HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Hoppe's 9 & cleaning fluids
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:27:55 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <9209291429.AA13696@TIS.COM> stur@TIS.COM (Jeff Sturgess) writes:

#I don't drink the stuff, nor do I bathe in it so it could only get into my 
#system through inhalation of the vapors.   Does anybody have any facts as to
#whether or not the use of Hoppe's 9 is a health risk?   Thank you. 

	Since it contains kerosene, it is a slight health risk.  Hey, you
get that from any petrochemical inhaled over a long period of time.  The
bottle does not, however, give any other indication of what's in it.

	You might write to Penguin Industries (the manufacturers) and
request a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) -- they are required to send
you one under Federal OSHA regulations (since you're a concerned citizen).
Under OSHA regs, they are responsible for their chemical from inception
until it doesn't exist, so that means they're responsible when you pour
it down the drain in your house.  Stupid law, but it does give you some
power to get the information you need.  The MSDS will show chemical
make-up, associated health risks if known, dangers of exposure to various
parts of the body, warning signs of toxic contact, first aid treatment,
and a host of other information you'll hate wading through.  Good luck.

	If they give you flack, let me know -- I've an Occupational Safety
professor that just *loves* going after recalcitrant manufacturers for
these things.  Half the time he gets a summer consulting fee once he
explains just how many violations they have and the associated fines ;-)

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
From: burge@qdeck.com (Bill Burge)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: .38 & .357
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:13:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: sco1.9209300805.aa12078
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA

In article <1992Sep25.025611.13622@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
#
#  There have been a lot of posts about how much longer the
#.357 Magnum round and chamber are than those of the .38 Special.
#Since I reload both I have often looked up the specs, and the
#maximum cartridge overall lengths of the two are
#.38 Spl   1.550"
#.357 Mag  1.590"
#
#showing the .357 Mag longer by 0.04".  

Hodgon manual shows the 38spl at 1.155" and the 357 at 1.290"; thus
a difference of .135 or better than an eighth of an inch.

Bill	burge@qdeck.com
From: wrm@friskie.WPI.EDU (William Michalson)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: RE: Carry in public places
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:14:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: bigboote.1act6sINN1cp
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

There has been much bantering here about "legal carry" in the peoples
republic of massachusetts.  Is there anyone who knows of specific
sections in the General Laws that spell out restrictions on carry?

I've seen no such list in chapter 140, nor have I found any documentation
in the General Laws pertaining to folklore such as "it is illegal to
leave a pistol unattended in an automobile."

Please, no flames on the sanity or stupidity of the above example.  As I
said, such things are common folklore in MA which I have tried on numerous
occasions to locate in the General Laws.  The only specific restrictions
I have located are in the wildlife laws which make it illegal to carry
a loaded rifle or shotgun in a vehicle, illegal to discharge a firearm
within 100 ft of a paved roadway or within 500 feet of a lived in dwelling.

Does anyone have any Chapter and Section numbers?
From: jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Info on "walther P88".
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:04:16 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia


	Hi, I know the Walther-P88 is quite expensive but money aside how good 
is it against its contemporaries (sigP226 etc), it seems to get a mention in 
various magazines/books as an alternative to poppular high capacity 9mm semi-
autos, but no real comments are made on its performance. Anyone familiar with
this weapon?
						Thanks...
							jd.
From: webdw@mvutd.att.com (Bruce D Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Glock 17L?  (Re: 9mm: Which)
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:30:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep30.075558.4437@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
#n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
#| For what you want, the Glock 17 cannot be beat.   Accurate, reliable,
#| cheap, sturdy.
#
#  Has anyone shot or heard anything about the Glock 17L?  I'd like to
#  hear some opinions about it (compared to the 17).
#  ==

The 17L is the only Glock I had a desire to get when I first
handled one.  It has a 3.75 lb trigger, 6" barrel.  It is, alas,
also a discontinued model according to my local gun stores.  I
looked for one at the last gun show.  Gun List is next.  They
are expensive compared to other Glocks though.

BDW
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: What does Magnum mean?
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:41:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Sep30.140639.20045
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems


In article <1992Sep30.000618.7206@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

|> 
|> I think the .38 was the CASE diameter.  In black powder days, the 
|> bullet was a .36 calibre.  When they went to cartridges, they called
|> the early ones by the case diameter, .38 for example.  Then came the
|> move to the .357 magnum which went back to bullet diameter and added
|> a didgit of precision ...  This is just a poor memory of something
|> I read years and years ago, so I could have it all messed up ...
|> 

My recollection is that the .38 cartridges were originally loaded with
bullets like .22 rimfire, where the bullet part outside of the case
is the same diameter as the case (in other words, it has a "heel" that
is sub-diameter).  If you mike the cases for .38 special or .357 magnum,
you'll find they come to .380 or .379 or so.  Incidentially, the same
thing happened with .44 caliber, where the bullets are actualy .424 inches.

