Aug 2007
FRIDAY SURPRISE: No granola eaters here!
We all know the baggage
carried by the brand "Volvo": "Vegetarian." "Boring." "Safe."
"Comfortable shoes." "Risk-averse." Volvo as a company seems to do
little to dispel the image they have, as it's certainly been
successful for them.
There is another side to Volvo, though - the take-no-prisoners, rough-and-tumble side, represented by their superb line of all-terrain military trucks. The best known of these models is the C303, better known as the "Laplander."
The Laplander is a very boxy 4x4 vehicle, similar in design to the Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer but a bit larger. Powered by the superb Volvo B30 inline six and possessing front and rear locking differentials, it it has proven itself more than a match for the toughest terrain. Look at the ground clearance under the rear axle!
The C303 has developed a worldwide following of passionate enthusiasts, though (sadly) there aren't a lot of them here in the U.S. Now I'm not usually one to lust after a mere vehicle, but I've wanted a Laplander for years. I don't know whether it's the need to possess something no one else does, a psychological deficiency that compels me to seek attention, or just a desire to annoy my ever-so-yuppie neighbors, but I want one. Yes, it's probably impractical as a day-to-day driver; yes, the fuel economy is nothing to write home about; yet I still want one!
Check out some of the Laplander's many fan sites:
http://www.volvoadventures.com/Laplander_C303spec.html
http://www.volvoc303.co.uk/
-=[ Grant ]=-
There is another side to Volvo, though - the take-no-prisoners, rough-and-tumble side, represented by their superb line of all-terrain military trucks. The best known of these models is the C303, better known as the "Laplander."
The Laplander is a very boxy 4x4 vehicle, similar in design to the Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer but a bit larger. Powered by the superb Volvo B30 inline six and possessing front and rear locking differentials, it it has proven itself more than a match for the toughest terrain. Look at the ground clearance under the rear axle!
The C303 has developed a worldwide following of passionate enthusiasts, though (sadly) there aren't a lot of them here in the U.S. Now I'm not usually one to lust after a mere vehicle, but I've wanted a Laplander for years. I don't know whether it's the need to possess something no one else does, a psychological deficiency that compels me to seek attention, or just a desire to annoy my ever-so-yuppie neighbors, but I want one. Yes, it's probably impractical as a day-to-day driver; yes, the fuel economy is nothing to write home about; yet I still want one!
Check out some of the Laplander's many fan sites:
http://www.volvoadventures.com/Laplander_C303spec.html
http://www.volvoc303.co.uk/
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
Tired of all this high-falutin' talk? Here's some CHICKS WITH GUNS!
Wednesday, August 29, 2007 Filed in:
Humor
I get email...
Monday's post, a
design analysis of the Colt Python, generated a number of
interesting emails - no doubt in part to a mention at
The View
From The Porch.
The general gist of my inbox was of the "I don't think the Python is the best looking/I think the XXX is better looking" type. I suspect this is because readers were "coming in late" and hadn't read Part One and Part Two of the series.
This series of articles isn't about what I (or anyone else) likes, or what we prefer to own. The idea is to study design with regard to the revolver; to learn about the aesthetics of industrial design so that we can appreciate what goes into it, even if we don't happen to like it.
Yes, I like Pythons; I also like the old skinny-barrel S&W "K" frames, and for different reasons. I appreciate the skill that went into the design of the Python, a design that could have very easily (the S&W 686 springs to mind) turned out to be less graceful than it did. One can admire the skill of the designer, even if one doesn't care to have an example for him or her self. This can only happen if one is conversant with the qualities of good design.
What we like isn't always what's good; this is an important concept to understand. For instance, the S&W "Bodyguard" series of "J" frames is - by just about any measure - an unsuccessful design from a styling standpoint. From any angle, it's an ugly gun. That doesn't stop me from liking the little things, in the same way that I like bulldogs - they're so ugly, they're cute!
On the other hand, one can appreciate guns that one doesn't actually like. I'm not a fan of autoloaders, but that doesn't stop me from admiring the Ferrari-like lines of the Benelli B-76 (I consider it to be the best looking autoloader ever made, which is a little like contending that one has the best deck chair on the Titanic.) My feelings about Taurus revolvers are almost infamous, yet I have to admit that the 4" Tracker series is a good styling exercise (even given the inelegant shape of their triggers.)
Regular readers will have their ability to differentiate between feeling and appreciation sorely tested in a couple of weeks, when I present the final article in the series. I suspect than more than a few of you will be put off by some of the conclusions in it, but with an open mind - and the background in this series - I think you will find it challenging, compelling, and perhaps more than a little instructive. You may still not like what you see, but (hopefully) you'll understand a bit about why the designers did what they did.
Stay tuned, and keep those cards and letters coming!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The general gist of my inbox was of the "I don't think the Python is the best looking/I think the XXX is better looking" type. I suspect this is because readers were "coming in late" and hadn't read Part One and Part Two of the series.
This series of articles isn't about what I (or anyone else) likes, or what we prefer to own. The idea is to study design with regard to the revolver; to learn about the aesthetics of industrial design so that we can appreciate what goes into it, even if we don't happen to like it.
Yes, I like Pythons; I also like the old skinny-barrel S&W "K" frames, and for different reasons. I appreciate the skill that went into the design of the Python, a design that could have very easily (the S&W 686 springs to mind) turned out to be less graceful than it did. One can admire the skill of the designer, even if one doesn't care to have an example for him or her self. This can only happen if one is conversant with the qualities of good design.
What we like isn't always what's good; this is an important concept to understand. For instance, the S&W "Bodyguard" series of "J" frames is - by just about any measure - an unsuccessful design from a styling standpoint. From any angle, it's an ugly gun. That doesn't stop me from liking the little things, in the same way that I like bulldogs - they're so ugly, they're cute!
On the other hand, one can appreciate guns that one doesn't actually like. I'm not a fan of autoloaders, but that doesn't stop me from admiring the Ferrari-like lines of the Benelli B-76 (I consider it to be the best looking autoloader ever made, which is a little like contending that one has the best deck chair on the Titanic.) My feelings about Taurus revolvers are almost infamous, yet I have to admit that the 4" Tracker series is a good styling exercise (even given the inelegant shape of their triggers.)
Regular readers will have their ability to differentiate between feeling and appreciation sorely tested in a couple of weeks, when I present the final article in the series. I suspect than more than a few of you will be put off by some of the conclusions in it, but with an open mind - and the background in this series - I think you will find it challenging, compelling, and perhaps more than a little instructive. You may still not like what you see, but (hopefully) you'll understand a bit about why the designers did what they did.
Stay tuned, and keep those cards and letters coming!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On Revolver Aesthetics, Part 4 - Deconstructing a good design
As promised in the
last installment, today we'll be taking a
look at one iconic revolver and discover how it follows the design
principles we've explored.
The Colt Python easily makes just about everyone's "top 5 revolvers" list. Much of its popularity is due to its gilt-edged accuracy and superb out-of-box action (though, of course, it can always be better. This has been an obvious plug.) However, it's drop-dead-gorgeous looks are no doubt a huge part of the reputation it enjoys.
So "right" is the look of the Python that S&W paid it the honor (though they'll deny it) of copying the distinctive barrel profile in their "L" frame guns. They couldn't get the rest of the gun, though, and that's sad - because, as we'll see, the Python's appearance is a function of the whole gun. (Before you shoot off that hate email, understand that the 686 series are pretty good looking guns in their own right; it's just that they don't achieve the high level of design excellence that the Python does. Keep reading, and hopefully you'll begin to understand why.)
We're using a typical 4-inch Python as our example, since it is not only the most common, but also the best looking of the various Python incarnations.
What do we see when we look at the Python?
The first principle we learned about is proportion - the relationship of elements to each other, and of the whole design, in all measurable aspects.The 4-inch version is near ideal; the barrel, which often looks skinny on other guns, has sufficient volume to hold its own against the cylinder and frame; in fact, one gets the feeling that if the barrel were to be compressed lengthwise, its width would grow proportionally to end up the same dimension as the cylinder. The trigger and triggerguard are perfectly proportioned to each other, and the combination to the frame. Note the hammer tang; having a large pad for easy cocking could have made the hammer proportionally too large for the rest of the design. Through judicious thinning and shaping, the designers made a hammer that complimented the design rather than stood apart from it.
Closely related to proportion, we learned, is the concept of balance, or of visual equilibrium. Here again the Python design simply shines. The Python's gripframe, often criticized for flaring too much, gives needed visual balance to the heavy lugged barrel and frame. The gun has a visual center of balance right in the center of the gun. Contributing to this is the barrel's vent rib; were that top rib solid, it wouldn't look as balanced as it does. Take, for example, the S&W copy:
Without the vents in the barrel, it simply looks front heavy compared to the Colt original; there is a feeling that it will tip forward, while the Python doesn't. (That huge front sight ramp doesn't help, either.)
Eye movement in the Python design is almost classic. If we start at the muzzle, the lines of the barrel - repeating between the lug, the central portion, and the rib - serve to draw the eye toward the cylinder. Once there, the pointed ends of the flutes send the gaze to the cylinder release, whose shape directs the eye to the hammer tang. This is were the design shows a particular genius: the gentle curve and overall shape of the hammer directs the eye in a clockwise spiral to the grips, where their shape sends the gaze to the trigger. The strongly curved trigger - much more curved than on any other brand of revolver - is a sort of "ski jump" that propels the eye back to the barrel.
Note especially the cut of the frame under the barrel down to the triggerguard, and compare it to the S&W. Note how the Python has just a bit of an angular cut with just a hint of curvature, which serves to visually lighten the gun and give it a "flying" feeling. It also serves to help redirect the eye from the trigger back to the muzzle; the S&W, in contrast, looks "blocky", far less graceful, and stops the eye dead at that point. Design is often about such "minor" details!
Which brings us to emphasis, or design elements that arrest the eye without causing visual fixation. It is a design touch that causes the gaze to linger, rather than stop. It's terribly easy for the eye to leave a revolver at the hammer or muzzle, because those are points to which the eye tends to be sent by the barrel and cylinder combination. That gorgeous Python hammer hammer begs to be looked at, but it isn't so overwhelming that the viewer's gaze ends at that point; it serves to slow the eye down, then redirect the gaze to the next element. Were it larger or smaller, it wouldn't serve the same purpose. It is a perfect example of design emphasis, as is the thumb latch that slows the eye down just enough to make sure it doesn't miss the hammer spur.
The front sight shape - and the barrel vents - tend to keep that from happening at the front. If we look back at the S&W picture, you'll notice that the front sight ramp tends to serve as a launch point unto itself, sending the eye right off the front sight into space. On the Python, the sight is enough to stop the eye from taking off into the hinterlands, but not so much that it becomes a stopping or launching point on its own. The vents are a point of contrast, being quite angular in comparison to the smooth curves of the rest of the revolver. That contrast is just enough to catch the eye, but not enough to look out of place or in conflict with the rest of the design elements. (As we'll see in the next part of this series, making a contrast without creating visual dichotomy is a tough task - and not always achieved.)
Finally, when we look at the Python we see an overall unity, the feeling that every element is working to support the overall design. Achieving unity starts with the finish (which is a point of emphasis all by itself.) That deep, glassy "Royal Blue" finish for which the Python is famed is a strong component that ties together all of the elements. It's not the only unifying feature, however!
The shape of the thumb latch repeats the shape of the cylinder flutes, which themselves appear to be continuous from the barrel lug. (So good is that combination, when you look at the gun as a whole it almost seems to be one solid piece of steel from the muzzle to the end of that latch.) Note too how the barrel cross-section matches the frame contours where the barrel is attached, and how the contour of the frame under the hammer is reminiscent of the curve of the triggerguard. (Take a look at the S&W; note how that same curve is much shallower, and doesn't really recall that of any other part of the frame.) Even the points where the triggerguard meet the frame are identical front and rear, which augments that feeling of cohesion.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. One must look at revolver design not just as a series of parts, but also at how those parts work together to produce a design at which the eye can't seem to stop looking. The Colt Python is, in that regard, the ne plus ultra of revolvers.
In the next installment, we'll look at designs gone awry, and find out why some guns are just plain ugly. Until then, always remember: life is too short to carry (or shoot) an ugly gun!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The Colt Python easily makes just about everyone's "top 5 revolvers" list. Much of its popularity is due to its gilt-edged accuracy and superb out-of-box action (though, of course, it can always be better. This has been an obvious plug.) However, it's drop-dead-gorgeous looks are no doubt a huge part of the reputation it enjoys.
So "right" is the look of the Python that S&W paid it the honor (though they'll deny it) of copying the distinctive barrel profile in their "L" frame guns. They couldn't get the rest of the gun, though, and that's sad - because, as we'll see, the Python's appearance is a function of the whole gun. (Before you shoot off that hate email, understand that the 686 series are pretty good looking guns in their own right; it's just that they don't achieve the high level of design excellence that the Python does. Keep reading, and hopefully you'll begin to understand why.)
We're using a typical 4-inch Python as our example, since it is not only the most common, but also the best looking of the various Python incarnations.
What do we see when we look at the Python?
The first principle we learned about is proportion - the relationship of elements to each other, and of the whole design, in all measurable aspects.The 4-inch version is near ideal; the barrel, which often looks skinny on other guns, has sufficient volume to hold its own against the cylinder and frame; in fact, one gets the feeling that if the barrel were to be compressed lengthwise, its width would grow proportionally to end up the same dimension as the cylinder. The trigger and triggerguard are perfectly proportioned to each other, and the combination to the frame. Note the hammer tang; having a large pad for easy cocking could have made the hammer proportionally too large for the rest of the design. Through judicious thinning and shaping, the designers made a hammer that complimented the design rather than stood apart from it.
Closely related to proportion, we learned, is the concept of balance, or of visual equilibrium. Here again the Python design simply shines. The Python's gripframe, often criticized for flaring too much, gives needed visual balance to the heavy lugged barrel and frame. The gun has a visual center of balance right in the center of the gun. Contributing to this is the barrel's vent rib; were that top rib solid, it wouldn't look as balanced as it does. Take, for example, the S&W copy:
Without the vents in the barrel, it simply looks front heavy compared to the Colt original; there is a feeling that it will tip forward, while the Python doesn't. (That huge front sight ramp doesn't help, either.)
