
discussion here about smelly dish washers and I thought, "I don't
believe that I actually know anyone that has a dishwasher". I asked my
wife and she didn't know anyone either.
I'm now wondering whether we are really living the good life?

The issue is: what is wanted? "Simple transportation" - a
horseless carriage powered by a one cylinder gasoline engine? Or a
car with internal environmental controls, an efficient gasoline
engine, tinted windows with electrical controls?

Exactly. But of course, one needs the ABS system, the tinted windows,
the air con with the his and her's controls, the automatic gearbox,
power steering and a two tone paint job, and all the rest.... to drive
down to the super market to get a box of cereal.

At least that is how the T.V. portrays it :-)

And try to get a car without all the doodads. Or a cell phone. Or
an MP3 player.

"Oh, marketing determined they don't sell."
They don't sell because people can't buy what isn't being made!

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

And try to get a car without all the doodads. Or a cell phone. Or
an MP3 player.

"Oh, marketing determined they don't sell."
They don't sell because people can't buy what isn't being made!

pyotr filipivich

The test is to pretend to shop for a bargain that's been on the lot
too long. My truck for example had sat unsold for 8 months because it
had a 4 cylinder engine.

On 9/11/2013 12:01 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

And try to get a car without all the doodads. Or a cell phone. Or
an MP3 player.

"Oh, marketing determined they don't sell."
They don't sell because people can't buy what isn't being made!

pyotr filipivich

The test is to pretend to shop for a bargain that's been on the lot
too long. My truck for example had sat unsold for 8 months because it
had a 4 cylinder engine.

In 2001, I bought a basic 2001 Subaru Outback Sport for dealer cost that
wouldn't sell because it didn't have an automatic trans.

In 2007, I bought a loaded 2007 Subaru Outback Sport SE for dealer
cost(and paid LESS than in 2001) that wouldn't sell because it didn't
have an automatic trans.

Too bad my knees are telling me that an automatic trans in my future.

David

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:35:16 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:42:44 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

My Lady and I had a similar discussion on "Wants" vs "Needs."
there are only so many things which qualify as true "needs": air
water, food and shelter. Much of what we "need" is really a want. Do
people really "need" cars? Do they need windows, doors and heaters?
(What is the hot sports car, the one which comes without a roof,
radio, heater or other heavy weight adding items?)

Exactly. Without poking a stick in anyone's eye, there was a
discussion here about smelly dish washers and I thought, "I don't
believe that I actually know anyone that has a dishwasher". I asked my
wife and she didn't know anyone either.
I'm now wondering whether we are really living the good life?

The issue is: what is wanted? "Simple transportation" - a
horseless carriage powered by a one cylinder gasoline engine? Or a
car with internal environmental controls, an efficient gasoline
engine, tinted windows with electrical controls?

Exactly. But of course, one needs the ABS system, the tinted windows,
the air con with the his and her's controls, the automatic gearbox,
power steering and a two tone paint job, and all the rest.... to drive
down to the super market to get a box of cereal.

At least that is how the T.V. portrays it :-)

And try to get a car without all the doodads. Or a cell phone. Or
an MP3 player.

"Oh, marketing determined they don't sell."
They don't sell because people can't buy what isn't being made!

Nearly 20 years ago I tried to buy a car in Bangkok, Thailand, without
an automatic transmission and electric windows and was told that "they
don't make those". I asked about the hoards of manual transmission
taxis I see and was told that was a special, fleet, purchase. Might be
right, might be wrong, but I don't believe I've ever seen anyone with
a manual transmission car here. Other then an old banger bought 3rd,
4th, 5th hand.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
--
Cheers,

John B.

"Jim Wilkins" on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:01:33
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
And try to get a car without all the doodads. Or a cell phone. Or
an MP3 player.

"Oh, marketing determined they don't sell."
They don't sell because people can't buy what isn't being made!

pyotr filipivich

The test is to pretend to shop for a bargain that's been on the lot
too long. My truck for example had sat unsold for 8 months because it
had a 4 cylinder engine.

Some times that can be done. [Mom would buy the salesman's demo at
the end of the model year.]

But finding a cell phone which is just a telephone, and not a
rinky-dinky "communicator-knock off" which takes pictures, movies,
emails them to your cousin in Bavaria, surfs the web, feeds the cat,
schedules appointments with the Dentist, and tells the world your GPS
location (but can't complete a phone call if you're moving) - that is
a bit more difficult.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:52:45 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:01:33
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
. ..
And try to get a car without all the doodads. Or a cell phone. Or
an MP3 player.

"Oh, marketing determined they don't sell."
They don't sell because people can't buy what isn't being made!

pyotr filipivich

The test is to pretend to shop for a bargain that's been on the lot
too long. My truck for example had sat unsold for 8 months because it
had a 4 cylinder engine.

Some times that can be done. [Mom would buy the salesman's demo at
the end of the model year.]

But finding a cell phone which is just a telephone, and not a
rinky-dinky "communicator-knock off" which takes pictures, movies,
emails them to your cousin in Bavaria, surfs the web, feeds the cat,
schedules appointments with the Dentist, and tells the world your GPS
location (but can't complete a phone call if you're moving) - that is
a bit more difficult.
--

Can do, in fact I almost bought a tiny little Nokia like I had years
ago. The secret - buy second hand :-)

But I have to admit that I like a "smart phone" if for no other reason
then I can take pictures of something in a store and I can make notes
to myself. Example - I've got a memo on the phone listing every
battery I use in every piece of equipment. Otherwise I'd never
remember what battery for the electronic scales, the electronic
calipers, the electronic temp. gauge, etc.

I am also thinking of building another computer so I went to the
computer parts shop where they sell all the bits and pieces and have a
six foot long notice board listing everything that they sell and the
prices. Two or three photos and I've got all the component prices to
mull over.

I also play solitare while I'm waiting for the subway train :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.