Both the original .38 and .44 cartridges were black-powder rounds that
survived the transition to smokeless propellants.  I guess the reason
the bullet diameter was reduced while the case diameter was retained
was it was easier to re-barrel exisiting guns than to change cylinders.
Probably also it was easier to change bullet casting equipment than
case-drawing equipment.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
From: rob@spot.Colorado.EDU (Rob Cuthbertson)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Hoppe's 9 & cleaning fluids
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:23:22 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

Dan Sorenson (viking@iastate.edu) writes:
#Jeff Sturgess (stur@TIS.COM) writes:
#
##I don't drink the stuff, nor do I bathe in it so it could only get into my 
##system through inhalation of the vapors.   Does anybody have any facts as to
##whether or not the use of Hoppe's 9 is a health risk?   Thank you. 
#
#	Since it contains kerosene, it is a slight health risk.  Hey, you
#get that from any petrochemical inhaled over a long period of time.  The
#bottle does not, however, give any other indication of what's in it.
#
#	You might write to Penguin Industries (the manufacturers) and
#request a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) -- they are required to send
#you one under Federal OSHA regulations (since you're a concerned citizen).
#Under OSHA regs, they are responsible for their chemical from inception
#until it doesn't exist, so that means they're responsible when you pour
#it down the drain in your house.  Stupid law, but it does give you some
#power to get the information you need.  The MSDS will show chemical
#make-up, associated health risks if known, dangers of exposure to various
#parts of the body, warning signs of toxic contact, first aid treatment,
#and a host of other information you'll hate wading through.  Good luck.
#

If somebody does this, maybe typing in a summary would be a good idea.  I
for one would be interested in more information, since I _do_ inhale a fair
bit of the stuff, and soak my fingers pretty regularly.  (occasionally the
carpet, too)

--Rob Cuthbertson, rob@spot.Colorado.EDU
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: .40 S&W Help Sought
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:30:52 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep28.211839.4257@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
#In article <1992Sep27.132956.29775@ke4zv.uucp> wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:
#...
##the Glock is not for you. The Glock was designed to be a revolver 
##replacement with more firepower for police and personal defense use.
##Manual safeties are not popular on revolvers, so there isn't one on
##the Glock either.
#
#Yes, but there's one crucial difference between the Glock and a double
#action revolver (or DA autoloader)--the trigger pull required to fire the
#piece is much shorter for the Glock (also lighter, unless you go to the
#"New York" trigger). The apprehensions about the safety of the Glock center
#around this fact: it is simply easier to accidently let off a shot with a
#Glock by unintentionally squeezing the trigger than it is with an uncocked
#DA revolver or auto. To my mind, these apprehensions are justified.

The trigger pull is *longer* than on several popular revolvers. You may
consider 5 pounds too light for a duty trigger, but I don't. I consider
12 pounds too heavy for a duty trigger. The key question is what's the
pull for the *second* shot. On most semi-autos it's *much* lighter than
12 pounds. In a combat situation, it's just as likely that you've already
fired the first shot when you have an AD as it is that it's your first
shot. So trigger weight isn't a safety consideration. What is a consideration
is *consistency* from shot to shot. Glocks are consistent at 5 pounds,
DA only weapons are consistent at 12 pounds, DA semi-autos are grossly
*inconsistent* from first to remaining shots, and SA semi-autos are
consistently *light* pull weapons after they're racked. Revolvers are
grossly different between cocked and uncocked. Almost everyone cocks 
a revolver if they have the chance simply because it allows them to
be more accurate. Letting down the hammer on a cocked revolver can be
a ticklish matter. That's never an issue with the Glock.

#Sure--you're not _supposed_ to put your finger on the trigger unless you're
#intending to fire--but people do things they're not supposed to do
#sometimes. Apparently, Gaston Glock was unaware of this.

Or perhaps he considered it evolution in action. After you shoot 
yourself in the foot two or three times, you'll *learn* to take your 
finger off the trigger before holstering the weapon. Either that or 
you'll learn to like walking like Chester. I don't accept that the 
loss of accuracy inherent in a very heavy trigger is a worthwhile 
tradeoff against a reduced *possibility* of AD brought on by careless
handling. Firearms safety is important, but if the safety feature
interferes with hitting your opponent in a firefight, or even causes
you to hit a bystander, then it's not a feature, it's a possibly fatal 
*bug*. I think heavy DA pulls fall in that category.

Gary
From: burge@qdeck.com (Bill Burge)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Handgun Scopes
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:41:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: sco1.9210060909.aa04565
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA

In article <9210011748.AA10696@mimsy.cs.UMD.EDU> C08926RC@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu (Rob) writes:
#I will be acquiring a .44 Magnum revolver in the near future that
#I intend to use for deer hunting.
#
#What scope would you recommend?  The last scope I had was on a
#.44 Magnum Contender, but it self-destructed after a few hot loads.
#Are today's scopes built to take more punishment?
#

Leupold or Burris.

Bill	burge@qdeck.com
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: 9mm: Which *not* to buy?
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:14:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: outmail.9209302156.AA09885
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Holger Reusch (Dipl. Gerhard + Joe)) writes:
#
##Glock 17/19
#
#Only for people with big hands.  I have a Glock 19 (same grip size as
#the Glock 19, only a bit shorter) and I know a couple of fellow
#shooters who don't like it because of the huge grip.
#
#If you have small hands, stay away from the Glocks.

I must strongly second Holger's observation.  When I decided to buy
a 9mm, I thought (based on glowing reviews from friends and in the
press) that a Glock would be perfect.  I went to a range to shoot a
variety of 9mm handguns, but was strongly prejudiced towards the
Glock before I ever tried it out.

Unfortunately, I found the Glock to be very uncomfortable and
inaccurate in my hands.  The blocky shape of the grip hit my hand in
all the wrong places, causing considerable grief.  It just didn't feel
right.  Since my hands are not large, I can only assume that my poor
experience with the Glock was related to hand size, and that a person
with larger hands would have had no trouble.

If you have small hands, stay away from Glocks.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Holger Reusch (Dipl. Gerhard + Joe))
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: 357 mag cylinder & barrel alignment & spacing
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:39:01 GMT
Organization: Technical University Vienna, Dept. for Realtime Systems, AUSTRIA

skimmel@amex-trs.com (Steve Kimmel) writes:
#I've noticed the 
#cylinder moves back and forth along it's axis, going from touching the
#rear of the barrel to a gap that an .008(.203mm) feeler gauge will just 
#fit into and a .007(.178) gauge will slip through easily.  Is this normal?  
#I have not yet fired the gun, probably this weekend.      

(Thanks for including metric measures!) That ranges sound normal to me.
My S&W 686 has similar characteristics and, besides showing impressive
lances of fire left and right of the gun when shot, it doesn't show any
problems with the gap.

#The second thing I've noticed is that when the cylinder is pushed against
#the barrel, the cylinder face is not 100% flush with the rear of the barrel.
#It would seem that the bullet would have to make a slight correction in the
#direction it is moving in, resulting in deterioration of the barrel.  Is 
#this something I should have a gunsmith look at or is it normal.  Could it be
#a reason the OHIO hp allegedly didn't issue the gun(or so the guy said)?
Now that's another story.  I recall the "pencil test" for revolvers.
It runs as follows:  Take a cylindric pencil (made from wood to avoid
scratches) and push it tip-backward into the front (or "business" :-)
end of the barrel.  Move it to and fro inside the barrel.  There should
be no noticeable obstruction to the pencil movement at the gap between
barrel and cylinder.  If there is, go see a gunsmith.

-- 
| Holger Reusch                             |
| Technical University of Vienna, Austria <-+--- No kangaroos here,
| Dept. for Real-Time Systems               |    sorry!
| holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at                 |
From: hlose@usho99.hou281.chevron.com (B.A.Losee)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Energy
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:14:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: usho1d.9209301759.AA20101
Organization: Chevron


Does anybody out there in netland have ready access to figures on kinetic energy
in foot-pounds for a large caliber rifle, such as the .458 magnum? Thanks in
advance.

-- 
   | Bruce A. Losee, Seismic Division      Mail: hlose@chevron.com |
   | Chevron Exploration Services Co.      Tel:  (713) 596-2025  |
   | P.O. Box 42832                        Fax:  (713) 596-3041  |
   | Houston, Texas  77242-2832            Home: (713) 496-9464  |
From: pauly@netcom.com (Paul Yoshimune)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: .38 & .357 (was Re: .222 and .223)
Date: 27 Sep 92 11:28:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <199209261730.AA13577@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
#In article <9209241615.AA16979@spsgate.sps.mot.com> rigg@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com (Dana Rigg) writes:
##My understanding of the Desert Eagle is that it is chambered for the .357
##auto-mag, not the .357.  If there is an auto that is chambered for .357 and
##not .357 auto-mag, please post the information.  I would be interested to hear
##about it.
#
#The Desert Eagle is most definitely .357 mag, _not_ auto-mag. A friend
#owns one, and used the same ammunition is it as his girlfriend used in
#the her revolver (in fact, he mentioned that this was convienient, since
#they could buy ammunition is quantity and split the cost...)
#
#                                              Frank Crary
#                                              CU Boulder
# 

Coonan Arms also makes a .357 magnum autoloader, which basically resembles a
1911 Government model.  Rather large grip, though...


-- 
DVC,
  Paul

Paul Yoshimune
pauly@netcom.com
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Baretta 92
Date: 27 Sep 92 11:28:12 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

lairdb@crash.cts.com writes:

#As I recall (I think it was Ed that had the whole story) "economic reasons"
#didn't have anything to do with the price, indeed the SIGs were priced
#lower than the Berettas.  In this case, "economic reasons" meant where
#Beretta promised to locate their manufacturing facility.
#Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb

Nope. The Sig Sauer scored higher than the Beretta in the testing, but the
two pistols were judged a "tie". The Sigs were appx. $26 higher per pistol.
The winner of the contract was 'required' to locate a factory in the US as a
condition of winning the contract. A rumor indicated that the Government gave
Beretta the nod in return for the Italian Govt.'s cooperation in dealing with
the mob (extradition etc).
From: ljb@parkcity.dr.att.com (BLO54620-BonhamLJ(DR2194)240)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: 9mm: Which *not* to buy?
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:58:49 GMT


In article <1992Sep28.221436.11199@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, rayma@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Michael A Ray) writes:
|> 
|> Thank you for all the responses to my recent posting of the .380 vs.  
|> 9mm.  I had pretty much decided to go for the 9mm and most people  
|> agreed with this.  
|> 
|> Now I have to figure out which one to get as most of you informed me  
|> that there can be several problems with the Ruger P-89 (aside from  
|> the "boycott".)
|> 
|> I plan on using this for action/combat pistol shooting (not too  
|> serious; no compensators, optics, etc), casual target shooting, and  
|> home defense.  This seems to require higher capacity (12+) to compete  
|> in the combat matches (I saw my first this past Sunday!).   
|> Unfortunately, I have quite small hands.  As an aside, are adjustable  
|> sights a must for combat shooting?  I would like to get a new 9mm for  
|> less than $400 at a gun show and have listed below what I think are  
|> contenders regardless of whether they are too big for me.  I plan on  
|> going to the local store sometime soon and handling as many as  
|> possible.
|> 
|> AMT On Duty (reliable or not?)
|> Astra A-100 (someone said these were very accurate)
|> Browning BDM
|> Colt All American 2000
|> Glock 17/19
|> "Hi Power" clone
|> CZ-75 clone
|> Ruger P-89 (until evryone shoots it down again)
|> Springfield P-9
|> Star 30M
|> Taurus PT92/99
|> 
|> Which ones should I not bother considering because they are very  
|> unwieldy, inaccurate, or poorly made?  Thanks again for the help.
|> 
|> Michael Ray

Mike,
My best recomendations would be in rough order of preference based on grip size
and my personal comfort with their quality, operation system etc.
Browning Hi-Power
Glock
Smith & Wesson/SIG (Tie)

Hope this helps.
Carry on I'll be in the area all day......
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Glock trigger pull
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:03:39 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Oct3.182240.26066@netcom.com> messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
##I'm either missing something important, or I'd have to say it isn't
##a great police/self-defence carry gun. 

#Hm.  How have you arrived at this conclusion?  Because it is made of
#polymers?  Should I mention M16 here?

Lets see... The rest of my post concerned my opinion of the trigger pull,
and how my (very limited and recent) experence on that subject matched up 
to posts here about safety. I _thought_ it was obvious, but I meant that,
I think the trigger pull is a significant safety problem. As such, it 
isn't a "great" police/self-defence carry gun.

I don't have anything (other than esthetics, which aren't really relevant)
against plastics. In fact, I see the resulting light weight as one of the
best thing about Glocks.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
From: nsc!jrr@decwrl.dec.com (Jerry Roe)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Handgun Ammunition Debate
Date: 3 Oct 92 13:21:27 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <1992Sep26.194530.10787@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
#nsc!jrr@decwrl.dec.com (Jerry Roe) writes:
#
##*in those cases where there's only one torso hit*, what percentage
##of them are stoppers?  In other words, if there's only one torso hit,
#
#No, what Marshall's stats measure can more accurately be summarized
#as: 
#
#*In those cases where only one torso hit is required*, how does everthing
#turn out?

But that's self-defining:  if only one torso hit is required, then
everything turns out fine.  {:^)  Or am I missing something in your
logic here??

#i.e. the "97% stopper" figure for Fed 125 gr JHP .357 can only be arrived 
#at by discounting all the cases where the first, the second, and the third
#Fed 125 gr JHP .357 to go through the perp failed to make any impression
#on him.

No, I think this is where it gets confused.  By definition, if it takes
two, three or more hits, then it's not a one-shot stopper.  I doubt
Marshall would be claiming the .357 125-gr HP is a 97% one-shot-stopper
if there were too many instances of *three* of those rounds failing to
halt somebody, *assuming they were reasonably well placed*.  And that's
the core of what I understand his argument to be:  when the round is
properly placed, will the caliber do the job in one shot or not?

#
#Jim Del Vecchio


Jerry Roe
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr