Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967
-
Posts
16,948 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967
-
-
-
1
-
5
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:
But...!
The plural of "octopus" is actually "octopuses."
"Octopi" is also sometimes (incorrectly) used, but "octopuses" is the preferred and more correct plural. "Octopi" is used because people assume it's formed like Latin loan words, like "fungus/fungi". However, "Octopus" is derived from the ancient Greek oktōpous, a compound form of oktō, 'eight' and pous, 'foot.'
Y'all are quite welcome!
(And I do like that pie!)
-
4
-
-
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Alpo said:
Golden Gate Park in San Francisco...?
-
6
-
-
-
7
-
2
-
2
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
-
Also a convicted child molester. Pardoned by Jimmy Carter in the last hours of his presdency, in a move described as "perhaps the only [pardon] in U.S. history wiping away a conviction for a sexual offense against a child."
He later expressed sincere regrets, and eventually was recognized for signifcant humantarian works, including Congressional recognition.
And of course, much apprecated for hs music.
-
9 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:
With all the wildfires out there it should have been designed to handle this. Poor planning I believe and a shortage of water as well.
That was my initial thought - but then, I wondered if that was realistic. So I googled the question, and got this response:
"A very small percentage, usually less than 1%, of a city's fire hydrants can be opened at once without significantly impacting water pressure and potentially causing disruptions to the water supply; the exact percentage depends on the city's water system design and capacity, but it's generally considered unwise to open more than a handful at the same time."
A couple of related links:
Those suckers pass a LOT of water!
"LADWP and city leaders faced criticism by some residents, who blamed planning and the city's infrastructure for failing to support firefighting efforts. Some also claimed on social media that officials had refused or failed to fill the tanks..."
However:
"...Los Angeles Fire Department Capt. Erik Scott said the LADWP proactively filled all available water storage tanks before the fires began. He said that 'extreme demand' caused the tanks to be refilled at a slower rate, which affected the supply to some hydrants..."
"Janisse Quiñones, chief executive and chief engineer of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said at a Wednesday press conference that all three 1-million-gallon water tanks in the area ran dry by 3 a.m., reducing water pressure for fire hydrants at higher elevations... We had a tremendous demand on our system in the Palisades. We pushed the system to the extreme," Quiñones said. "Four times the normal demand was seen for 15 hours straight, which lowered our water pressure."
I don't know how many hydrants are in Pacific Palisades alone, but if it covers more than 22 square miles, there's gotta be a bunch of 'em.
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:
I've read accounts that they don't have the water to fight the fires due to low pressure from reservoirs being prevented from being refilled by natural means. I've also read about the LAFD budget being cut by the 17 million that Pat referred to. Fire budget $863,000,000, homeless budget $1,300,000,000. I guess it's a good thing they allotted the 1.3 billion to the homeless...they're going to need it.
I'm curious as to whether the no water for fighting the fires is true. I have no doubt the rest is true.
That said, I feel for the people, rich and famous or poor and unknown, that have lost everything they own along with their most treasured possessions.
I'm wondering - could any city or community's fire suppression system function if all the hydrants are tapped at the same time? Is it a shortage of water, or of pumping/delivery capacity? Was the system ever designed to handle this level of demand? Is it even possible?
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:
It's not really difficult to make, just seems like a lot of steps, even though it's no more steps than bacon, eggs, and hash browns. To me the worst step is poaching the eggs.
2 hours ago, watab kid said:yes , i get the ingredients , its all about the hollandaise to make it right , im fortunate to have a gourmet cook for a wife , she makes such things well , i would live a bland life if not for her
Ahh you guys...! Joe's right; traditionally poaching the eggs is a drag. But egg poachers are simple to use. Actually, I just use a skillet and recycled tuna cans (cheating, but more to come!) Put the eggs in the cans, in the hot water bath. Fish out the cans with a tongs when done. Perfect size and shape!
And as far as the hollandaise... well... still cheating, but Aunt Penny's ain't bad!
The whole process is quick and yummy ~ heck, I've surprised folk with this breakfast in deer camp. Just don't tell anyone you "cheated."
