Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,104
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?

Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards?

There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.

PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?)
38 (why not 35 or 40?)
177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?)
9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?)
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?


It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been
based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the
grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have
just been plucked out of the air.

A .38 Spl. bullet is actually .357 bullet and groove diameter. That's
the same as a 9 mm. Etc. Etc. The .38 Spl. is named for the diameter
of the case neck. sigh

Sometimes they just bumped an existing caliber designation up to
signify a new cartridge. For example, the .223 followed the .222
Remington Magnum (Wikipedia said "222 Remingon Special." I'm pretty
sure that's a mistake.) It's basically a revised version of the .222
Rem. Mag. -- one of my favorite varmint cartridges, although not quite
as accurate as the smaller .222 Remington.

As for the arbitrary ones, there was the .218 Bee and the .219 Zipper,
both introduced by Winchester in the same year, but each made for a
different model of lever-action rifle. They both shoot the same
..224-in.-diameter bullet. The Zipper was a much hotter cartridge.

Then you have the year of introduction: .30-03 and .30-06. And the
necked down (or rarely necked up) versions of earlier cartridges:
..22-250, .25-06, 7mm-08, 30-378 Weatherby Magnum.

In other words, it more or less means nothing. g


Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards?


No.


There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.


There are. There are entire books written about some of them.


PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?)
38 (why not 35 or 40?)
177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?)
9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?)


Long stories, some of them interesting.

--
Ed Huntress
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,768
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

Speaking of pellets...PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?)
38 (why not 35 or 40?)
177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?)
9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?)


Fairly common pellet sizes (badmiton birdie style) are

..177, .22, 5mm, .20, and .25

I happen to own .177, .22 and .25 pellet guns. Now there are a vast array
of larger pellets, although is it fair to call a .45 that delivers enough
energy to hunt big game a "pellet." LOL. Even my .25 delivers about 45 ft
lbs of energy at the muzzle, with a proper pellet. Some .25s are tuned much
hotter exceeding the energy of .22 long rifle cartridges, but with much
heavier "pellets". More bullets really. There are big bore "pellet" guns
that deliver as much energy (or more) as a 45 ACP pistol does.

Now one might argue about accuracy, but its easily possible at modest
ranges. With no wind one of my .22 air guns has delivered golf ball sized
groups at 135 yards with hand selected pellets. (lasered for range) Never
mind the hold over... HA!

There. Thread-JACKED!

LOL





  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded
me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a
while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty
much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one
morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a
tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?

Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards?

There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.

PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?)
38 (why not 35 or 40?)
177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?)
9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?)

Many of the sizes originated in the 1800's as technical advances
tightened the dimensions of bullets and barrels beyond the slop
allowable for patched musket balls.

22 caliber:
https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/2011...ellets-part-1/

I think .30 cal came from French experiments to find the best bullet
size for thir newly invented smokeless powder. They chose 8mm which is
0.315", the Russians soon followed with a Belgian-designed rifle bored
to 3 "lines", a borrowed obsolete French measure that came to 7.62mm,
which we then rounded to 0.30" for the Krag. Britain chose 0.303" for
their bore. The rifling gooves are often cut 0.004" deep and the
bullet is sized to fill them, giving two valid caliber name choices
about 0.008" apart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin%E2%80%93Nagant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-40_Krag

The single digit offsets mainly arise to give new cartridge designs a
unique name, like Ed's list, although there have been barrels bored
for both older 0.223" and newer 0.224" bullets.

Pistol calibers descended from the old "Army" 0.45" and "Navy" 0.36"
muzzleloader bores. The 38 cartridge originally looked like the modern
..22, with the bullet the same diameter as the thin-walled case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heeled_bullet
"Many shooters wonder why a .38 caliber firearm actually shoots
bullets of diameter .357 inches, and a .44 caliber firearm shoots
..429-inch-diameter (10.9 mm) bullets. In both of these cases, the name
of the caliber derives from older heeled-bullet designs, and the name
was kept even when the bullet was shrunk to fit inside the case."

Lotsa history there to confuse you.

-Biringuccio


  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck wrote:

The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?

Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards?

There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.

PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?)
38 (why not 35 or 40?)
177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?)
9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?)


In Olde times (Older than you and me ;-) ) barrels were made by hand,
with hand tools, by the same guy who made the rest of the gun... the
bullet diameter could end up being anything within the size range of
what the weapons was purposed for. The smith would make a custom
bullet mold for that specific gun.

In modern times -- with mass production, there's far more
standardization; but if you inestigate, I think you'll find that there
still are a lot of oddball calibers... sometimes as a marketing ploy,
sometimes because a govenment, or somene, wanted to achive a particlar
"engineered" result .

--
Email address is a Spam trap.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,888
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

...
There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.


