twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 16 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vast Antarctic iceberg
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/58a4f2b6832f2251?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 12:17 am
From: Shall not be infringed

On Feb 28, 3:10 am, "Jeff R." <cont...@this.ng> wrote:
> "Shall not be infringed" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:f0ee5b0f-a96a-4600-b7b4-0bcc1c3e85ca@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 12:23 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
> wrote:
>
> >> They say the iceberg, which is 78km long and up to 39km wide,
> > 5 miles by 2.5 miles. Big deal.
>
> Wow!
> A genuine order-of-magnitude stuffup.
> Well done, Mr infringed.

Ooops! Thank you Mr. R.

Its bigger than Guam and nobody cares about Guam or claims that it
changes global climate.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 2:30 am
From: cavelamb

ed wolf wrote:
> On 27 Feb., 23:35, sparky wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 12:23 am, Cliff wrote:
>
>>> A vast iceberg that broke off eastern Antarctic earlier this month could disrupt
>>> marine life in the region, scientists have warned.
>
>>> But British and Australian scientists disagree on whether it could also cause
>>> major problems to our own weather patterns.
>>
>> Nothing will change. The same amount of ice is floating around today
>> as there was a month ago. It is just not attached to the shore now.
>
> Sounds like a fair guess, but he logic behind it does not usually
> apply in crafts and metalworking, though. Here the same amount
> of parts, but one loose, can make a difference. : )
> regards
> ed

Actually it changes constantly.
It is not a frozen monolithic ice cube.

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Glenn Beck's authoritarian manifesto
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/03ecfef2321238cb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 12:45 am
From: sittingduck

D Murphy wrote:

> I'm not offended by any of it. There's a difference in what they do and
> if you can't see it, I can't do anything about it.

No, there's actually not all that much difference. There's just a whole lot
MORE of the crazy talk coming from the right. And it comes from their
MAINSTREAM, not just the fringes. The rightwing media is CHOCK FULL of stuff
way more crazy than what you are whining about from the left.

--
What do you do with a tea bag when it's all used up?
Throw it away, just like the GOP will do when they're done with the
teabaggers.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 2:06 am
From: "Seon Ferguson"

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D2D111A6198DWereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
> "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:bfqdncJwivRXlBfWnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
>
>>
>>
>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D2CEC31C42A8Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>> "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:C-mdnf3gS65PRBTWnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9D2CD7452318EWereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>> "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:NqydnQ-kH5g9ABTWnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Xns9D2CA86AE6D9Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>> "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:M5ydnTifyaxZAxXWnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bush also said the Constitution is a God damn peace of paper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hear that claim made repeatedly but noone ever cites where it
>>>>>>> comes from. Which sorta tells me how true it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_cons
>>>>>> ti tu tion_a.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also the fact that the patriot act, military commission act and john
>>>>>> warner defense act are all un constitutional acts that kind of backs
>>>>>> up the view that Bush could have possible said that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While fact check has a point about the reporter getting 2 sources
>>>>>> right the reporter has a point about getting 98% of the rest of what
>>>>>> he said right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reporter probably can't even get his own name right. He should be
>>>>> in rehab.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me guess, you ride on a special short bus on the way to school
>>>>> don't you. Did you even the fucking page, moron?
>>>>>
>>>>> Q:
>>>>>
>>>>> Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?"
>>>>> Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned
>>>>> piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there
>>>>> were several witnesses. A:
>>>>>
>>>>> Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a
>>>>> history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories.
>>>>> The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican
>>>>> congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it
>>>>> charitably.
>>>>>
>>>>> We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It
>>>>> comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying
>>>>> on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.
>>>>>
>>>>> What part of this is unclear, you dullard? Do you need it ecplained
>>>>> word for word? This is just another insane bit of bullshit from one of
>>>>> BDS afflicted bottom feeders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Want more?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Quote
>>>>>
>>>>> The report was posted on Dec. 5, 2005. According to author, Doug
>>>>> Thompson, unnamed Republican leaders complained to Bush during a White
>>>>> House meeting about "onerous" portions of the USA Patriot Act,
>>>>> prompting the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> Capitol Hill Blue: "I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm
>>>>> the
>>>>> President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid
>>>>> case that
>>>>> the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back.
>>>>> "It's
>>>>> just a goddamned piece of paper!"
>>>>>
>>>>> The evidence
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no record of Bush ever using these words in public and no
>>>>> other news organization has reported him using them privately.
>>>>> Thompson based his
>>>>> report on three sources whom he didn't name. He gave the date of the
>>>>> quote
>>>>> as "last month," which would put it sometime in November 2005.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thompson told us he once removed the story from his Web site when
>>>>> others raised doubts and no other news organization came up with a
>>>>> similar story. But
>>>>> he said he later reinstated it and currently believes it to be true.
>>>>> "I wrote the story and I stand by it," Thompson said in a telephone
>>>>> interview.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thompson told us he based the story on e-mail messages from three
>>>>> persons he knows, all of whom claim to have been present at a White
>>>>> House meeting and to have heard Bush make the statement. He said he
>>>>> finds their account credible: "Sometimes I just have to go with my
>>>>> gut, and my gut tells me he did say this."
>>>>>
>>>>> "There's no record of Bush ever using these words in public and no
>>>>> other news organization has reported him using them privately." Is
>>>>> that clear enough for you?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is one that is not in question though. Bush said there ought to
>>>>>> be limits to freedom
>>>>>> http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/may99/052699a.htm well what
>>>>>> are those limits, mr Bush?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yeah another BDS fucktard, single source. Hoo wee, you are batting
>>>>> them out of the park, today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wait isn't this why I killfiled you in the first place?
>>>>>
>>>> Oh wait you killfilled me? I guess you can't tolerate people who have
>>>> different views to you. I used to be a huge Obama fan but even then I
>>>
>>> No I can't tolerate Stupid people. There is a difference. I will always
>>> listen to another opinion, if it is rational; and intelligent.
>>>
>>>> never killfilled anyone who hated him. So I guess I like free speech
>>>> more than you and I'm an Australian. I can't be bothered with the likes
>>>> of you anymore, see you in the funny pages.
>>>
>>> OK stupid, free speech means you can say what you want. it does not mean
>>> I have to listen to the blithering of idiots. Who incidentally
>>> apparently don't even understand thier own cites that indicate how wrong
>>> they are.
>>>
>> You must be a really pathetic person to result in childish name calling.
>> Your how old and act like a immature child? I feel very sorry for the
>> likes of you. I won't be wasting my time with you until you learn to play
>> nice. Bye bye.
>
> I don't play with morons that make idiot statments that aren't true and
> then
> choose cites for them that prove they are wrong. You're to easy.
>
> tell us again what Bush said, idiot.
>
>>
If you had only posted those facts and not called me stupid names I would
have said maybe he didn't. But I did say "While fact check has a point about
the reporter getting 2 sources
right the reporter has a point about getting 98% of the rest of what he
said right. " which shows I know fact check was debunking it. But anyway you
must be a really pathetic person to get off on calling people you have never
meet names from behind your monitor. I feel sorry for the likes of you. When
will you grow up and act your age?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Checking on post problem, Help
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/863ed0c38b450cec?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 12:59 am
From: Steve Ackman

