FRIDAY SURPRISE: Glow in the
dark
Friday, May 18, 2007 Filed in: Random
StuffFiled in:
Permalink
Back when I was a teenager, I
apprenticed to a master watch- and clock-maker. He was an older
fellow - in his early 70s - and had been in the business for a very
long time.
I enjoyed looking around his shop in spare moments, as he had many old and wonderful gadgets on his jam-packed shelves. One one high shelf, way in the back, was a little vial of off-white liquid. I asked him what it was, and he said "radium paint. We used to use it to make the numbers on dials visible in the dark. Don't touch it!"
He never did explain to me why I shouldn't touch it, but I obeyed his command and forgot all about it. That is, until I ran across this article on US Radium, the company that made the paint in that little bottle.
-=[ Grant ]=-
I enjoyed looking around his shop in spare moments, as he had many old and wonderful gadgets on his jam-packed shelves. One one high shelf, way in the back, was a little vial of off-white liquid. I asked him what it was, and he said "radium paint. We used to use it to make the numbers on dials visible in the dark. Don't touch it!"
He never did explain to me why I shouldn't touch it, but I obeyed his command and forgot all about it. That is, until I ran across this article on US Radium, the company that made the paint in that little bottle.
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
Another day of no blogging
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Filed in: What's
New!Filed in:
Permalink
My favorite powders
Monday, May 14, 2007 Filed in: AmmunitionFiled in: Permalink
Every reloader has his or her
favorite powders. When I first started reloading handgun
cartridges, I used what everyone around me used - which I found
weren't always the best choices for my needs. After experimenting
with lots of powders, I settled on a few favorites.
As a general rule I prefer flaked powders over ball (spherical) powders. I've found that they meter more consistently in a wide variety of measures, and they seem to burn a bit cleaner than their ball equivalents - this may have something to do with the graphite coating all ball powders appear to use.
For all-around use in a wide variety of pistol cartridges I really like Hodgdon Universal Clays. It is extremely clean (the cleanest I've yet used) and is useful in a large number of calibers. My only complaint is that is isn't suitable for light loads in spacious cases, because it often fails to burn fully. This results in lots of unburned powder flakes that always seem to end up under the extractor. I'd like to find an equivalent powder that is more suitable for light loads, but haven't found it yet.
For magnum cartridges, I like Alliant Blue Dot. It is very consistent, burns cleanly, and gives superb velocities. I've used it in the .357 Magnum, the .44 Magnum, the fire-breathing .445 SuperMag, and the obscure .451 Detonics Magnum. In each case it performed superbly. So pleased am I with Blue Dot that one of these days I plan to try some of the other "Dot" powders.
Though I've tried lots of others, these are the ones I keep coming back to. There's nothing like "old friends" that you can count on!
-=[ Grant ]=-
As a general rule I prefer flaked powders over ball (spherical) powders. I've found that they meter more consistently in a wide variety of measures, and they seem to burn a bit cleaner than their ball equivalents - this may have something to do with the graphite coating all ball powders appear to use.
For all-around use in a wide variety of pistol cartridges I really like Hodgdon Universal Clays. It is extremely clean (the cleanest I've yet used) and is useful in a large number of calibers. My only complaint is that is isn't suitable for light loads in spacious cases, because it often fails to burn fully. This results in lots of unburned powder flakes that always seem to end up under the extractor. I'd like to find an equivalent powder that is more suitable for light loads, but haven't found it yet.
For magnum cartridges, I like Alliant Blue Dot. It is very consistent, burns cleanly, and gives superb velocities. I've used it in the .357 Magnum, the .44 Magnum, the fire-breathing .445 SuperMag, and the obscure .451 Detonics Magnum. In each case it performed superbly. So pleased am I with Blue Dot that one of these days I plan to try some of the other "Dot" powders.
Though I've tried lots of others, these are the ones I keep coming back to. There's nothing like "old friends" that you can count on!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Folks, I don't make
this stuff up...
The Friday Surprise articles
usually present themselves well in advance of the time I need them.
There's just so much interesting stuff going on in the world that I
usually have no problem finding a topic.
Not this week. It really shouldn't have surprised me, as this week has just been a disaster from the start, but it did annoy me. I just couldn't find anything interesting to write about.
Luckily my old nemesis, The Squirrel, went on another rampage.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Not this week. It really shouldn't have surprised me, as this week has just been a disaster from the start, but it did annoy me. I just couldn't find anything interesting to write about.
Luckily my old nemesis, The Squirrel, went on another rampage.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Allow me to elaborate...
Thursday, May 10, 2007 Filed in: Revolvers/other gunsFiled in: Permalink
In last Monday's post I mentioned
that the Ruger Mini-14 demands factory magazines to work reliably.
That statement may have given a bit of a wrong impression.
The point I was trying to make, and apparently didn't, is that the only reliable Minis I have seen were using factory magazines. I have actually encountered many examples that wouldn't run, and changing to factory mags made them work properly. All is not perfect in Ruger-land, though - in my experience, there is still a large percentage of Mini-14s that are not reliable, even with factory magazines.
The other side of the coin is that I have never seen a reliable Mini using aftermarket mags. Ever. Aftermarket Mini-14 magazines consistently cause Minis - every one I've ever seen - to choke.
Bottom line: factory mags alone will not ensure that any given Mini will run well. However, using non-Ruger magazines is a virtual guarantee that you will have trouble making the thing work properly. (I won't even get into their renowned lack of accuracy, but that isn't the fault of the magazines!)
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
(Oh, by the way - the cheapest I've been able to find Ruger factory 20-round mags is $55.00. That's three times the cost of good quality AR-15 mags. Wow!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
The point I was trying to make, and apparently didn't, is that the only reliable Minis I have seen were using factory magazines. I have actually encountered many examples that wouldn't run, and changing to factory mags made them work properly. All is not perfect in Ruger-land, though - in my experience, there is still a large percentage of Mini-14s that are not reliable, even with factory magazines.
The other side of the coin is that I have never seen a reliable Mini using aftermarket mags. Ever. Aftermarket Mini-14 magazines consistently cause Minis - every one I've ever seen - to choke.
Bottom line: factory mags alone will not ensure that any given Mini will run well. However, using non-Ruger magazines is a virtual guarantee that you will have trouble making the thing work properly. (I won't even get into their renowned lack of accuracy, but that isn't the fault of the magazines!)
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
(Oh, by the way - the cheapest I've been able to find Ruger factory 20-round mags is $55.00. That's three times the cost of good quality AR-15 mags. Wow!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Have those primer tube blues?
Wednesday, May 09, 2007 Filed in: AmmunitionFiled in: Permalink
Unless you're using a Lee
reloading press, one of the biggest bottlenecks in reloading is the
chore of filling primer tubes. It is definitely a time waster, and
anything that can speed up the process is welcome here!
Yes, I know all about the Dillon primer tube loader. It only works with Dillon tubes, isn't all that fast, and is really expensive. Luckily, the folks at Midway came up with a solution: the Frankford Arsenal Vibra-Prime!
This little doohickey takes a package of primers and, with the pull of the trigger, loads their own primer tubes - which, happily, easily interface with Hornady, RCBS, and even Dillon presses.
This thing is fast - easily 2 or 3 times as fast as it's Dillon competition. The great part? It's only $32.99! Check it out.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Yes, I know all about the Dillon primer tube loader. It only works with Dillon tubes, isn't all that fast, and is really expensive. Luckily, the folks at Midway came up with a solution: the Frankford Arsenal Vibra-Prime!
This little doohickey takes a package of primers and, with the pull of the trigger, loads their own primer tubes - which, happily, easily interface with Hornady, RCBS, and even Dillon presses.
This thing is fast - easily 2 or 3 times as fast as it's Dillon competition. The great part? It's only $32.99! Check it out.
-=[ Grant ]=-
I'm playing catch-up today
Monday, May 07, 2007 Filed in: Random
StuffFiled in:
Permalink
Back from serving as assistant
teacher in a rifle class this weekend, and am just beat. My back
hurts; my chiropractor has been making a mint off me for the last
few months, as I seem to injure myself with greater regularity as I
age!
Students reported that ammunition (this class required 700 rounds) was extremely difficult to find, particularly in .223 (5.56mm, if you prefer.) It wasn't so much the price - although ammo prices are high, and getting higher by the minute. No, the major stumbling block was availability; they almost couldn't find what they needed in sufficient quantity for the course.
As a result, we saw a lot of "second tier" ammunition in this class: Fiocchi, Sellier & Bellot, and Wolf.
Luckily, no major ammunition problems presented themselves. In the past, S&B .223 has shown a disturbing tendency to lose the primer cups during ejection. Invariably, those little things would work themselves into the trigger mechanism, and tie up the action. This time we saw none of that. Perhaps S&B has gotten their act together (again)?
Fiocchi seemed to work fine, and the Wolf steel cased is....well, Wolf. I'd personally restrict its use to those guns (Communist-bloc) designed for steel cased ammunition, as the steel is rough on extractors designed for a diet of brass cases. If you insist on using it I'd recommend you keep a spare extractor on hand.
After working these classes for the past several years, and seeing all kinds of autoloading rifles used to shoot large amounts of ammunition over a weekend, I've come to a conclusion guaranteed to raise hackles amongst rifle debaters: the AK-47 series of rifles have proved to me that they aren't as reliable as scuttlebutt makes them out to be, and the AR-15 series of rifles aren't as fragile as that same scuttlebutt says they are. This particular class proved that again: two AKs experienced problems while all of the ARs ran flawlessly.
Boy, am I gonna get hate mail for that one!
(Final thought: if you have a Ruger Mini-14, use only Ruger magazines. Period. Nothing else will be reliable in that model. This opinion is validated in nearly every class, as it was again this time. Yeah, I know Ruger only makes 20-rounders; if you want more, get a different rifle!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Students reported that ammunition (this class required 700 rounds) was extremely difficult to find, particularly in .223 (5.56mm, if you prefer.) It wasn't so much the price - although ammo prices are high, and getting higher by the minute. No, the major stumbling block was availability; they almost couldn't find what they needed in sufficient quantity for the course.
As a result, we saw a lot of "second tier" ammunition in this class: Fiocchi, Sellier & Bellot, and Wolf.
Luckily, no major ammunition problems presented themselves. In the past, S&B .223 has shown a disturbing tendency to lose the primer cups during ejection. Invariably, those little things would work themselves into the trigger mechanism, and tie up the action. This time we saw none of that. Perhaps S&B has gotten their act together (again)?
Fiocchi seemed to work fine, and the Wolf steel cased is....well, Wolf. I'd personally restrict its use to those guns (Communist-bloc) designed for steel cased ammunition, as the steel is rough on extractors designed for a diet of brass cases. If you insist on using it I'd recommend you keep a spare extractor on hand.
After working these classes for the past several years, and seeing all kinds of autoloading rifles used to shoot large amounts of ammunition over a weekend, I've come to a conclusion guaranteed to raise hackles amongst rifle debaters: the AK-47 series of rifles have proved to me that they aren't as reliable as scuttlebutt makes them out to be, and the AR-15 series of rifles aren't as fragile as that same scuttlebutt says they are. This particular class proved that again: two AKs experienced problems while all of the ARs ran flawlessly.
Boy, am I gonna get hate mail for that one!
(Final thought: if you have a Ruger Mini-14, use only Ruger magazines. Period. Nothing else will be reliable in that model. This opinion is validated in nearly every class, as it was again this time. Yeah, I know Ruger only makes 20-rounders; if you want more, get a different rifle!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: How do you fix an
undersea cable?
Friday, May 04, 2007 Filed in: Random
StuffFiled in:
Permalink
That's right - an undersea cable.
I'll bet you thought that undersea cables were a thing of the past,
right? You probably had it in your mind that satellite technology
had rendered the undersea cable a relic of a bygone age, didn't
you? As Gomer would say, "surprise, surprise, surprise!"
The vast majority of telephone and internet traffic flows on undersea cables, to this day. Compared to satellites, cables are cheaper and have much greater bandwidth. As a result, there are hundreds of cables in use today, and well over 1,000 cable landing sites (where the cables come ashore) around the world. Here's a good graphic of the undersea cables - and their load - in use today. Wikipedia has a good article on cables, with lots of links to other sites that can tell you everything you ever wanted to know about the subject!
Of course, all those cables sitting on the ocean floor are subject to lots of forces, and sooner or later they break. So, how do you repair a cable that might be thousands of feet deep, well below the ability to use human divers?
Find out here.
-=[ Grant ]=-
The vast majority of telephone and internet traffic flows on undersea cables, to this day. Compared to satellites, cables are cheaper and have much greater bandwidth. As a result, there are hundreds of cables in use today, and well over 1,000 cable landing sites (where the cables come ashore) around the world. Here's a good graphic of the undersea cables - and their load - in use today. Wikipedia has a good article on cables, with lots of links to other sites that can tell you everything you ever wanted to know about the subject!
Of course, all those cables sitting on the ocean floor are subject to lots of forces, and sooner or later they break. So, how do you repair a cable that might be thousands of feet deep, well below the ability to use human divers?
Find out here.
-=[ Grant ]=-
"Bullshit Tenths"
Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Filed in: Revolvers/other gunsFiled in: Permalink
Pardon my French!
This is a term used by tool & die makers to indicate unobtainable levels of (perceived) precision. Why do I bring this up?
Last week, I was advising a reader on selecting pin gages for use in measuring chamber throats. The discussion revolved around which gages to buy, and whether or not he needed both plus- and minus-tolerance gages (no, in case you're wondering.) He was concerned about their variance of .0002" (that's 2/10,000th of an inch, or 1/20th of the thickness of an average human hair. In machinist parlance, that would be "2 tenths.") As I explained to him, in practice it's not really possible to measure to that level.
As I thought about my answers to his questions, I flashed back to a conversation related to the posts I've made about measuring tools. A fellow who identified himself as a gunsmith contacted me to argue about my advocacy of quality measuring tools. "I don't need any of them overpriced tools - I use [insert name of well known retailer of low end Chinese tools here], and I can measure down to a ten-thousandth!" I asked him if what he was measuring was under the same environmental conditions as the calibration on his micrometer, and he replied "my mic reads to a tenth - it don't need to be calibrated!"
Sigh.
When a measuring instrument is calibrated - that is, checked against known standards and certified as to accuracy - the environmental conditions of that calibration are recorded. The calibration is really only valid for those same conditions; if the temperature goes up or down, that accuracy is not guaranteed.
How much different does a change in temperature make? I did a little experiment. I got out my Grade 2 Brown & Sharpe gage blocks, and picked out the .125" block. (The tolerance for Grade 2 blocks is +/- .000002", or two-milliionths of an inch.) On the calibration certificate, it gives you the deviation from the nominal dimension in millionths of an inch for each block. In the case of my .125" block, it has no variance - in other words, it is guaranteed to measure .125000" at 68 degrees F. Coincidentally, that is the temperature that my shop generally maintains outside of the coldest winter and warmest summer months.
After checking the temperature, I pulled out my best Etalon (Swiss) micrometer and the .125 block. I handled the mic with gloves while I secured it in its stand; the block was handled with insulated tweezers (yes, there are such things.) I measured the block under these conditions, and not surprisingly it measured .1250" on the nose.
I took the block out of the micrometer, and held the non-measuring surfaces between by thumb and forefinger for about a minute, then remeasured. Guess what? Just that small amount of heat had caused the gage to grow to a bit more than .1251" (a typical mic only measures to a ten-thousandth, and this fell just between the .1251" and .1252" marks.) Had I held on to it longer, it would have grown a bit more. Had I held the mic in my hand while measuring, it too would have been "off."
That's why they're called "bullshit tenths" - because, without knowing exactly the temperature of both the micrometer and work, and at what temperature the micrometer was last calibrated, you really don't know to the ten-thousandth of an inch how big that part really is. In other words, until you've met all of the above, you can't measure to a ten-thousandth of an inch, no matter how optimistic you are!
Since pin gages are usually held in the hand, as is the piece to be measured, it would not be possible to get closer than several ten-thousandths. Factor in the other environmental variables, it's clear that a) the gages are more accurate than they need to be for the job asked of them; b) you can't measure to the limit of the gages, so you don't need both the plus and minus coverage; and c) worrying about their allowed +/- .0002" isn't at all productive. Save your stomach lining for more important things.
Hope this all makes sense!
-=[ Grant ]=-
This is a term used by tool & die makers to indicate unobtainable levels of (perceived) precision. Why do I bring this up?
Last week, I was advising a reader on selecting pin gages for use in measuring chamber throats. The discussion revolved around which gages to buy, and whether or not he needed both plus- and minus-tolerance gages (no, in case you're wondering.) He was concerned about their variance of .0002" (that's 2/10,000th of an inch, or 1/20th of the thickness of an average human hair. In machinist parlance, that would be "2 tenths.") As I explained to him, in practice it's not really possible to measure to that level.
As I thought about my answers to his questions, I flashed back to a conversation related to the posts I've made about measuring tools. A fellow who identified himself as a gunsmith contacted me to argue about my advocacy of quality measuring tools. "I don't need any of them overpriced tools - I use [insert name of well known retailer of low end Chinese tools here], and I can measure down to a ten-thousandth!" I asked him if what he was measuring was under the same environmental conditions as the calibration on his micrometer, and he replied "my mic reads to a tenth - it don't need to be calibrated!"
Sigh.
When a measuring instrument is calibrated - that is, checked against known standards and certified as to accuracy - the environmental conditions of that calibration are recorded. The calibration is really only valid for those same conditions; if the temperature goes up or down, that accuracy is not guaranteed.
How much different does a change in temperature make? I did a little experiment. I got out my Grade 2 Brown & Sharpe gage blocks, and picked out the .125" block. (The tolerance for Grade 2 blocks is +/- .000002", or two-milliionths of an inch.) On the calibration certificate, it gives you the deviation from the nominal dimension in millionths of an inch for each block. In the case of my .125" block, it has no variance - in other words, it is guaranteed to measure .125000" at 68 degrees F. Coincidentally, that is the temperature that my shop generally maintains outside of the coldest winter and warmest summer months.
After checking the temperature, I pulled out my best Etalon (Swiss) micrometer and the .125 block. I handled the mic with gloves while I secured it in its stand; the block was handled with insulated tweezers (yes, there are such things.) I measured the block under these conditions, and not surprisingly it measured .1250" on the nose.
I took the block out of the micrometer, and held the non-measuring surfaces between by thumb and forefinger for about a minute, then remeasured. Guess what? Just that small amount of heat had caused the gage to grow to a bit more than .1251" (a typical mic only measures to a ten-thousandth, and this fell just between the .1251" and .1252" marks.) Had I held on to it longer, it would have grown a bit more. Had I held the mic in my hand while measuring, it too would have been "off."
That's why they're called "bullshit tenths" - because, without knowing exactly the temperature of both the micrometer and work, and at what temperature the micrometer was last calibrated, you really don't know to the ten-thousandth of an inch how big that part really is. In other words, until you've met all of the above, you can't measure to a ten-thousandth of an inch, no matter how optimistic you are!
Since pin gages are usually held in the hand, as is the piece to be measured, it would not be possible to get closer than several ten-thousandths. Factor in the other environmental variables, it's clear that a) the gages are more accurate than they need to be for the job asked of them; b) you can't measure to the limit of the gages, so you don't need both the plus and minus coverage; and c) worrying about their allowed +/- .0002" isn't at all productive. Save your stomach lining for more important things.
Hope this all makes sense!
-=[ Grant ]=-