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 1/7/2025 at 5:27 PM, Sedalia Dave said:
Apparently it is legal to ship them to the PRoK
The downside is... just like with anything else that shoots, getting ammunition for this in california would be problematic. Actually, more difficult than anything else south of .50 BMG.
'Cept, mebbe for San Francisco's Chinatown just before Chinese New Year. Which is coming up...!
-
1
-
-
-
Huh! Amazon has 'em!
Just do a search for "Firecracker Cannon" and bunches of 'em pop up - some as low as twenty bucks!
-
1
-
2
-
-
Dunno if this has been shared here before or not, but what the heck ~ I want one!
-
4
-
1
-
3
-
-
"The Air Force eventually reimbursed the Greggs for their losses, but the settlement was insufficient to rebuild."
Reckon it coulda put a kink in the O club budget....
-
2
-
-
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
What Deacon sez.
Pre-64 Winchester Model 94's are, if I had to use a single descriptive word, elegant. Especially the long-barreled rifle versions, in my not-so-humble opinion. In 1964, they essentially became cheaper but generally functional knock-offs.
In '64, Winchester stopped machining the receivers and other small parts of the Model 94 from solid steel billet. Instead, they used sintered steel for the receivers, stamped sheet metal for the cartridge lifter, and hollow steel roll pins in the action. Although just as strong, the sintered steel will not take a traditional blueing. Rather, an alternate "black oxide" multi-step process was used. Overall, cheaper and initally looked good, but does not wear like the traditional finish. Also extremely difficult to repair - "touch-up" blueing will not work; might as well just hit it with a Sharpie and live with it.
In 1978 I set out to buy a new '94 for my kid brother. I literally went to a bunch of gun shops and handled maybe three dozen 94's. Consistently, they were loose, rattled when shaken, the wood was as plain as "bunk bed frames." But I finally found the pearl in the bag of marbles ~ one that was solid, did not rattle, and actually had a nicely grained stock. Bought it; my son now has it. Accurate enough (my Marlin is more accurate!), still looks fine, but it admittedly does have a few Sharpie touch-up applications.
When the employee-run U S Repeating Arms Corp (USRAC) assumed production 1982, they continued using sintered receivers. But when Belgian arms maker FN Herstal took over in '92 (USRAC filed for bankruptcy in '89), they switched to CNC machining and quality began to return. Ninety-fours have been produced in Japan by Miroku since 2010; quality is considered to be quite good. However, there is still some residual resentment levied on the "lawyer safeties."
And by the way... good condition pre-64's are indeed nice. And pricy! One could almost buy three new Ruger Marlins for the price of a really good vintage Winchester.
1952 Production
1970's Production
Miroku
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Eyesa Horg said:
Is that book still available? I have an NRA centennial musket IIRC, that I managed to disassemble and reassemble with a you video! I like books better!
Eyesa, here ya go.
-
1
-
3
-
-
14 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:
Several possible reasons cast bullets will shoot poorly in a microgroove barrel.
The bullet has to be properly sized for the rifling. If the cast lead bullet is undersized it will not engage the microgroove rifling at all. With conventional rifling if the bullet is slightly undersized it may still engage the rifling enough to impart spin.
Bullet is of the incorrect hardness for the velocity. A bullet that is to soft will not stay engaged with the rifling if the velocity is too high. In other words the bullet strips out.
Lead deposits in the barrel due to gas cutting. This can be caused by:
A bullet that is too soft for the velocity allowing the hot gasses to force their way around the bullet.
A bullet that is undersized and too hard preventing it from bumping up to fully engaged the rifling.
Using a lube that is too hard or too soft for the given velocity.
All of the above also applies to conventional rifling. However the shallower the depth of microgroove rifling means that the effects will manifest themselves quicker..
The diameter of commercial .22 rimfire bullets is chosen so that they will always properly engage the rifling of almost any manufacturers barrel. And because the velocity is known the manufacturer will choose the correct hardness.
With other calibers of cast bullets, bore diameter can vary a lot between manufacturers. Therefore, many people don't choose the correct bullet diameter for their barrel, choose bullets of the wrong hardness for the velocity, or select the wrong lube for the chosen velocity.
Well presented, Professor Dave!
Following the "guidelines," I've done quite well with cast boolits outta my Marlin 336 - with and without gas checks. And folks I know with Micro-Groove .444 Marlin and .45-70. And my '94 .357. Oh... and of course my 39A.