In <kgpfo55shoqgqamscorit3h1inpc1sf7ei@4ax.com>, on Fri, 26 Feb 2010
07:24:46 -0800, Larry Jaques, ljaques@diversify.invalid wrote:

> I wish I could figure out how to do that in Agent. I purely hate
> seeing all these guys (whom I like) replying to the trolls day after
> day. I'd rather filter their replies than the people themselves, but
> Agent doesn't apply filtering to anything but author and subject, no
> references and no text filtering, despite my whining about it to Forte
> continually for a decade. <deep sigh #42,385 on this subject>

But... you *can* filter on more than just From and
Subject... It's in the FAQ at
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/faq.php

----------
Can I kill-filter messages posted to a specific newsgroup?

Yes. As of Agent 4, you can now create a usenet filter based on the
Newsgroups header. To filter on this, simply enter "Newsgroups: " in the
expression editor like you would "Author: " or "Subject: ", and the name
of the newsgroup. You can also use a usenet filter to control crossposts.
Here is an example:

newsgroups: ({\,.+\,.+\,.+\,} and warez)

That will filter based on a message being crossposted to four or more
newsgroups where at least one of which has the word 'warez' in the name.

NOTES: A new filter based on the Newsgroups will not be applied
immediately when created, these expressions only work on message headers
as they are being downloaded. This is because the Newsgroups header does
not actaully exist in the overview data, so Agent simulates it based on
other overview data. This other overview data does not exist either if you
have set Agent to use the XHDR command instead. By default, Agent does not
use the XHDR command.

For more on how Agent 4 can manage crossposts, see the FAQ entry "How does
the new crosspost detection in Agent 4 work?".
----------

I would think the filter above (but change warez to
say, survivalism, limbaugh, or politics) would
eliminate 95% of what you object to.

--
☯☯

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Gunner News Agency
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/5cc22b57aa9c402b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 1:23 am
From: "Buerste"

"Don Foreman" <dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
news:d65ko5h3ustjmesu18citjvb7e3jfjh13o@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:17:40 -0500, "Buerste" <buerste@buerste.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> It isn't that heavy loads are less accurate, although they may be, it
>>> is that when you are practicing and concentrating on sight alignment
>>> and trigger squeeze having someone hit you in the hand with a baseball
>>> bat every shot is disconcerting. And, if you can keep 'em all in the
>>> black with light loads you can do just about as well with heavy loads.
>>>
>>>
>>> John D.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>>I always found the 1911 recoil comfortable with factory ball. My SA XD-9
>>9mm kicks like a mule!
>
> Perception of recoil is highly individual and personal. Ya gotta go
> with what works for you. I find the recoil of an XD-9 to be
> insignificant and the XD .40 not noticably different but I've found
> the Kahr PM9 to be unacceptably harsh. I wouldn't own one if it was a
> gift but I know that some petite women like it as a carry and have no
> problem shooting it frequently for practice.
>
> Fitch purely loves his 9mmp Glock and had no problem with the Kahr PM9
> but regards any .40 as unacceptable -- but he purely enjoyed shooting
> my 1911's. I found his .45 long colt revolver to be about on the edge
> of my tolerance level but he seems to like it.
>
> Funny how things work some days.