Eye movement in the Python design is almost classic. If we start at the muzzle, the lines of the barrel - repeating between the lug, the central portion, and the rib - serve to draw the eye toward the cylinder. Once there, the pointed ends of the flutes send the gaze to the cylinder release, whose shape directs the eye to the hammer tang. This is were the design shows a particular genius: the gentle curve and overall shape of the hammer directs the eye in a clockwise spiral to the grips, where their shape sends the gaze to the trigger. The strongly curved trigger - much more curved than on any other brand of revolver - is a sort of "ski jump" that propels the eye back to the barrel.
Note especially the cut of the frame under the barrel down to the triggerguard, and compare it to the S&W. Note how the Python has just a bit of an angular cut with just a hint of curvature, which serves to visually lighten the gun and give it a "flying" feeling. It also serves to help redirect the eye from the trigger back to the muzzle; the S&W, in contrast, looks "blocky", far less graceful, and stops the eye dead at that point. Design is often about such "minor" details!
Which brings us to emphasis, or design elements that arrest the eye without causing visual fixation. It is a design touch that causes the gaze to linger, rather than stop. It's terribly easy for the eye to leave a revolver at the hammer or muzzle, because those are points to which the eye tends to be sent by the barrel and cylinder combination. That gorgeous Python hammer hammer begs to be looked at, but it isn't so overwhelming that the viewer's gaze ends at that point; it serves to slow the eye down, then redirect the gaze to the next element. Were it larger or smaller, it wouldn't serve the same purpose. It is a perfect example of design emphasis, as is the thumb latch that slows the eye down just enough to make sure it doesn't miss the hammer spur.
The front sight shape - and the barrel vents - tend to keep that from happening at the front. If we look back at the S&W picture, you'll notice that the front sight ramp tends to serve as a launch point unto itself, sending the eye right off the front sight into space. On the Python, the sight is enough to stop the eye from taking off into the hinterlands, but not so much that it becomes a stopping or launching point on its own. The vents are a point of contrast, being quite angular in comparison to the smooth curves of the rest of the revolver. That contrast is just enough to catch the eye, but not enough to look out of place or in conflict with the rest of the design elements. (As we'll see in the next part of this series, making a contrast without creating visual dichotomy is a tough task - and not always achieved.)
Finally, when we look at the Python we see an overall unity, the feeling that every element is working to support the overall design. Achieving unity starts with the finish (which is a point of emphasis all by itself.) That deep, glassy "Royal Blue" finish for which the Python is famed is a strong component that ties together all of the elements. It's not the only unifying feature, however!
The shape of the thumb latch repeats the shape of the cylinder flutes, which themselves appear to be continuous from the barrel lug. (So good is that combination, when you look at the gun as a whole it almost seems to be one solid piece of steel from the muzzle to the end of that latch.) Note too how the barrel cross-section matches the frame contours where the barrel is attached, and how the contour of the frame under the hammer is reminiscent of the curve of the triggerguard. (Take a look at the S&W; note how that same curve is much shallower, and doesn't really recall that of any other part of the frame.) Even the points where the triggerguard meet the frame are identical front and rear, which augments that feeling of cohesion.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. One must look at revolver design not just as a series of parts, but also at how those parts work together to produce a design at which the eye can't seem to stop looking. The Colt Python is, in that regard, the ne plus ultra of revolvers.
In the next installment, we'll look at designs gone awry, and find out why some guns are just plain ugly. Until then, always remember: life is too short to carry (or shoot) an ugly gun!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Not your typical "buddy" movie
The "buddy movie" has become
a staple in Hollywood's bag of banal plot staples. They've given us
cop buddy movies, firefighter buddy movies, private eye buddy
movies, superhero buddy movies, and even suicidal women buddy
movies.
In the hands of a master, though, even a cliche becomes fresh and intriguing. The master, in this case, is Akira Kurosawa, and the movie in question is the superb "Dersu Uzala."
Dersu is a Nanai hunter who befriends - and is befriended by - Captain Arsenyev, who is leading a surveying expedition in Siberia just after the turn of the 20th century. Dersu is the quintessential mountain man who is completely at home in nature, while Arsenyev (and his crew of soldiers) are distinctly out of place in the vast wilderness. Dersu becomes Arsenyev's friend, showing him not just how to survive in the unforgiving landscape but also a bit about the meaning of life.
Watch this clip, and note how Dersu not only sees subtle clues around him, but how he cares for those who he may never meet:
Their friendship grows out of mutual respect, not bravado; what they share is a heartfelt concern for the land and the people who inhabit it, as well as the welfare of each other.
The movie is based on the autobiographical novel of the same name, written by the real Captain Arsenyev about the real Dersu. Kurosawa had read the book and desperately wanted to bring it to the big screen, and in the 1970s finally got his chance - spending two full years filming in the wilds of Siberia. The result may, as some critics have suggested, be Kurosawa's most beautiful (and certainly most underrated) work.
Because it is a true tale, this movie teaches us more about the nature of friendship than anyone in Hollywood can fathom. There are no plot twists and no happy ending; like life, it proceeds at its own pace up to the poignant conclusion (which itself brings up back to the start of the film, reminding us of the cycle of life.)
I saw this film many years ago, and I remembered it as being a great story. Understand that I'm not a film buff - frankly, I find it hard to sit through a whole movie - and certainly not a big Kurosawa fan. That it is one of only a handful of films I actually want to own tells you that it is something truly special.
Thanks to the generosity of a close friend I now have my own copy, which I will treasure. The film is hard to find, but it is worth the search. If Nessmuk means anything to you, Dersu Uzala will be one of your favorites too.
-=[ Grant ]=-
In the hands of a master, though, even a cliche becomes fresh and intriguing. The master, in this case, is Akira Kurosawa, and the movie in question is the superb "Dersu Uzala."
Dersu is a Nanai hunter who befriends - and is befriended by - Captain Arsenyev, who is leading a surveying expedition in Siberia just after the turn of the 20th century. Dersu is the quintessential mountain man who is completely at home in nature, while Arsenyev (and his crew of soldiers) are distinctly out of place in the vast wilderness. Dersu becomes Arsenyev's friend, showing him not just how to survive in the unforgiving landscape but also a bit about the meaning of life.
Watch this clip, and note how Dersu not only sees subtle clues around him, but how he cares for those who he may never meet:
Their friendship grows out of mutual respect, not bravado; what they share is a heartfelt concern for the land and the people who inhabit it, as well as the welfare of each other.
The movie is based on the autobiographical novel of the same name, written by the real Captain Arsenyev about the real Dersu. Kurosawa had read the book and desperately wanted to bring it to the big screen, and in the 1970s finally got his chance - spending two full years filming in the wilds of Siberia. The result may, as some critics have suggested, be Kurosawa's most beautiful (and certainly most underrated) work.
Because it is a true tale, this movie teaches us more about the nature of friendship than anyone in Hollywood can fathom. There are no plot twists and no happy ending; like life, it proceeds at its own pace up to the poignant conclusion (which itself brings up back to the start of the film, reminding us of the cycle of life.)
I saw this film many years ago, and I remembered it as being a great story. Understand that I'm not a film buff - frankly, I find it hard to sit through a whole movie - and certainly not a big Kurosawa fan. That it is one of only a handful of films I actually want to own tells you that it is something truly special.
Thanks to the generosity of a close friend I now have my own copy, which I will treasure. The film is hard to find, but it is worth the search. If Nessmuk means anything to you, Dersu Uzala will be one of your favorites too.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A different approach to the backup revolver
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 Filed in:
Revolvers, Techniques &
Training
A gentleman wrote in asking
about small backup revolvers - that is, a revolver to carry as a
backup to a primary revolver.
I know that many people carry their primary gun on their hip, with a lightweight (aluminum, titanium, scandium) wheelgun in an ankle holster, and I know a couple of folks who carry a S&W "J" frame in a front pants pocket as a second gun.
This is not what the writer had in mind, though. He was thinking of a very small (smaller than a "J" frame) "subcompact" revolver for a second gun, in the same way that there are subcompact autoloaders (Seecamp, Kel-Tec, etc.) to serve as backups to a larger autoloader. Sadly, the market in this case is pretty limited.
The only one that comes quickly to mind is the North American Arms "Mini" revolver in .22LR and .22WMR. (The Magnum, of course, would be a better choice than the Long Rifle, ballistically speaking.) The trouble with these guns is that 1) I've never seen one that could be even charitably referred to as reliable, and 2) they are harder than heck to even keep on an IDPA target at 7 feet, let alone be assured of a solid hit in the vitals.
Beyond that there are only the much larger S&W "J" frame guns (and the Taurus equivalents, though I'm not wild about them.) However, there may be a "blast from the past" that is worth considering: the Colt Pocket Positive. Never heard of it? Well, you're in for a treat!
The Pocket Positive was nothing more than a scaled-down "D" frame (Detective Special, etc.) After all, the "D" frame was just a scaled down "E" frame (Official Police, etc.) so why not go even smaller? The Pocket Positive was a tiny little gun - considerably smaller than even a "J" frame. (A cylinder on the Colt measures 1.240", while the "J" frame comes in at 1.310". What really makes the difference, though, is the frame - the Pocket Positive is a tiny, almost jewel-like gun, noticeably smaller than the popular "J".) The action is, as noted, of normal Colt design, and should smooth up as nicely as its bigger brothers.
The Pocket Positive was most commonly chambered in the .32 Colt Police round, aka the .32 S&W Long. Now the .32 S&W round isn't terribly powerful, of course, but neither is the .32ACP - a cartridge used and praised in the backup role for many years. The .32 revolver round has a significantly heavier bullet, so it should have better penetration than the .32ACP - always a good thing when shooting a "mousegun." Ammunition is still being made, though the factory offerings are limited to lead round nose.
Pocket Positives have not yet captured the collecting world's imagination, and are still available at reasonable prices. I picked one up a while back for $150, and it's been sitting in my "to do" pile awaiting some spare time. I think I'll dig that out and put it back into working order; I think it may be the answer to the need for a good backup revolver!
(Now if only someone would reintroduce it in titanium...)
-=[ Grant ]=-
I know that many people carry their primary gun on their hip, with a lightweight (aluminum, titanium, scandium) wheelgun in an ankle holster, and I know a couple of folks who carry a S&W "J" frame in a front pants pocket as a second gun.
This is not what the writer had in mind, though. He was thinking of a very small (smaller than a "J" frame) "subcompact" revolver for a second gun, in the same way that there are subcompact autoloaders (Seecamp, Kel-Tec, etc.) to serve as backups to a larger autoloader. Sadly, the market in this case is pretty limited.
The only one that comes quickly to mind is the North American Arms "Mini" revolver in .22LR and .22WMR. (The Magnum, of course, would be a better choice than the Long Rifle, ballistically speaking.) The trouble with these guns is that 1) I've never seen one that could be even charitably referred to as reliable, and 2) they are harder than heck to even keep on an IDPA target at 7 feet, let alone be assured of a solid hit in the vitals.
Beyond that there are only the much larger S&W "J" frame guns (and the Taurus equivalents, though I'm not wild about them.) However, there may be a "blast from the past" that is worth considering: the Colt Pocket Positive. Never heard of it? Well, you're in for a treat!
The Pocket Positive was nothing more than a scaled-down "D" frame (Detective Special, etc.) After all, the "D" frame was just a scaled down "E" frame (Official Police, etc.) so why not go even smaller? The Pocket Positive was a tiny little gun - considerably smaller than even a "J" frame. (A cylinder on the Colt measures 1.240", while the "J" frame comes in at 1.310". What really makes the difference, though, is the frame - the Pocket Positive is a tiny, almost jewel-like gun, noticeably smaller than the popular "J".) The action is, as noted, of normal Colt design, and should smooth up as nicely as its bigger brothers.
The Pocket Positive was most commonly chambered in the .32 Colt Police round, aka the .32 S&W Long. Now the .32 S&W round isn't terribly powerful, of course, but neither is the .32ACP - a cartridge used and praised in the backup role for many years. The .32 revolver round has a significantly heavier bullet, so it should have better penetration than the .32ACP - always a good thing when shooting a "mousegun." Ammunition is still being made, though the factory offerings are limited to lead round nose.
Pocket Positives have not yet captured the collecting world's imagination, and are still available at reasonable prices. I picked one up a while back for $150, and it's been sitting in my "to do" pile awaiting some spare time. I think I'll dig that out and put it back into working order; I think it may be the answer to the need for a good backup revolver!
(Now if only someone would reintroduce it in titanium...)
-=[ Grant ]=-
This is a Monday, all right...
Monday, August 20, 2007 Filed in:
Blog stuff, Completely
irrelevant
You may be looking for the
latest installment of the "On Revolver Aesthetics" series. Well,
it's not coming today. I can only plead for mercy on the basis that
I had a VERY busy weekend, and frankly just didn't get around to
finishing this week's article.
Saturday had me making a trek up to Firearms Academy of Seattle (FAS), where I was slated to give a talk about the technical aspects of personal high-performance flashlights. It was a good trip, though it's a bit of a drive up and back - very tiring for me (I hate sitting still for more than 15 minutes at a time!)
Of course that took all day, and on Sunday I was engaged in yet another joy of home ownership: finishing a remodel of my bathroom. (Yes, I just remodeled the kitchen, now it's the bath. This is getting old in a hurry.)
I should explain that these projects aren't "remodeling" in the sense that we're updating things. You see, our house is a circa-1930 bungalow, and what we're doing is ripping out the various "improvements" that were added during the '60s and '70s. We're bringing the rooms back to the general look and feel of the originals, but we're not doing an obsessive restoration.
For instance, in the kitchen we put in a sink and faucet that bear a resemblance to what might have been there originally, but definitely aren't original or even reproductions thereof. We're leaving as much original as what we can, though - in the bathroom we left the original tub and got a sink that matches its lines. The sink is reminiscent of the designs that were in use in 1930, but not an exact copy.
The net result is that I had no time for my "regular" job dealing with gunsmithing topics. After all, I have to get a day off occasionally, right?
-=[ Grant ]=-
Saturday had me making a trek up to Firearms Academy of Seattle (FAS), where I was slated to give a talk about the technical aspects of personal high-performance flashlights. It was a good trip, though it's a bit of a drive up and back - very tiring for me (I hate sitting still for more than 15 minutes at a time!)
Of course that took all day, and on Sunday I was engaged in yet another joy of home ownership: finishing a remodel of my bathroom. (Yes, I just remodeled the kitchen, now it's the bath. This is getting old in a hurry.)