There are. There are entire books written about some of them.


https://sites.google.com/site/fxgjkg...espopularbooks

This is THE BOOK of interesting stories about using them, not always
well:
https://www.amazon.com/African-Rifle.../dp/1614276633




  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:52:26 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

...
There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.


There are. There are entire books written about some of them.


https://sites.google.com/site/fxgjkg...espopularbooks

This is THE BOOK of interesting stories about using them, not always
well:
https://www.amazon.com/African-Rifle.../dp/1614276633


And this one, about my passion when I was into varmint rifles and
wildcats:

https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Two-Ca.../dp/1446505324

--
Ed Huntress
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:28:35 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?


It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been
based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the
grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have
just been plucked out of the air.

A .38 Spl. bullet is actually .357 bullet and groove diameter. That's
the same as a 9 mm. Etc. Etc. The .38 Spl. is named for the diameter
of the case neck. sigh


Back in the day, Colt made a 36 cal cap and ball revolver. Then when
cartridge weapons came along they made the .38 colt, whereupon S&W
jumped on the band wagon with the S&W 38 Special.

All shooting essentially a .35 inch diameter bullet :-)


Sometimes they just bumped an existing caliber designation up to
signify a new cartridge. For example, the .223 followed the .222
Remington Magnum (Wikipedia said "222 Remingon Special." I'm pretty
sure that's a mistake.) It's basically a revised version of the .222
Rem. Mag. -- one of my favorite varmint cartridges, although not quite
as accurate as the smaller .222 Remington.

As for the arbitrary ones, there was the .218 Bee and the .219 Zipper,
both introduced by Winchester in the same year, but each made for a
different model of lever-action rifle. They both shoot the same
.224-in.-diameter bullet. The Zipper was a much hotter cartridge.

Then you have the year of introduction: .30-03 and .30-06. And the
necked down (or rarely necked up) versions of earlier cartridges:
.22-250, .25-06, 7mm-08, 30-378 Weatherby Magnum.


And of course the 45-70 and the various big guns like the 50-90 Sharps
where the second number indicated the powder capacity.


In other words, it more or less means nothing. g


Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards?


No.


There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.


There are. There are entire books written about some of them.


PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?)
38 (why not 35 or 40?)
177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?)
9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?)


Long stories, some of them interesting.

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:48:13 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:28:35 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?


It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been
based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the
grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have
just been plucked out of the air.

A .38 Spl. bullet is actually .357 bullet and groove diameter. That's
the same as a 9 mm. Etc. Etc. The .38 Spl. is named for the diameter
of the case neck. sigh


Back in the day, Colt made a 36 cal cap and ball revolver. Then when
cartridge weapons came along they made the .38 colt, whereupon S&W
jumped on the band wagon with the S&W 38 Special.

All shooting essentially a .35 inch diameter bullet :-)


Sometimes they just bumped an existing caliber designation up to
signify a new cartridge. For example, the .223 followed the .222
Remington Magnum (Wikipedia said "222 Remingon Special." I'm pretty
sure that's a mistake.) It's basically a revised version of the .222
Rem. Mag. -- one of my favorite varmint cartridges, although not quite
as accurate as the smaller .222 Remington.

As for the arbitrary ones, there was the .218 Bee and the .219 Zipper,
both introduced by Winchester in the same year, but each made for a
different model of lever-action rifle. They both shoot the same
.224-in.-diameter bullet. The Zipper was a much hotter cartridge.

Then you have the year of introduction: .30-03 and .30-06. And the
necked down (or rarely necked up) versions of earlier cartridges:
.22-250, .25-06, 7mm-08, 30-378 Weatherby Magnum.


And of course the 45-70 and the various big guns like the 50-90 Sharps
where the second number indicated the powder capacity.


Yes, but be careful with that one. The .30-40 Krag, for example,
signified 40 grains of SMOKELESS powder, while the .45-70 signified 70
grains of black powder.

That only worked while there was just one type of smokeless --
straight nitrocellulose.

Meantime, the .32-20 Winchester signified 20 grains of black powder,
while the .30-30 Winchester signified 30 grains of smokeless.

Then it starts to get complicated. d8-)



In other words, it more or less means nothing. g


Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards?


No.


There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.


There are. There are entire books written about some of them.


PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?)
38 (why not 35 or 40?)
177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?)
9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?)


Long stories, some of them interesting.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 600
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

On 11/7/2017 11:28 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?


It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been
based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the
grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have
just been plucked out of the air.

A .38 Spl. bullet is actually .357 bullet and groove diameter. That's
the same as a 9 mm. Etc. Etc. The .38 Spl. is named for the diameter
of the case neck. sigh

Sometimes they just bumped an existing caliber designation up to
signify a new cartridge. For example, the .223 followed the .222
Remington Magnum (Wikipedia said "222 Remingon Special." I'm pretty
sure that's a mistake.) It's basically a revised version of the .222
Rem. Mag. -- one of my favorite varmint cartridges, although not quite
as accurate as the smaller .222 Remington.

As for the arbitrary ones, there was the .218 Bee and the .219 Zipper,
both introduced by Winchester in the same year, but each made for a
different model of lever-action rifle. They both shoot the same
.224-in.-diameter bullet. The Zipper was a much hotter cartridge.

Then you have the year of introduction: .30-03 and .30-06. And the
necked down (or rarely necked up) versions of earlier cartridges:
.22-250, .25-06, 7mm-08, 30-378 Weatherby Magnum.

In other words, it more or less means nothing. g


Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards?


No.


There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.


There are. There are entire books written about some of them.


PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?)
38 (why not 35 or 40?)
177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?)
9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?)


Long stories, some of them interesting.

Nice little history lesson! As far as wildcats, I had a .240 Gibbs.
Best ballistics EVER! ---for a while.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:32:34 -0500, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 11/7/2017 11:28 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?


It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been
based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the
grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have
just been plucked out of the air.

A .38 Spl. bullet is actually .357 bullet and groove diameter. That's
the same as a 9 mm. Etc. Etc. The .38 Spl. is named for the diameter
of the case neck. sigh

Sometimes they just bumped an existing caliber designation up to
signify a new cartridge. For example, the .223 followed the .222
Remington Magnum (Wikipedia said "222 Remingon Special." I'm pretty
sure that's a mistake.) It's basically a revised version of the .222
Rem. Mag. -- one of my favorite varmint cartridges, although not quite
as accurate as the smaller .222 Remington.

As for the arbitrary ones, there was the .218 Bee and the .219 Zipper,
both introduced by Winchester in the same year, but each made for a
different model of lever-action rifle. They both shoot the same
.224-in.-diameter bullet. The Zipper was a much hotter cartridge.

Then you have the year of introduction: .30-03 and .30-06. And the
necked down (or rarely necked up) versions of earlier cartridges:
.22-250, .25-06, 7mm-08, 30-378 Weatherby Magnum.

In other words, it more or less means nothing. g


Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards?


No.


There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.


There are. There are entire books written about some of them.


PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?)
38 (why not 35 or 40?)
177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?)
9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?)


Long stories, some of them interesting.

Nice little history lesson! As far as wildcats, I had a .240 Gibbs.
Best ballistics EVER! ---for a while.


Jeez, you started your wildcat adventure with one of the wildest. I
hope you had handloading lessons from someone who knew what he was
doing.

What kind of rifle was it?

--
Ed Huntress
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,104
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 10:54:38 AM UTC-5, rangerssuck wrote:
The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?

Or did someone turn some stuff on his lathe and measure it afterwards?

There MUST be some interesting stories in there somewhere.

PS: The only things I have fired a
22 (why not 20 or 25?)
38 (why not 35 or 40?)
177 pellet (why not 175 or 200 or even 180?)
9mm (because 8 was too small and 10 was too big?)


Thanks, all for all the information. I surely am happy that I don't have to bothered with all of this. I already have enough esoterica in my head to last two or three lifetimes.
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

Ed Huntress on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:28:35
-0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?


It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been
based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the
grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have
just been plucked out of the air.


Some no doubt were based on another mode of measurement. E.G.,
the idea of measuring guns by the number of round balls of a pound of
lead. (Or for cannons, the number of pound an iron sphere weighs).

Then you get metric conversions - .30 == .303 == .308 == 7,62,
Etc.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default firearms caliber question (serious)

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:19:24 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Ed Huntress on Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:28:35
-0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:36 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

The recent argument over .223 and 5.56 in another thread has reminded me of a question that's been lingering in the back of my mind for a while: Where do these oddball sizes come from? I understand (pretty much) what they mean, but what the hell, did somebody wake up one morning and decide that .22 (and where did THAT come from) is like a tenth of a percent too small, so I'll start manufacturing .223?


It's a long history of completely arbitrary choices. Some have been
based on bore diameter at the lands; others on bore diameter at the
grooves (which usually is the same as bullet diameter); others have
just been plucked out of the air.


Some no doubt were based on another mode of measurement. E.G.,
the idea of measuring guns by the number of round balls of a pound of
lead. (Or for cannons, the number of pound an iron sphere weighs).

Then you get metric conversions - .30 == .303 == .308 == 7,62,
Etc.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."


It is a crazy mess. However, it's good for cracker-barrel
conversations. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's up with 22 caliber ammo? Cross-Slide Metalworking 76 March 13th 13 03:19 AM
50-caliber rounds from an AK-47 Ignoramus9904 Metalworking 24 March 9th 13 02:11 PM
Heavy metal! 950 caliber rifle. technomaNge[_4_] Metalworking 23 February 8th 12 03:00 PM
clearly a small caliber (was Newmax) Boston Blackie (PA Akbar Mytie) Metalworking 11 August 13th 07 06:48 AM
Screws or 22-caliber nails Marianne Halevi Woodworking 19 May 13th 07 07:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"