Even with a Hogue rubber grip, my hand is numb and stings after 100 rds. in
the XD-9. I can shoot the 1911 all day. Even my .357 is comfortable. My
9mm P08 doesn't bother me. I know, it doesn't make sense. And, my .22
isn't too bad.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 1:37 am
From: "Buerste"

"Don Foreman" <dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
news:3psjo5duv84gmpogviatctpn1jkj7ttsek@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:43:22 +0700, John D. <johndslocomb@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:06:26 -0800, Hawke
>><davesmithers@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Gee, I can't wait. The signal to noise ratio certainly improves when
>>>> he's not around.
>>>> **************
>>>>
>>>> But I need to pick his brain about my 1911, I'm at a standstill trying
>>>> to
>>>> figure out some issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>If your gun is a new one before you do anything else you need to break
>>>it in. That means you have to shoot at least a thousand and preferably
>>>2000 rounds of ball ammo through it. That's hardball ammo. Don't shoot
>>>anything but round nosed ammo until you break it in. After your gun is
>>>good and broken in then you can worry about SWC lead bullets, lower
>>>power recoil springs, and other things. If you haven't shot the gun
>>>enough to get it good and broken in then you're getting way ahead of
>>>yourself. Many times people have all kinds of problems with brand new
>>>1911s. They need to be shot a lot before you even think of going on to
>>>other things. Some 1911s are good to go right out of the box but many
>>>need a break in period. Shoot a thousand rounds or so of ball ammo and
>>>see what happens. Make sure you use Wilson Combat magazines too.
>>>
>>>Hawke
>>
>>
>>Question: Is this correct? I read various articles in gun magazines
>>about "breaking-in" guns but in my own experience, which stopped
>>abruptly in 1972, one bought a gun and it worked right out of the box
>>and if it didn't you took it back.
>>
>>Certainly I never saw a 1911 that wouldn't function right out of the
>>box. Of course, the only 1911's in those days were either war-surplus
>>or made by Colt so I wonder; has manufacturing quality fallen that
>>far?
>>
>>You break in your gun but not your automobile? Used to be 'tother way
>>round.
>>
>>
>>John D.
>>(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
> I have several semiautos. One of them, a Browning Buckmark .22LR, was
> fussy about ammo at first. It's still a bit fussy after maybe 1500
> rounds, but less so. Another that is slightly fussy about ammo is a
> Colt 1911 Officer's which I got used. It appeared to have been carried
> a lot but seldom fired. It had a bit of holster wear but the action
> was and is tight as a tick. It's OK with factory ammo or handloads
> that aren't too mild. 5.6 grains of W231 behind 200-grain lead SWC's
> works well. That's a little lighter than Winchester White Box 230
> grain but not a lot. I have chrony data, too lazy to get my range
> notebook out.
>
> The rest of them, including the SA 1911 "loaded", are quite unfussy
> about ammo for reliable operation.
>
> A recoil-operated semiauto (which is about all of them) needs some
> "push back" from the shooter's grip to operate reliably. The inertial
> mass of the frame isn't enough to get that done in the heavier
> calibers. I've found .40S&W and .45ACP to be a bit more demanding
> about that than 9mmp and smaller. Tom, you mention that you have
> tender hands. Your problem might be that you're limpwristing your
> .45. Please ignore anyone who tries to spin that comment as an
> insult, it's merely a note from a fellow shooter. It matters
> considerably less with your XD 9mmp and not at all with a revolver but
> .40S&W and .45ACP require some starch in the shooter's grip. I had
> that problem early on with my first handgun after a hiatus of 40
> years, an XD .40. Figured it out after a couple hundred rounds,
> stiffened up a bit to fix it.
>
> I agree with Hawke about the Wilson Combat magazines I've had no
> issue with the Springfield mags but I've had better experience with
> Wilson than with the Colt mags for the 1911 Officer's.

I don't have an issue with factory rounds. I just got it to hand cycle
LSWCs after some extractor work. I have yet to fire my reloads through it.
I DO understand the wrist issue. I am just starting to make my first
batches of 20 each of 5 different loads. I have settled on an OAL at 1.170"
and they cycle like butter by hand. I'll hit the range Monday, they are too
crowded with yahoos on Sunday.

I always watch the shooters from the showroom window. Sometimes I'll wait
until some shooters are done and leave. I watch their muzzles, fingers and
etiquette. Any range that has holes in the celing and walls behind the line
deserves caution.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 2:29 am
From: cavelamb

Buerste wrote:
> "Don Foreman" <dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
>>> I always found the 1911 recoil comfortable with factory ball. My SA XD-9
>>> 9mm kicks like a mule!
>> Perception of recoil is highly individual and personal. Ya gotta go
>> with what works for you. I find the recoil of an XD-9 to be
>> insignificant and the XD .40 not noticably different but I've found
>> the Kahr PM9 to be unacceptably harsh. I wouldn't own one if it was a
>> gift but I know that some petite women like it as a carry and have no
>> problem shooting it frequently for practice.
>>
>> Fitch purely loves his 9mmp Glock and had no problem with the Kahr PM9
>> but regards any .40 as unacceptable -- but he purely enjoyed shooting
>> my 1911's. I found his .45 long colt revolver to be about on the edge
>> of my tolerance level but he seems to like it.
>>
>> Funny how things work some days.
>
> Even with a Hogue rubber grip, my hand is numb and stings after 100 rds. in
> the XD-9. I can shoot the 1911 all day. Even my .357 is comfortable. My
> 9mm P08 doesn't bother me. I know, it doesn't make sense. And, my .22
> isn't too bad.
>
>

Maybe that's why I like my .380 so much.
It doesn't feel like a jack hammer

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 5:02 am
From: Wes

Hawke <davesmithers@digitalpath.net> wrote:

>
>> Gee, I can't wait. The signal to noise ratio certainly improves when
>> he's not around.
>> **************
>>
>> But I need to pick his brain about my 1911, I'm at a standstill trying to
>> figure out some issues.
>
>
>If your gun is a new one before you do anything else you need to break
>it in. That means you have to shoot at least a thousand and preferably
>2000 rounds of ball ammo through it. That's hardball ammo. Don't shoot
>anything but round nosed ammo until you break it in. After your gun is
>good and broken in then you can worry about SWC lead bullets, lower
>power recoil springs, and other things. If you haven't shot the gun
>enough to get it good and broken in then you're getting way ahead of
>yourself. Many times people have all kinds of problems with brand new
>1911s. They need to be shot a lot before you even think of going on to
>other things. Some 1911s are good to go right out of the box but many
>need a break in period. Shoot a thousand rounds or so of ball ammo and
>see what happens. Make sure you use Wilson Combat magazines too.
>
>Hawke

What kind of 1911 are we discussing, a 1911 you can drop in the mud and do all the nasty
things to that were done to the M9 and other candidates to replace it or are we talking a
1911 that you shoot IDPA or PPC with? Those are two totally different firearms as far
tolerances, fit, and cleaning requirements.

Total agreement on having good mazazines. One should number theirs and keep track of
misfeeds, if any, to tie the problem to a potentially bad magazine.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 7:26 am
From: John D.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:21:48 -0600, Don Foreman
<dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:43:22 +0700, John D. <johndslocomb@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:06:26 -0800, Hawke
>><davesmithers@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Gee, I can't wait. The signal to noise ratio certainly improves when
>>>> he's not around.
>>>> **************
>>>>
>>>> But I need to pick his brain about my 1911, I'm at a standstill trying to
>>>> figure out some issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>If your gun is a new one before you do anything else you need to break
>>>it in. That means you have to shoot at least a thousand and preferably
>>>2000 rounds of ball ammo through it. That's hardball ammo. Don't shoot
>>>anything but round nosed ammo until you break it in. After your gun is
>>>good and broken in then you can worry about SWC lead bullets, lower
>>>power recoil springs, and other things. If you haven't shot the gun
>>>enough to get it good and broken in then you're getting way ahead of
>>>yourself. Many times people have all kinds of problems with brand new
>>>1911s. They need to be shot a lot before you even think of going on to
>>>other things. Some 1911s are good to go right out of the box but many
>>>need a break in period. Shoot a thousand rounds or so of ball ammo and
>>>see what happens. Make sure you use Wilson Combat magazines too.
>>>
>>>Hawke
>>
>>
>>Question: Is this correct? I read various articles in gun magazines
>>about "breaking-in" guns but in my own experience, which stopped
>>abruptly in 1972, one bought a gun and it worked right out of the box
>>and if it didn't you took it back.
>>
>>Certainly I never saw a 1911 that wouldn't function right out of the
>>box. Of course, the only 1911's in those days were either war-surplus
>>or made by Colt so I wonder; has manufacturing quality fallen that
>>far?
>>
>>You break in your gun but not your automobile? Used to be 'tother way
>>round.
>>
>>
>>John D.
>>(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>I have several semiautos. One of them, a Browning Buckmark .22LR, was
>fussy about ammo at first. It's still a bit fussy after maybe 1500
>rounds, but less so. Another that is slightly fussy about ammo is a
>Colt 1911 Officer's which I got used. It appeared to have been carried
>a lot but seldom fired. It had a bit of holster wear but the action
>was and is tight as a tick. It's OK with factory ammo or handloads
>that aren't too mild. 5.6 grains of W231 behind 200-grain lead SWC's
>works well. That's a little lighter than Winchester White Box 230
>grain but not a lot. I have chrony data, too lazy to get my range
>notebook out.
>
>The rest of them, including the SA 1911 "loaded", are quite unfussy
>about ammo for reliable operation.
>
>A recoil-operated semiauto (which is about all of them) needs some
>"push back" from the shooter's grip to operate reliably. The inertial
>mass of the frame isn't enough to get that done in the heavier
>calibers. I've found .40S&W and .45ACP to be a bit more demanding
>about that than 9mmp and smaller. Tom, you mention that you have
>tender hands. Your problem might be that you're limpwristing your
>.45. Please ignore anyone who tries to spin that comment as an
>insult, it's merely a note from a fellow shooter. It matters
>considerably less with your XD 9mmp and not at all with a revolver but
>.40S&W and .45ACP require some starch in the shooter's grip. I had
>that problem early on with my first handgun after a hiatus of 40
>years, an XD .40. Figured it out after a couple hundred rounds,
>stiffened up a bit to fix it.
>
>I agree with Hawke about the Wilson Combat magazines I've had no
>issue with the Springfield mags but I've had better experience with
>Wilson than with the Colt mags for the 1911 Officer's.

Interesting. I bought one of the long barrel S&W model 41's when they
first came out. Shot it for a while and later cut the barrel off (just
before S&W did :-) and shot it for ten years or more. It worked right
out of the box and never missed a lick in all the time I was shooting
it. to the best of my recollection I never has a malfunction with it.

Your comment about the firm grip is very topical. Most beginning
shooters, shooting centerfire guns, have a lot of wrist movement. If
you watch an experienced shooter you can see that there is almost no
wrist movement. the shoulder moves back a bit and the arm moves up but
the wrist stays straight.

John D.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CNN Poll: Majority says Obama a threat to citizens' rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/0a60138fe8e7ce3f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 1:49 am
From: "Burled Frau"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/26/cnn-poll-majority-says-government-a-threat-to-citizens-rights/?fbid=RdeOCuchF3x

February 26, 2010
CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Washington (CNN) - A majority of Americans think the federal government
poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation
survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so
large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and
freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of
Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the
federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly
think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly
holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with
1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error
is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: January
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/500a9e8efc722005?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 1:59 am
From: Peter Muehlbauer

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

> http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556
> "WEATHER:

That's it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: FS -- 275 amp Pipeline Welder, Continental 163 engine
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/dc43134cee7f371e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 2:47 am
From: Sano

Bruce L. Bergman <bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ildjo5t42lo03j4h8du8kgte5bl3gfte5n@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:59:07 -0600, Sano <gregs.poopysuper@gmail.com>
> wrote:

<snip>

>>Speaking of Continental powered equipment, I have a query.
>>
>>Does anyone think there's any value in a small (85CFM) Worthington
>>air compressor? It's got a 90 cu.in. Continental flathead on it, V4
>>two stage compressor and runs like a top. Good air tank on it as well
>>for it's age.
>
> 85 CFM is "Small" by today's standards, when they want two or three
> guys working off it at the same time, Now Now NOW! But that is
> plenty for one pavement breaker, or one sandblast pressure bucket,
> or...
>
> Asking in r.c.m where most of us aren't in that big a rush (and
> don't mind stopping it to check the oil and coolant levels every few
> hours) and it's a perfectly good unit.
>
> Tell us where it is, and what's the 'daily rental rate' for RCM
> people - you may be able to make it earn it's keep...

<snip>

> And it's big enough to act as a temporary backup for a small shop
> that lost it's electric motor compressor, especially if it has an
> idle control and unloader on it. Get them through the day till the
> McMaster-Carr Fairies can deliver a new motor.

Thanks all, for the suggestions. I wrench+weld, anything 'cept autos,
for a living.

I'm in the 'between Cleveland and Akron, Oh' area. And yeah, it will
run a single hammer, there's probably one laying around my buddy's shop
going to poop. ;)

--
http://www.immigrationdirect.com/greencard/Green-Card-Lottery.jsp?r=wher
etostart

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Paranoid fundies & wingers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b634580c19c055f6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 2:50 am
From: Cliff

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html
"Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ"
[
...
Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce
necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa
said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a
threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more
religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.

Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in
adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study
found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any
concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.
....
]

See how simple it all is?
Every time stupidity & superstition bite them in the ass
it was the "will of the gods."
It's not their fault for being stupid & superstitious.

Were they born handicapped or do they have to work
at it?

HTH
--
Cliff

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gunlogix 102
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ddbce96971d01884?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 2:57 am
From: Cliff

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/22/if-you-dont-shoot-your-attacker-in-kansas-then-waive-bye-bye-to-claiming-self-defense/
"If You Don�t Shoot Your Attacker In Kansas Then Waive Bye-Bye To Claiming
Self-Defense"
[
Kansas is a whacky place, what with its impossibly flat land and endless fields
of wheat and sorghum (which is apparently a type of sustainable livestock feed
and ethanol fuel source), not to mention the perpetual parade of impervious
aliens and supernatural portals.

Well, the crazy Kansans of the Sunflower State can now add a new claim to fame
by being the only state that requires you to shoot your attacker with your gun
as a prerequisite to claiming self-defense, or else the defense will be waived
and you�ll be charged with aggravated assault.

Hmm� That new one doesn�t quite roll off the tongue as easily as �The Barbed
Wire Capital of the World.�

In a recent case before the Kansas Court of Appeals, a majority of the court
held that under Kansas law, citizens who attempt to claim self-defense when
confronted by either the threat of harm which they reasonably believe will occur
or are under actual physical attack, can only claim the defense if they use
actual physical force against their attacker.