Others mileage may vary, but I've never had any issues with the "M-G."
-
2
-
-
Well, I'll admit up front that I'm somewhat jaded ~ I actually like Marlins.
That said, it's been my observation over the the last fifty plus years that the Micro-Groove rifling is pretty much disliked by mostly people who don't shoot rifles with Micro-Groove rifling.
As posted on another site:
QuoteMicro groove rifling has been around for a long time. It was in fact espoused by no less an expert barrel maker than Harry M Pope. Marlin’s micro-groove rifling and increased number of shallow grooves and lands came close to what Pope had considered to be the ideal rifling form for target shooting. Pope, and others felt, that more numerous, shallow lands and grooves aided accuracy by causing less initial bullet deformation as it moved up the barrel and less drag on the bullet after it had left the barrel.
With the technology of his time, micro-groove barrels were hard to achieve, and it was not until the 1950s that Marlin was able to mass produce them at a marked savings in cost. The Marlin barrels shot extremely well with jacketed bullets, but some shooters complained that they did less well with cast bullets. In the case of cast bullets, the main requirement was both a fairly hard alloy and carefully sizing them to on a few thousandths of an inch over bore diameter. When that was done, cast lead bullets shot as well as jacketed.
However, not all shooters took to sizing their cast bullets and experimenting with loads and alloys so closely and rumors got around that micro-groove barrels were not good at firing lead bullets. Consequently Marlin returned to the Ballard type rifling.Astrid Ingmarsdottir, Dr of Veterinary Medicine-
1
-
3
-
-
Well...
On the subject of Micro-Groove rifling (sometimes irreverently but humorously called "Micro-Scratch" by some), it actually works quite well with correctly sized cast-alloy bullets loaded for proper velocities. In my experience even less lead fouling than with "normal" type rifling. Very accurate. Produced for some fifty years, from their introduction in the 1950's until Remington took over Marlin production in 2007.
On THAT subject, the "Remlins" have a less-than-stellar rep. Some of the earlier Remington produced Marlins indeed were atrocious; however, throughout their run, many (probably most) were quite acceptable. I gave my son a '95 Cowboy that was every bit as good in construction, fit and finish, and performance as any JM. Now, when I selected it, I did pass on a couple of others in the store that were less pristine in the "f&f" department - but I suspect they probably worked well.
And the Ruger produced Marlins are reputed to be the best ever. Also not Micro-Groove.
Again, I have both Winchesters and Marlins. And again, I like 'em both, but find the Marlin to be the smoother action - a single sweep of the lever; the Winchester is essentially a "two-stage" lever swing. And I never needed a book or video to disassemble a Marlin; pretty intuitive. Might be recommended for a Winchester; more complex and with more parts.
Here's a good comparison article, entertaining and worth reading:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/guns/winchester-model-94-vs-marlin-336
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:
My old 90s vintage Marlin 336 has been a fine deer gun!
So's my '71 vintage 336 ~ bought new in my late teens. I have Winchester 94's, and I like 'em, but the Marlin is still my favored mid-range field gun. It lends itself quite well to both iron sights (I always preferred the Lyman receiver sight) and scopes. Mine came with a scope, which was soon replaced with the receiver sight; and fifty-plus years later back to a low-power scope.
The Marlin (and by dint of it being a knock-off, the Henry) is quite solid, and MUCH easier to strip for cleaning or clearing. Remove a single screw, the lever and bolt slip right out, and the ejector can be easily removed. BTW ~ I've know a few older Henry owners who experienced difficulties with ejection or even broken ejectors. Replacing the ejector with an actual Marlin part seems to cure the problem.
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
5
-
-
ONE aerial firework. HUNDREDS of rounds of gunfire.
Feliz Año Nuevo, don'tcha know. 🤨
If You Like Your AR-15, You Can Keep Your AR-15
in TEAM SASS
Posted
Sadly, not likely. The R's have a razor thin majority in the House. That said, you can be sure the D's vote will be 100% in opposition. The R side is rarely that cohesive. Will the majority of R's support it? Prob'ly. In toto? Doubtful.
But I hope I'm incorrect!