I should explain that these projects aren't "remodeling" in the sense that we're updating things. You see, our house is a circa-1930 bungalow, and what we're doing is ripping out the various "improvements" that were added during the '60s and '70s. We're bringing the rooms back to the general look and feel of the originals, but we're not doing an obsessive restoration.
For instance, in the kitchen we put in a sink and faucet that bear a resemblance to what might have been there originally, but definitely aren't original or even reproductions thereof. We're leaving as much original as what we can, though - in the bathroom we left the original tub and got a sink that matches its lines. The sink is reminiscent of the designs that were in use in 1930, but not an exact copy.
The net result is that I had no time for my "regular" job dealing with gunsmithing topics. After all, I have to get a day off occasionally, right?
-=[ Grant ]=-
You'd think it was Friday the 13th!
Friday, August 17, 2007 Filed in:
Blog stuff, What's New!
You've probably noticed that
there wasn't a Friday Surprise waiting for you this morning. Well,
it's not my fault!
The company that hosts www.grantcunningham.com had an outage, which lasted from roughly 9pm PDT Thursday to about 1:pm PDT today (Friday.) During that time, I couldn't post anything to the site, you couldn't get to the site, and no emails got through.
So, if you sent an email during that time period, I didn't get it - and it looks like I never will. Please resend, and I'll respond as soon as possible.
Thanks!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The company that hosts www.grantcunningham.com had an outage, which lasted from roughly 9pm PDT Thursday to about 1:pm PDT today (Friday.) During that time, I couldn't post anything to the site, you couldn't get to the site, and no emails got through.
So, if you sent an email during that time period, I didn't get it - and it looks like I never will. Please resend, and I'll respond as soon as possible.
Thanks!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Wednesday mind dump
Let's clean out the ol'
noggin:
-- Neat little "preaching to the choir" site called What kind of person supports gun control?
-- I've been thinking that the reason revolvers don't seem to capture much attention any more is because no "high speed low drag" kind of people use them. Unfortunately, pointing out that France's GIGN used to issue revolvers probably isn't going to have the desired effect!
-- Ruger's QC continues to be hit-and-miss. Just this week, I got in a new 3" GP100 with the barrel screwed in too far (canted to one side), and a 4" example that didn't time correctly. I continue to recommend them as good base guns for custom projects, because once they're sorted out they make a superb custom - and you'll never wear one out. Probably best, though, to buy in person, and inspect carefully.
-- I get an unexpectedly large number of inquiries as to what I use as a bore cleaner. I've used the homebrew Ed's Red formula for years, and have found nothing else that I like more. (I do use Hoppe's 7.62 formula for jacket fouling removal, however.)
-- The number of Detective Specials that are still in use as police backup and off-duty guns amazes me. Hardly a week goes by that I don't get at least one email or call from a LEO who is still using one in a secondary role. I've said it before, I'll say it again: S&W is missing a big market for the small 6-shot revolver. (Colt, of course, is missing out too - after all, they hold the designs for the Magnum Carry, but they don't want to make revolvers any more.)
-- I'm working on pictures for a new entry on the Recent Projects page. I won't divulge any more than it is, for once, not stainless. Stay tuned.
-- A non-relevant entry: got the latest versions of iLife and iWork last week. Verdict: Pages is finally a heavy hitter, Numbers is really cool, and the latest version of iPhoto is worth the cost all by itself. It's a great time to be a Mac user!
That's it for today. Boy, am I glad to get all of that out of my head!
-=[ Grant ]=-
-- Neat little "preaching to the choir" site called What kind of person supports gun control?
-- I've been thinking that the reason revolvers don't seem to capture much attention any more is because no "high speed low drag" kind of people use them. Unfortunately, pointing out that France's GIGN used to issue revolvers probably isn't going to have the desired effect!
-- Ruger's QC continues to be hit-and-miss. Just this week, I got in a new 3" GP100 with the barrel screwed in too far (canted to one side), and a 4" example that didn't time correctly. I continue to recommend them as good base guns for custom projects, because once they're sorted out they make a superb custom - and you'll never wear one out. Probably best, though, to buy in person, and inspect carefully.
-- I get an unexpectedly large number of inquiries as to what I use as a bore cleaner. I've used the homebrew Ed's Red formula for years, and have found nothing else that I like more. (I do use Hoppe's 7.62 formula for jacket fouling removal, however.)
-- The number of Detective Specials that are still in use as police backup and off-duty guns amazes me. Hardly a week goes by that I don't get at least one email or call from a LEO who is still using one in a secondary role. I've said it before, I'll say it again: S&W is missing a big market for the small 6-shot revolver. (Colt, of course, is missing out too - after all, they hold the designs for the Magnum Carry, but they don't want to make revolvers any more.)
-- I'm working on pictures for a new entry on the Recent Projects page. I won't divulge any more than it is, for once, not stainless. Stay tuned.
-- A non-relevant entry: got the latest versions of iLife and iWork last week. Verdict: Pages is finally a heavy hitter, Numbers is really cool, and the latest version of iPhoto is worth the cost all by itself. It's a great time to be a Mac user!
That's it for today. Boy, am I glad to get all of that out of my head!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On Revolver Aesthetics, Part 3 - Principles of design: Movement, emphasis, and unity
In
Part 2, we looked at the ideas of
proportion and balance as they relate to revolver design. Today,
let's look at some more concepts of good design.
Movement seems like an odd concept for an inanimate object, but it doesn't really deal with the object itself - movement instead refers to the path your eyes follow as you look at the gun.
Movement is important to control in a design, because a designer doesn't want the viewer's eyes to fixate on on detail to the exclusion of the rest, nor to keep moving off of the design into space. Both can (and do) happen!
Movement can be directed by edges and lines, by shapes, and the skilled use of color and texture. For instance, a natural line on a revolver is the barrel; it naturally directs the eyes back to the cylinder, where the flutes further direct the eye along the frame. The same movement happens in reverse. However, that movement needs to be arrested at some point, so that the eye doesn't wander off the design into open space at either end of the design. At the barrel end, the front sight serves to arrest a redirect the eye back along the barrel; at the other end, the hammer can do the same thing.
Those points of focus or interruption comprise the principle of emphasis. Points of emphasis are those which most strongly draw the viewers attention. There is usually a main point of emphasis, though there may be smaller points in other parts of the design. The eye should linger on a point of emphasis, then continue through the design. The idea is to hold the viewer's interest without causing fixation.
Emphasis can be achieved with repetition of color, shape, or texture; through contrast, again of color, shape, or texture; a change in scale or proportion; a position in a strategic location; or through intricacy, or the details of an element. The front sight is a good example of emphasis due to location, while a checkered cylinder release can be an example of intricacy.
Finally, all of the design principles should have as their end goal in unity of design. Unity is the feeling of harmony between all parts of the design; it should create a sense of completeness, of wholeness, of a solidity in the design. There should be a sense that all of the parts are working together to achieve a common result.
Consistency is the watchword of unity, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a contrast - perish the thought! As we learned in the discussion about emphasis, there needs to be some contrast in a design; unity is not to be confused with sameness!
However, contrast for emphasis is a one thing, while contrast that disturbs the unity is quite another. Contrast that supports the function or underlying concept of the design is not the same as contrast for contrast's sake. For instance, a matte part where the others are polished; a checkered part where the others are flat; a round part where others are square, are all examples of contrast for emphasis. Combining all of those contrasts in one part, however, produces disharmony, as does using all of those types of contrast willy-nilly across the whole design. The former promotes unity, the latter does not!
Unity is obvious, and perhaps the first thing we see when looking at a revolver. In a small canvas like a revolver, attention to unity is extremely important. As we'll see later in this series, it isn't always followed!
There is nothing like learning through example, so in the next installment we'll take a look at one iconic revolver from the perspective of these principles.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Movement seems like an odd concept for an inanimate object, but it doesn't really deal with the object itself - movement instead refers to the path your eyes follow as you look at the gun.
Movement is important to control in a design, because a designer doesn't want the viewer's eyes to fixate on on detail to the exclusion of the rest, nor to keep moving off of the design into space. Both can (and do) happen!
Movement can be directed by edges and lines, by shapes, and the skilled use of color and texture. For instance, a natural line on a revolver is the barrel; it naturally directs the eyes back to the cylinder, where the flutes further direct the eye along the frame. The same movement happens in reverse. However, that movement needs to be arrested at some point, so that the eye doesn't wander off the design into open space at either end of the design. At the barrel end, the front sight serves to arrest a redirect the eye back along the barrel; at the other end, the hammer can do the same thing.
Those points of focus or interruption comprise the principle of emphasis. Points of emphasis are those which most strongly draw the viewers attention. There is usually a main point of emphasis, though there may be smaller points in other parts of the design. The eye should linger on a point of emphasis, then continue through the design. The idea is to hold the viewer's interest without causing fixation.
Emphasis can be achieved with repetition of color, shape, or texture; through contrast, again of color, shape, or texture; a change in scale or proportion; a position in a strategic location; or through intricacy, or the details of an element. The front sight is a good example of emphasis due to location, while a checkered cylinder release can be an example of intricacy.
Finally, all of the design principles should have as their end goal in unity of design. Unity is the feeling of harmony between all parts of the design; it should create a sense of completeness, of wholeness, of a solidity in the design. There should be a sense that all of the parts are working together to achieve a common result.
Consistency is the watchword of unity, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a contrast - perish the thought! As we learned in the discussion about emphasis, there needs to be some contrast in a design; unity is not to be confused with sameness!
However, contrast for emphasis is a one thing, while contrast that disturbs the unity is quite another. Contrast that supports the function or underlying concept of the design is not the same as contrast for contrast's sake. For instance, a matte part where the others are polished; a checkered part where the others are flat; a round part where others are square, are all examples of contrast for emphasis. Combining all of those contrasts in one part, however, produces disharmony, as does using all of those types of contrast willy-nilly across the whole design. The former promotes unity, the latter does not!
Unity is obvious, and perhaps the first thing we see when looking at a revolver. In a small canvas like a revolver, attention to unity is extremely important. As we'll see later in this series, it isn't always followed!
There is nothing like learning through example, so in the next installment we'll take a look at one iconic revolver from the perspective of these principles.
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: What Benito couldn't do, Carlo did
Before Honda, before Kawasaki, Yamaha or Suzuki, motorcycle racing was dominated by the great Italian marques. Legendary companies like Gilera, Moto Morini, and MV Augusta held consecutive world titles, some of which would stand for years. All of these makers had their adherents, but the undeniable "big boy" of Italian motorcycle racing was Moto Guzzi.
The company was formed when three friends - Carlo Guzzi, Girogio Parodi, and Giovanni Ravelli - were serving in the Italian Army during World War I. Part of a flying unit, they had complimentary skills: Guzzi was a talented, though as yet amateur, engineer; Ravelli was an up-and-coming name in racing before the war; and Parodi, like his successful father, had demonstrated business acumen. The three agreed to pool their talents and form a company to make motorcycles. Ravelli, sadly, was killed only days after the war was finished, but Guzzi and Parodi soldiered on to form the company they'd all dreamed about.
Guzzi designed the machines and Parodi (whose father financed the enterprise) handled the business aspects of the fledgling firm. They knew that the key to commercial success was a reputation in racing, and thanks to their combined skill they were almost immediately successful at both. Only four months after their first prototypes were completed, company rider Gino Finzi picked up first place at the prestigious Targa Florio - a win that surprised the industry.
The company rapidly expanded their pool of engineering talent, and they would flex their muscle by making amazing motorcycles: a magnesium-cased, supercharged 250cc; a 4-cylinder supercharged 500cc in 1930; and a 3-cylinder supercharged 500cc machine in 1940. Despite these advances, their racing reputation would be made with their more pedestrian - but wonderfully engineered - single cylinder twin-cam motorcycles.
Those bikes quickly came to dominate the 250cc and 500cc classes, racking up win after win. In 1934 they cemented their hold on the top 500cc class with their introduction of the two-cylinder 500cc bicilindrica, which allowed them a spectacular win in both the 250cc and 500cc classes at the Isle of Man TT race in 1935. in 1953 they entered the hotly contested 350cc class, again with a twin-cam single, and won every World Championship until 1957.
By the mid-50s, though, they were losing ground in the "top dog" 500cc class. The twin-cam singles were decidedly out of date, while the bicilindrica had been inexplicably killed off in 1951. Guzzi needed a new bike that could not just take on the increasingly successful Gilera and upstart MV Augusta designs, but would rule over them.
Chief designer Giulio Carcano put his considerable talent to work, and what emerged in 1955 stunned the world: a water cooled, 500cc V-8 motorcycle. With dual overhead cams and a separate carburetor for each cylinder, this audacious design pumped out a then-unheard-of 72hp at a scarcely believable 12,000 rpm. Guzzi was ready.
Sadly the tire, brake and suspension technology of the day weren't up to the demands of the magnificent engine, and the otto cylindri never achieved the success intended. Moto Guzzi retired from racing entirely at the end of the 1957 season, and the bike was shelved. This didn't stop it from leaving a stumbling block for its rivals, though - in its short 2-season career it set several lap speed records which would end up standing for more than two decades, a parting shot to those who would succeed them.
Today only two authentic examples remain, both in the possession of the Guzzi company in the picturesque Italian town of Mandello del Lario. They occasionally fire one up for a demonstration run on their test track behind the factory. The sound of the engine is unmistakable, and reminds us that there was a time when Italy did, in fact, rule the world - or at least a small part of it.
-=[ Grant ]=-
The case for DAO
Wednesday, August 08, 2007 Filed in:
General gun
stuff, Techniques &
Training, Personal
opinions, Gunsmithing
In the Gunsmithing pages of
this site, I endorse the practice of rendering defensive revolvers
double action only (DAO.) Many people ask why, and I thought I'd
give you my thoughts on the matter.
Let's start with the usual argument for retaining single action capability, which I call the "Walter Mitty scenario": the mythical need for making precise long range head shots. Let's face it, folks - this just never happens in real life!
However, let's say that you're having a Jack Bauer kind of day and are now facing just this scenario. Mightn't that be just a tad bit stressful? Wouldn't that make you even more nervous, knowing that you'll be trying the toughest possible handgun shot under the worst possible conditions? With all that adrenaline now flowing through your system, is this really the time that you want a light, short trigger pull that is very easy to accidentally release? Not me, bunky!
This is the reason for DAO: light single action triggers are great on the calm shooting range, but pose a liability risk for unintentional discharges under stress. As Massad Ayoob says, single action triggers are great shooting tools, but lousy threat management tools.
Now I I know what you're thinking: "OK, but I promise I'll never use it!" I'm sure you mean that sincerely, but It's been well established over the decades that people tend to do in combat what they do in training.
It's human nature to practice what we're already good at, and to do that which is easiest for us. At the range, it's not uncommon to watch someone shoot a revolver at, say 50 feet and become disenchanted with their groups. At that point, they usually switch to the easier pull of the single action, and shoot that way. This imprints their subconscious to use single action when they are unsure of their abilities, and this may be what they revert to under stress.
Once that act of thumbing back the hammer has become habit, another problem crops up: the Hollywood-inspired (and reinforced) act of cocking the gun to show the bad guy that you "really mean it!" I'll refer you back to the second paragraph, with emphasis.
(Yes, I know you'll promise not to do that either. But if you've told your subconscious that cocking the hammer is accepted shooting technique, do you think it'll ask your conscious mind for permission when the time comes - especially if decades of TV and movies has told it otherwise? Of course not! "Besides", your subconscious thinks, "if Tyne Daly can do it, why can't I?")
Removing the SA capability eliminates the chances of any of this happening. (If you make the conscious decision to carry a gun with SA capability, I recommend that you attend the Lethal Force Institute's "LFI-1" class, where you will learn how to defend that choice - and counter any false claims that may arise from it - in court.)
From a gunsmithing perspective, I've found that eliminating the SA capability can, on some guns (Colt and Dan Wesson), give a bit more leeway in terms of honing the double action. Without the need to worry about the single action sear, the double action can be tuned far more radically than is otherwise possible. In S&W and Ruger guns, reducing the DA pull to the barest minimum (as some request) will result in an unconscionably light SA pull - often below 32 ounces. Eliminating the SA notches means that this ceases to be a worry.
Speaking for myself, I didn't start to shoot DA well until I'd gotten rid of the SA capability completely. True story: one day (many years ago), shortly after transitioning to shooting only revolvers, I was participating in a match (Bianchi type.) I was having trouble with missing those little round steel plates they use for one stage, and it was making me madder and madder. At one point the buzzer sounded, and I drew the gun (a Python) and cocked it for each plate. I downed all of them, but my happiness was shattered by a taunting voice of a 1911 partisan that said "hey, Grant, I've got a gun that does all that for me!"
After that I removed the SA from my revolvers and started shooting DA exclusively. It wasn't long before I was beating the guys (including the loudmouth in question) who were shooting 1911s with crisp single action triggers. It can be done!
If you have any doubt as to how accurately a double action can be shot, go watch your local PPC match - there's one just about everywhere in the country. You'll see lots of folks shooting DAO revolvers at up to 50 yards and producing groups that can be covered by your hand. That should be good enough for any defensive use, and you too can do it with just a bit of practice!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Let's start with the usual argument for retaining single action capability, which I call the "Walter Mitty scenario": the mythical need for making precise long range head shots. Let's face it, folks - this just never happens in real life!
However, let's say that you're having a Jack Bauer kind of day and are now facing just this scenario. Mightn't that be just a tad bit stressful? Wouldn't that make you even more nervous, knowing that you'll be trying the toughest possible handgun shot under the worst possible conditions? With all that adrenaline now flowing through your system, is this really the time that you want a light, short trigger pull that is very easy to accidentally release? Not me, bunky!
This is the reason for DAO: light single action triggers are great on the calm shooting range, but pose a liability risk for unintentional discharges under stress. As Massad Ayoob says, single action triggers are great shooting tools, but lousy threat management tools.
Now I I know what you're thinking: "OK, but I promise I'll never use it!" I'm sure you mean that sincerely, but It's been well established over the decades that people tend to do in combat what they do in training.
It's human nature to practice what we're already good at, and to do that which is easiest for us. At the range, it's not uncommon to watch someone shoot a revolver at, say 50 feet and become disenchanted with their groups. At that point, they usually switch to the easier pull of the single action, and shoot that way. This imprints their subconscious to use single action when they are unsure of their abilities, and this may be what they revert to under stress.
Once that act of thumbing back the hammer has become habit, another problem crops up: the Hollywood-inspired (and reinforced) act of cocking the gun to show the bad guy that you "really mean it!" I'll refer you back to the second paragraph, with emphasis.
(Yes, I know you'll promise not to do that either. But if you've told your subconscious that cocking the hammer is accepted shooting technique, do you think it'll ask your conscious mind for permission when the time comes - especially if decades of TV and movies has told it otherwise? Of course not! "Besides", your subconscious thinks, "if Tyne Daly can do it, why can't I?")
Removing the SA capability eliminates the chances of any of this happening. (If you make the conscious decision to carry a gun with SA capability, I recommend that you attend the Lethal Force Institute's "LFI-1" class, where you will learn how to defend that choice - and counter any false claims that may arise from it - in court.)
From a gunsmithing perspective, I've found that eliminating the SA capability can, on some guns (Colt and Dan Wesson), give a bit more leeway in terms of honing the double action. Without the need to worry about the single action sear, the double action can be tuned far more radically than is otherwise possible. In S&W and Ruger guns, reducing the DA pull to the barest minimum (as some request) will result in an unconscionably light SA pull - often below 32 ounces. Eliminating the SA notches means that this ceases to be a worry.
Speaking for myself, I didn't start to shoot DA well until I'd gotten rid of the SA capability completely. True story: one day (many years ago), shortly after transitioning to shooting only revolvers, I was participating in a match (Bianchi type.) I was having trouble with missing those little round steel plates they use for one stage, and it was making me madder and madder. At one point the buzzer sounded, and I drew the gun (a Python) and cocked it for each plate. I downed all of them, but my happiness was shattered by a taunting voice of a 1911 partisan that said "hey, Grant, I've got a gun that does all that for me!"
After that I removed the SA from my revolvers and started shooting DA exclusively. It wasn't long before I was beating the guys (including the loudmouth in question) who were shooting 1911s with crisp single action triggers. It can be done!
If you have any doubt as to how accurately a double action can be shot, go watch your local PPC match - there's one just about everywhere in the country. You'll see lots of folks shooting DAO revolvers at up to 50 yards and producing groups that can be covered by your hand. That should be good enough for any defensive use, and you too can do it with just a bit of practice!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On Revolver Aesthetics, Part 2 - Principles of design: Proportion and Balance
As I mentioned in
Part
1,
there are some recognized design principles that are universal.
Let's look at some of them.
Proportion is the relationship, in terms of size and scale, among the various parts of a design, and of each element to the design as a whole. Proportion is about measurements: length, width, etc. and how those measurements compare to
Remember that a revolver is a three-dimensional object: proportion is not just about length or width, but also volume. If we were to increase the barrel diameter of a revolver, even a small amount, its proportion to the rest of the gun would change dramatically - possibly more so than a simple increase in length. One could also alter the proportion my using visual tricks to make a part look more "3D" and increasing its visual volume - even if the part is essentially unchanged in physical size!
Proportion also applies to every part on the gun. If we were to increase the size of a hammer spur or triggerguard, it would change the proportions and alter the design. Maybe it would be better, maybe not - but each element has to be judged not just on how it relates to each other element, but how it relates to the entire object. Proportion is all about relationships!
Balance, on the other hand, is the concept of visual equilibrium. When balance is not present, the whole design looks as if it will "fall over" in some direction (if not literally) Achieving visual balance can be done symmetrically, where the elements are arranged equally on each side of an imaginary balance point, or asymmetrically, where the elements on each side of that point are arranged non-identically so that the whole looks balanced.
The latter is kind of a hard concept; imagine a teeter-totter. Balance is made when we have two children of equal size on each end of the beam (symmetrical), but could also be made with one really fat and two really skinny kids on opposite ends, of of one fat and one skinny kid, with the fat kid closer to the balance point and the skinny child at the end of the beam. These are examples of an asymmetrical balance, and the same principles apply to design balance.
The interesting thing is that balance is variable, because it relies on a visual fulcrum for your eyes to focus on, and can be very complicated, because there might be more than one balance point. Let's take an example of varying barrel lengths; radical changes in barrel length might change the visual balance of the gun depending on where your eye finds a fulcrum. In a good design, there might be several such points for your eye to rest on, resulting in good balance with a variety of barrel lengths.
What kinds of things can serve as visual balance points? The cylinder, the triggerguard, the cylinder latch, the recoil shield, and so on. Anything that can serve as a reference point on which to "arrange" other objects is a fulcrum.
Understand that this is distinctly different than physical balance, and it is important to separate the concepts. A great example is the Colt Python; while there are small visual changes in the earliest guns to the latest, the design was essentially unchanged from start to finish. An early 4" example has the same visual balance to a late model, yet the physical balance changed dramatically - because the lug on the earliest models was hollow, giving a distinct rearward weight bias. So, the guns had the same visual balance, but very different physical balances.
Next time, we'll examine some more concepts of design as applied to the revolver!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Proportion is the relationship, in terms of size and scale, among the various parts of a design, and of each element to the design as a whole. Proportion is about measurements: length, width, etc. and how those measurements compare to
Remember that a revolver is a three-dimensional object: proportion is not just about length or width, but also volume. If we were to increase the barrel diameter of a revolver, even a small amount, its proportion to the rest of the gun would change dramatically - possibly more so than a simple increase in length. One could also alter the proportion my using visual tricks to make a part look more "3D" and increasing its visual volume - even if the part is essentially unchanged in physical size!
Proportion also applies to every part on the gun. If we were to increase the size of a hammer spur or triggerguard, it would change the proportions and alter the design. Maybe it would be better, maybe not - but each element has to be judged not just on how it relates to each other element, but how it relates to the entire object. Proportion is all about relationships!
Balance, on the other hand, is the concept of visual equilibrium. When balance is not present, the whole design looks as if it will "fall over" in some direction (if not literally) Achieving visual balance can be done symmetrically, where the elements are arranged equally on each side of an imaginary balance point, or asymmetrically, where the elements on each side of that point are arranged non-identically so that the whole looks balanced.
The latter is kind of a hard concept; imagine a teeter-totter. Balance is made when we have two children of equal size on each end of the beam (symmetrical), but could also be made with one really fat and two really skinny kids on opposite ends, of of one fat and one skinny kid, with the fat kid closer to the balance point and the skinny child at the end of the beam. These are examples of an asymmetrical balance, and the same principles apply to design balance.
The interesting thing is that balance is variable, because it relies on a visual fulcrum for your eyes to focus on, and can be very complicated, because there might be more than one balance point. Let's take an example of varying barrel lengths; radical changes in barrel length might change the visual balance of the gun depending on where your eye finds a fulcrum. In a good design, there might be several such points for your eye to rest on, resulting in good balance with a variety of barrel lengths.
What kinds of things can serve as visual balance points? The cylinder, the triggerguard, the cylinder latch, the recoil shield, and so on. Anything that can serve as a reference point on which to "arrange" other objects is a fulcrum.
Understand that this is distinctly different than physical balance, and it is important to separate the concepts. A great example is the Colt Python; while there are small visual changes in the earliest guns to the latest, the design was essentially unchanged from start to finish. An early 4" example has the same visual balance to a late model, yet the physical balance changed dramatically - because the lug on the earliest models was hollow, giving a distinct rearward weight bias. So, the guns had the same visual balance, but very different physical balances.
Next time, we'll examine some more concepts of design as applied to the revolver!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: What can you do with a grain of sand?
Friday, August 03, 2007 Filed in:
Friday
Surprise!, Completely
irrelevant
I know that I've been
featuring a disproportionate number of Dark Roasted
Blend articles lately, but they
just come up with so much good stuff it's hard not to! Take today's
topic:
That's the creation of a mandala, the Dharmic representation (in miniature) of a particular aspect of the universe. The amount of work is incredible, and the cool (or plaintive, depending on your point of view) aspect is their ritual destruction after completion.
Check them out.
-=[ Grant ]=-
That's the creation of a mandala, the Dharmic representation (in miniature) of a particular aspect of the universe. The amount of work is incredible, and the cool (or plaintive, depending on your point of view) aspect is their ritual destruction after completion.
Check them out.
-=[ Grant ]=-
My week, and some gratuitous name-dropping
Massad Ayoob
was in the area
the last couple of weeks for his yearly round of teaching up
at Firearms Academy
of Seattle. We generally try to get
together for a meal during his stays, and finally managed to do so
last Saturday evening. We had our usual good time, catching up on
family news and the latest gossip in the industry.
Interestingly, for the first time in a long while he was actually teaching with one of his own guns as opposed to using a test/evaluation piece. The gun in question was a Langdon-prepped Beretta 92. I'm not a big fan of bottom-feeding handguns, as you know, and the 92 series is - for my little hands - the worst of the lot. I had to admit, though, that this one was pretty darned nice (for an auto, you understand.) I wouldn't have believed that a Beretta double-action trigger could get as light as this one and still ignite primers, but he reports it to be completely reliable.
When it rains, it pours, and Monday morning found me having brunch with AFGWWWTRA (who?!?), who was on a quick pass through the area. What did we talk about?
Cattle. Yes, cows. Well, there was also some talk about hunting, and of course the obligatory chat about how wonderful revolvers are, but cattle were the subject du jour.
Yes, this is a glamorous job alright!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Interestingly, for the first time in a long while he was actually teaching with one of his own guns as opposed to using a test/evaluation piece. The gun in question was a Langdon-prepped Beretta 92. I'm not a big fan of bottom-feeding handguns, as you know, and the 92 series is - for my little hands - the worst of the lot. I had to admit, though, that this one was pretty darned nice (for an auto, you understand.) I wouldn't have believed that a Beretta double-action trigger could get as light as this one and still ignite primers, but he reports it to be completely reliable.
When it rains, it pours, and Monday morning found me having brunch with AFGWWWTRA (who?!?), who was on a quick pass through the area. What did we talk about?
Cattle. Yes, cows. Well, there was also some talk about hunting, and of course the obligatory chat about how wonderful revolvers are, but cattle were the subject du jour.
Yes, this is a glamorous job alright!
-=[ Grant ]=-
eBay caves - again
eBay has decided that it
will no longer allow listings to sell most gun
parts, citing some amorphous
connection to the Virginia Tech shooting. Jerks.
On the plus side, gunbroker.com and auctionarms.com are going to make more money!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On the plus side, gunbroker.com and auctionarms.com are going to make more money!
-=[ Grant ]=-