What constitutes actual physical force? Well in the case of State v. Flint
described in the previous paragraph, it meant that the defendant, Flint, had to
actually fire the gun he was holding at his attacker.

Sound weird? Well it sounds even stranger when you know the actual facts of the
case. Flint and his fianc�e were in a bar when his fianc�e got into an argument
with two male bar patrons. The argument eventually moved outside of the bar and
became more heated. Then somewhere along the line there was a �scuffle� and
Flint�s fianc�e end up on the floor. Flint then grabbed a gun from his car and
pointed it at the men who then backed off.

Now you�d think that this might sound like a clear-cut case for self-defense,
and a more preferable use of it as well since the situation was resolved with no
one getting hurt. And if anything, the question of whether Flint should be
allowed a self-defense claim should revolve around whether his belief that he or
his fianc�e were under the threat of harm was reasonable and whether his
pointing a gun was a reasonable response.

Well, not quite � in Kansas anyway. The court convicted Flint of aggravated
assault. .......
]

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 4:45 am
From: Lookout

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:57:18 -0500, Cliff
<Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

>
>http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/22/if-you-dont-shoot-your-attacker-in-kansas-then-waive-bye-bye-to-claiming-self-defense/
> "If You Don�t Shoot Your Attacker In Kansas Then Waive Bye-Bye To Claiming
>Self-Defense"
>[
>Kansas is a whacky place, what with its impossibly flat land and endless fields
>of wheat and sorghum (which is apparently a type of sustainable livestock feed
>and ethanol fuel source), not to mention the perpetual parade of impervious
>aliens and supernatural portals.
>
>Well, the crazy Kansans of the Sunflower State can now add a new claim to fame
>by being the only state that requires you to shoot your attacker with your gun
>as a prerequisite to claiming self-defense, or else the defense will be waived
>and you�ll be charged with aggravated assault.
>
>Hmm� That new one doesn�t quite roll off the tongue as easily as �The Barbed
>Wire Capital of the World.�
>
>In a recent case before the Kansas Court of Appeals, a majority of the court
>held that under Kansas law, citizens who attempt to claim self-defense when
>confronted by either the threat of harm which they reasonably believe will occur
>or are under actual physical attack, can only claim the defense if they use
>actual physical force against their attacker.
>
>What constitutes actual physical force? Well in the case of State v. Flint
>described in the previous paragraph, it meant that the defendant, Flint, had to
>actually fire the gun he was holding at his attacker.
>
>Sound weird? Well it sounds even stranger when you know the actual facts of the
>case. Flint and his fianc�e were in a bar when his fianc�e got into an argument
>with two male bar patrons. The argument eventually moved outside of the bar and
>became more heated. Then somewhere along the line there was a �scuffle� and
>Flint�s fianc�e end up on the floor. Flint then grabbed a gun from his car and
>pointed it at the men who then backed off.

He should have got in his car and left.
Yes, HE was in the wrong.
>
>Now you�d think that this might sound like a clear-cut case for self-defense,
>and a more preferable use of it as well since the situation was resolved with no
>one getting hurt. And if anything, the question of whether Flint should be
>allowed a self-defense claim should revolve around whether his belief that he or
>his fianc�e were under the threat of harm was reasonable and whether his
>pointing a gun was a reasonable response.
>
>Well, not quite � in Kansas anyway. The court convicted Flint of aggravated
>assault. .......
>]
>
And rightly so.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 5:46 am
From: "David R.Birch"

Lookout wrote:

>> Flint's fiancée end up on the floor. Flint then grabbed a gun from his car and
>> pointed it at the men who then backed off.
>
> He should have got in his car and left.
> Yes, HE was in the wrong.

And leave the fiancee on the floor?

I don't think so.

> And rightly so.

Nope, he was defending his fiancee. Ask your SO if he/she thought you
should abandon him/her and leave in your car in a similar situation.

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pawn Shop Bargains ...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b7474a867df329f8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 3:41 am
From: "Robert Swinney"

Steve sez: "Almost every "thrift" shop I have been in recently, even religious charities
are very aware of ebay. . . ."

We've got a small shop nearby that sells used, reconditioned, and surplus tooling. The place is run
by an ex-machinist from an electronics manufacturer. He has some some good stuff and some
not-so-good. Caveat emptor. Bargains are hard to find there. He seems to "price" near retail,
referencing catalogs from major suppliers. The convenience factor and no shipping costs offset his
near-retail prices.

Bob Swinney
"Steve B" <deserttraver@fishymail.net> wrote in message news:jaap57-h021.ln1@news.infowest.com...

"Wes" <clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:3Mgin.394627$H15.184169@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> "Robert Swinney" <judybob@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>You're lucky Snag. It's become pretty hard to score a bargain in a pawn
>>shop anymore; esp. since
>>the pawnbrokers discovered ebay.
>
>
> I believe even Goodwill has found the internet.
>
> Wes

And those items that they receive, they cull for
the "home runs" for ebay sale. Those people got smart, and when you have
valuables donated, you don't put them out for a quarter. Any more, I should
say. I am not amazed at the level of knowledge and sophistication of the
managers of these thrift outlets. Lots of good deals to be had, just
nothing that's worth a lot for a cheap price any more.

Steve

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/30a39cd522bcf038?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 4:38 am
From: Cliff

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:08:30 -0800, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:36:05 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>Jane Q. <private@liberal.minded> got double secret probation for
>writing:
>
>>In article <gpeio5dt19avsurdgiv7anlvbccc0cvgo9@4ax.com>, a6ahlyv02
>>@sneakemail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:40:13 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-dog.com> got double
>>> secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >.....Who ever listened to a pampas Liberal speaking?
>>>
>>> Define irony.
>>
>>I didn't know Cliff was from Argentina.
>
>He has a thing for grass. He likes knolls too.

What a spelling flame !!

Actually, the study was a little bit flawed, IMHO.
It was about college & education & we all know that only
the best & the brightest of the wingers could get in in the
first place (plus a few cheaters that found out how to
write test answers on their hands or had $$ tutors & were
legacies they HAD to admit & not fail).
So it was a biased study.

In favor of wingers as so very many were excluded
from the test samples in the first place.
--
Cliff

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does the police hassle drivers for driving below speed limits
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/caa757e1409824ea?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 4:59 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"

That is one serious tire failure.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Steve Ackman"
<steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote in
message
news:slrnhogmk0.ie7.steve@sorceror.wizard.dyndns.org...
In
<oBYhn.302097$o06.106593@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com>,
on Fri, 26 Feb
2010 18:15:05 -0500, Wes, clutch@lycos.com wrote:

> Most tires go flat slowly.

Trailer tires don't seem to follow that rule as
often
as auto tires. This one sure didn't:
http://wizard.dyndns.org/shiprock/0910/100_0935.s.jpg

--
�~��~�

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 4:58 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"

Front tire? That edge wear looks like a couple of
my tires, which were destroyed due to toe-out.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Steve Ackman"
<steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote in
message
news:slrnhok1kv.ie7.steve@sorceror.wizard.dyndns.org...

> So was it an internal failure or an external
> puncture?

Dunno *for sure* but I certainly suspect
internal
failure. This angle is proabably the one I should
have
posted first:
http://wizard.dyndns.org/shiprock/0910/100_0937.s.jpg

--
â~¯â~¯

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT-The Scientist
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/9a049df24330eadf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 5:23 am
From: Wes

Don Foreman <dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:09:58 -0500, Wes <clutch@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <ljaques@diversify.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Um, think "The Onion", Don. Didn't you go to the linked site? It's a
>>>spoofer.
>>
>>The potty mouth language in the piece was a give away. Now if it was a government
>>official instead of a scientist, I might have bought into the charade.
>>
>>Wes
>
>That tell eluded me. I was a senior staff research puke (not exactly
>my title but descriptive enough) in a corporate puzzle palace, managed
>to be presentable enough most days but I could blister paint as well
>as any Combat Engineer when provoked.
>
>The effect of doing that in an executive conference room awash in
>political correctness and bullshit can be interesting and amusing.
>
>There's something to be said for use of language appropriate to a
>situation that may not be appropriate in other situations.
>
>Almost 30 years ago a recently-divorced woman of about my age showed
>up at work as a temp secretary. She was quiet but friendly, witty and
>quite attractive. She had a BSBA Magna Cum Laude but she also had a
>kid to support, she could type a million words a minute or so and she
>needed a job.
>
>A young technician who worked for me played a trick on her, came up
>behind her and poked her in the ribs. The soft-spoken buttoned-up
>40-ish lady would be startled and what a good joke, right? Not quite.
>She read him off fit to do a drill instructor proud, shrivel the
>dingle of a Hells Angel, blister the paint on the loading dock. It
>wasn't loud but nobody within earshot missed a word of it. It was
>wonderful. Young toughguy hotdog Shawn looked like he was gonna melt
>down in a puddle of piddle.
>
>A pursuit ensued. She wasn't lookin' for a man so soon after divorce
>but she didn't run so fast I couldn't catch her. It took a while, but
>she eventually became my companion and teammate and after a couple of
>decades my wife. Best thing that ever happened to me.
>
>It's still a very bad idea to piss her off. I love that about her!

You married a lady that can stand her ground on her own, that is an very appealing
quality. I bet any misunderstandings and points of contention that came up have been
dealt with fairly swiftly during your happy marriage.

Thanks for sharing,

Wes

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 4 x 6 bandsaw`
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/cb0cf4c87165216d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 5:27 am
From: Wes

John <amdinc@intergrafix.net> wrote:

>Wes wrote:
>>
>> Today, I put on a Irwin bimetal blade. Well I did after I filed out the casting slot that
>> the upper band wheel tensioning system uses. Prior to that, I couldn't get center to
>> center of the band wheels close enough to put the blade on. Btw, that Irwin blade is
>> wickedly sharp.
>>
>> Wes
>Make sure you season the new blade by cutting something soft like
>aluminum or even 1018 steel at a slow feed rate. The mfgrs. of the
>blades recommend running at lest 75 feet of blade slowly through a soft
>material to take the excess sharpness off the blade. This will help
>make the blade last longer.
>
>
>John

It seemed to want to overfeed based on the spring tension I had set. I did the old hold
the saw head by hand to slowly go though the first piece of stock I cut. I'll keep you
advice in mind on the first few cuts.

Wes

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ping Don Foreman: ICD Alert
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/73fe240947f1f05b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 6:36 am
From: Frnak McKenney

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:02:03 -0500, Steve W. <csr684@NOTyahoo.com> wrote:
> Frnak McKenney wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0600, Don Foreman <dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:10:30 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
>>> <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 25, 9:50 pm, Larry Jaques <ljaq...@diversify.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Oh, please, Wes. Most of us here could deal with a WFO throttle
>>>>> without a problem or crash. Most of the affected vehicles have
>>>>> 4-wheel disc brakes, too. It's simply not a problem in the vast
>>>>> majority of the recalled vehicles...yet.
>>>> Better think again.
>>>>
>>>> Several reports now indicate that the brakes do not stop the car.
>>>>
>>>> TMT
>>> Those without reason rely on rabid reports. The brakes are quite
>>> sufficient to overcome even the V6 engine at WOT and stop the car.
>>
>> I caught part of the Congressional Hearing one one of the C-SPANx
>> channels the other day. The testimony of one of the witnesses, a
>> woman who described in great detail her experience with a "runaway"
>> Lexus, left me puzzled.
>>
>> She clearly stated that she was able to shift into each of the car's
>> gears and that doing so had no effect on the problem. She also said
>> that she had been unable to slow the car down using her brakes.
>>
>> Since she had time to call her husband on her cell phone (presumably
>> a hands-free setup), whatever she was experiencing evidently lasted
>> for a while.
>>
>> Here's my question: With a Lexus transmission, presumably an automatic,
>> how are you able to shift into Reverse at highway speeds? I'm fairly
>> certain that if I ever succeeded in doing this in a manual shifter
>> I'd have left evidence all over the highway in the form of fluid and
>> little gears.
>
> Same thing can be down with most current transmissions. Been that way
> for at least 9 years on some makes.

Steve,

Thanks for responding.

Your first sentence left me a bit puzzled. Does "same thing" refer to a
result leaving "li'l tiny gears all over the highway"?

>> Is this an "electric" shift of some kind that would have allowed the
>> driver to request/demand the shift into Reverse but refused to do so?
>
> Pretty much all of the electronic controlled transmissions have this
> function. The idea behind it is to prevent damage to the engine and
> transmission. You can shift into any gear BUT if the ECN decides that
> your manual shifting of the quadrant will damage the engine/trans it
> will not shift the gears.

Okay. So the shift lever moves, giving the driver -- presumably busy
watching the highway and worrying about traffic and the @&^$* "stuck
accelerator" -- the kinesthetic feedback that he/she/it _has_ shifted
gears, but there is no effect -- the transmission stays in whatever
gear it was previously in?

Okay. That would explain the part of the woman's testimony that was
puzzling me.

I normally drive stick, and when I drive (e.g.) a rental with an
automatic transmission I don't spend a lot of time trying to force it
to shift into 1st or Low at highway speeds. The last time I remember
trying to "force" an automatic (probably by accident), what I recall
is a _mechanical_ "interlock" that simply wouldn't let me pull the
lever back into that gear. Or maybe I just didn't pull that hard; I
tend not to try forcing mechanical things, at least until I've built
up a _lot_ of frustration. <grin!>

>> Similarly, how would one expect a successful shift into First/Low to
>> affect a "runaway" engine? Wouldn't it at least have slowed down?
>
> Not if it was equipped as above. I know that in my wifes 02 Blazer with
> the automatic you can be doing 65 mph, Shift down into 3rd (out of OD)
> and the engine will pick up 1k revs. If you try to shift down into 2nd
> the trans will not shift if you are stepping on the gas OR if the
> current speed means that engine damage would result if the trans shifts.

So _next_ year's model will not only refuse to actually shift into a gear
that might cause engine or transmission damage, it will be required to
recognize a runaway accelerator and slow the car down? <grin!>

And the following year's software patch will override _that_ feature if
the car happens to be stuck on a railroad track and the driver is busy
trying to get off the tracks with his wheels spinning...

Anyway, thank you for the explanation. I may have to keep my current
car for a couple' more decades just to retain my sanity. <grin!>

Frank
--
Youth is much more capable of amusing itself than is now
supposed, and in much less mortal need of being amused. The
only real warning against solitude and stagnation which needs
to be uttered is that you really need to be rather young and
strong in order to get the fun out of them.
-- G.K. Chesterton: On the Thrills of Boredom (1932)
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: building jeep frame
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/32fc57a529507b1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 6:52 am
From: mark

My original jeep CJ-7 frame has rusted out and I was thinking of
building a new one from aluminum. Would 2 X 4 X 1/4 wall (if that is
even available) box tubing have the equivalent strength of the stock
1/8" wall steel frame? I would like aluminum because it will last
forever, no need of any paints etc..., very easy to work with and
cheaper than building a steel one and having it galvanized. My second
choice would be stainless 1/8" box tubing.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Sunday, February 28, 2010

rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 16 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts