HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bellcore!bae.bae.bellcore.com!wind@uunet.UU.NET (Wind Chen)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: How civilian buy gun in Europe?
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:04:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: walter.1992Oct14.155728.16581
Organization: Bell Communications Research


Hi rec.guns netter,

I am trying to find out how civilian buy gun in European country 
as well as the gun law.

Thanks.
__________________________________________________________________
Wind Y. Chen                   |      eMail: wind@bae.bellcore.com
_______________________________|__________________________________
From: sfaber@ihlpb.att.com (Steven R Faber)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Rifling angle and stability update
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:15:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T

There are a couple interesting updates to the bullet stability
ratio thread if you remember:

Originally I claimed that the stability ratio was independent of density
of the bullet since there was a ratio of moments of inertia in the
equation, but this was an error since one of the moment of inertia terms
was already substituted for assuming a constant shape.  The net result
if you substitute for density in all the moments of inertia etc
and reduce, this is the stability ratio :

	(rifling angle)*r/l*sqrt(dens of projectile/dens of air)
	
which is nice and unitless as you would want.
So a denser bullet will be more stable.  This is also what the author
Moulton claimed (after reading some more).
The formula given in the last posting is the same as above if you
assume constant bullet density.

Henry Schaffer also noted that the formula above is:

#  This is basically Greenhill's Formula without the constant.  Quoting
#from Hatcher's Notebook - pg. 446 "The twist required (in calibers)
#equals 150 divided by the length of the bullet (in calibers)."  
#There are also corrections to this to account for different specific
#weights of the bullet and different density of the medium or
#flight.

So the Greenhill's formula is the reciprocal of the above stability
ratio.
The above stability ratio assumed a simplistic formula for longitudinal
moment of inertia.  If you substitute the exact formula for "It"
of a cylinder you get a more complicated expression:

	(r.a.)^2*d/((1+l^2/(3*r^2))*p) 
	where p is dens. of air (1.29) and 
	d is the dens. of the bullet. (11.35)

Here is a table of some bullets and the ratio's:

cal  wt. twist  tw*l(cal)  (ra)*r/l*sqrt(d/p) (r.a.)^2*d/((1+l^2/(3*r^2))*p)

.224 62gr 1/12	216		.0216		.00133
.308 220  1/12  189		.0246		.00177

.224 55   1/12  178		.0262		.00192
.224 62   1/9   162		.0287		.00239
.308 220  1/10  157		.0296		.00254
.308 173  1/10  135		.0345		.00341
.224 55   1/9   134		.0349		.00342
.308 147  1/10  118		.0400		.00453

The first entry I tried and it is definitely unstable.
The next is a 220 grain from a 1/12 barrel which is marginally unstable
according to the Lyman manual.
The rest are stable in increasing order of stability.
All of the ratios display the same trend, so the more complicated ratio
probably does not buy us much.  It would not be too difficult to find the 
exact moment of inertia for an ogive shaped bullet, but the formula gets
pretty long and given these results is probably not worth the effort.
The Greenhill formula seems to suggest stability under 180 at Lake
Michigan air densities.
Our simple ratio suggests stability over .025.

Moulton also claimed that once a bullet leaves the gun and is stable
it will stay stable as long as the velocity is above about 1600
fps.  The coefficient of drag decreases a little from mach 3 to
a bit above mach 1 so the stability will increase a bit more than
v^2 as the velocity drops.  He assumes that the spin will not
decrease faster than that.

Steve
From: bluemoon!grant@gator.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Remington 870 magazine ex
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:18:48 GMT
Organization: Blue Moon

mike.federchuk@rose.com writes:

#What is a "ghost-ring" shotgun site?  I know that its used for some of the IPSC-
#like shotgun sports, but I've never seen one.  I can't visualize how it would
#work.  What is it similar to?

 Vaguely similar to the sights on a Garand or M1A or AR-15...  A ring in
the back and a post with protective ears up front. I almost picked up
a spare Super-90 with ghost rings on it (mine has the rifle type sights on
it) but a buddy begged me to let him buy it instead so...

	[MODERATOR:  Gosh, wish *I* had buddies like this....]

#Also, can anyone on the net give me a review of the Remington shooting glasses?
#They come with three different lens colours (uh, colors :-), and retail for
#about $42.00CDN

 I have been using a set for a little over two years now, they are decent
shooting glasses. Much more comfortable than the Olympic cheapies. My
only complaints are that 1) I wish they came with side protectors rather
than making me use aftermarket ones and 2) the left lens is now loose
(not to the point of falling out, it just wiggles and distracts me) and
I can't see how to tighten it up without damaging the frame.
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.use.com)   /

        Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.
From: markp@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (Mark A. Pitcher)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Restricted weapons in Canada
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:59:48 GMT
Organization: Dark Park


	I have an FN-FAL, which is a restricted weapon in
Canada (Ontario). It's fully registered, so just owning it isn't the
problem. The problem is that I can't get a straight answer on
whether or not I can fire it on my property. The police say I
can't, but gun store owners say I can - as long as it stays on
my property. Who is correct? 

	Also, the rifle is selective fire, but the permit says
it's semi-auto. Because the rifle is restricted in the first
place, does it matter whether it's fired full-auto or semi-auto?
The police know (as I'm sure everyone in a three-mile radius)
that I've been firing it full-auto, and I have even been watched
by an unmarked car while "plinking" in the quarry - but not a
word has been brought up about it (except from neighbors
complaining to me about the noise). This leads me to think that
I can do whatever I please with it on my own property.

	Any comments from other Canadian restricted-weapon
owners is appreciated so I can use the rifle without worrying
about losing my "privilege" of gun ownership.


------------------------------------------------------------------darkPARK BBS
markp@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (Mark A. Pitcher)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: brian@53iss6.waterloo.NCR.COM (Brian W. Gamble)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Novice's Ramblings
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:04:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncrwat.10008
Organization: Imaging Systems Division, NCR Corp, Waterloo, Ont., CANADA


In article <19293@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
#
Nice description deleted - thanks!
#
#You always need to use a powder solvent when cleaning a gun.  We're all
#mystified at the inclusion of a nylon bristle brush in the Glock pistol
#box, as it is utterly useless.  

Beg to differ. Given the newer "copper eater" bore cleaners, the nylon brush is
most desirable. By no means is it useless, as it will live where the standard
bronze brushes break down. The new solvents eat the copper out of bronze
cleaning brushes, which start shedding bristles on the third or forth use. This
is not what we had in mind, eh!

Nylon brushes may not knock the powder fouling out as fast as bronze brushes
will, but nylon will work nicely with solvents like "Shooter's Choice"
and "Number 9 Benchrest". Those who shoot nothing but cast lead bullets may
never see the need of nylon brushes, but that hardly describes the whole
world.

Brownells supply the trade with nylon brushes in bulk, and they do sell! And
you have to admit that they are gentle on the bore!

--
 Brian W. Gamble,                             Brian.W.Gamble@Waterloo.NCR.COM
 NCR Canada Ltd.                                   Information Products Group
 E&M Waterloo                    Charter Member -- The ShoeString Racing Team
From: sfaber@ihlpb.att.com (Steven R Faber)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Solvent Substitutes
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:14:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewse.1992Oct16.173042.24008
Organization: AT&T

#From article <9210160130.AA132513@nike.calpoly.edu>, by ehorne@zeus.calpoly.edu (Eric T Horne):
# 
# One of my friends uses this stuff that dissolves copper deposits inside the 
# bore of the gun. Its expensive stuff too. I was wondering if you could use
# PC Board "echant" (i think) used to dissolve the copper off of printed
# circuit boards to make the "wires" going to and from the components. 

There are a couple different PC board etchants that are generally used.
One is Ferric Chloride which tends to produce noxious HCl fumes, and based
on the way it corroded some metal objects I had near the bath (from
just the fumes) I don't think it would be good to use on your bore.
You may be able to do it and wash it off without a problem, but it is not
the nicest stuff to work with. 

The other is ammonium persulfate, which forms a clear solution that is not
noxious at all.  It is nice to work with, but is slower acting than
the Ferric Chloride, and works best when warm.  This might be a possibility
but I would test it out first.

Otherwise you could go the ammonia route electrolytically with a 1.5 V
battery.  The current should go from around 100 ma to around 5ma when finished.
Monitor the current and stop it when it stops decreasing.  This usually takes
less than 15 minutes and gets all the copper out.

Steve
From: x90hornbach1@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Gun Solvent Substitutes
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:36:28 GMT
Organization: Western Michigan University

I'm curious if anyone has come up with a cost-effective substitute for gun
solvent.  I hate to  spend $3-$4 for a few ounces of "gun solvent" when I could
probably buy some other type fluid at the same price for a gallon.  I realize
harsher solvents could have undesired results on wood or plastic finishes.  

I used mineral spirits the last time I cleaned my SKS, and it seemed to work
OK.  It seemed to take more effort to clean the bore, but the reciever and
action cleaned up pretty nice.  It's a lot easier to slosh some solvent in a
coffee can and swish it around a bit that to put a few drops of expensive "gun
solvent" on a flannel patch and wipe everything off.  At about $4 a gallon,
I can live with a few extra strokes on the bore.  

Any other suggestions are welcome...

John Hornbach
From: rnoguchi@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ryan Alexander Noguchi)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Remington 870 magazine extenders?
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:15:25 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1992Oct10.001030.28245@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com
(The Polymath) writes:
#[...]
#assorted aftermarket options (side-car, rifle sights, parkerized finish,
			       ^^^^^^^^
Would this be the "side-saddle" for spare shells on the side of the
receiver opposite the ejection port?  

#sling and associated hardware, flashlight built into fore-end).
				^^^^^^^^^^
I would make sure that:
1)	The flashlight isn't too bulky and doesn't interfere with 
	proper working of the action when firing with *either* hand,
	or from the horizontal barricade like the front of your 
	cruiser or the bed of your "safe"-room (a too-low-mounted 
	light can also give you excessive light-splash off the 
	barricade itself, which can degrade your night vision,
	distract you, give away your position to an observer located at
	an oblique angle to your light beam, and reduce the available
	light focused downrange, particularly at heights lower than the
	elevation of your barricade);
2)	It isn't easy to accidentally turn it on/off; in addition to 
	the tactical disadvantages of light-when-you-don't-want-it or
	no-light-when-you-need-light, you might be startled by the
	sudden activation of the light and touch off a round by reflex,
	particularly if it's a bright light;
3)	It *is* relatively easy to turn it on/off when you want to,
	or to cover it enough to completely eliminate light leakage
	when you need to maintain an "invisible" profile;
4)	It isn't possible to knock the light out of alignment, as you 
	want the beam to project at point-of-aim since the presence of
	the light may encourage unaimed shooting in a surprise 
	situation rather than a proper aiming technique--and a foot
	off at ten feet is only 6 degrees of angle, which isn't much;
5)	It doesn't encourage one to go house-clearing with the shotgun,
	as a sidearm is much better suited to close-quarters action.

#[...]

	I recommend Massad Ayoob's new (1992) book "Stressfire II:
Advanced Combat Shotgun" for defensive shotgunning techniques and
shotgun/accessory/ammunition selection tips.  It also contains some
graphic black and white autopsy photos depicting fatal shotgun wounds,
in case anyone is curious...
 
- Ryan                               rnoguchi@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
===================================================================
"We, too, born to freedom, and believing in freedom, are willing to 
fight to maintain freedom. We, and all others who believe as deeply
as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."-FDR
===================================================================
From: loia@leland.Stanford.EDU (David Loia)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Commercial 9x18 Makarov
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:16:20 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

Is there a commercial manufacturer of JHP in 9x18mm Makarov ?

I am looking for more choices in ammo other than Norinco
FMJ ammo for this overlooked caliber.
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Spent brass lead hazard... test kit found lead
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:42:25 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

#Then, a 'brass control' was done by wiping a Win. 9mm unfired cartridge.  
#(similar to the spent brass.) It gave a dark pink/grey splotch.  It 
#would seem that brass has enough lead in it to register on the strip...
#(Or that the 'loading' process in automated equipment is not lead clean.)

#(The parts of the lead and brass strips that were not rubbed on metal didn't 
#register any color, and I think it qualifies as a 'zero lead' control).

#Next, I did a 'vinigar wash' of the inside of a high base Remington 12 ga.
#It showed a very nice salmon red.

#Last, a similar wash of an Active 20ga. gave a very faint pink.

#The Remington could be registering due to the brass in the base, or it
#could be that it has more lead residue from the primer.

#The ACTIVE could be such a weak register due to being all plastic, or due
#to less lead in the primer.

#In any case, they ALL registered positive ... 

#What does all this mean?  


Most likely the test is very non-specific in its reaction to metallic
ions.  It is probably responding to the zinc and perhaps bismuth trace in
brass and maybe even the copper.  Since it is apparently designed to test
paint, it would be reasonable to expect a fairly non-specific test.
Why don't you get some copper sulfate (drain root killer) or make some
from sulfuric acid and copper plus a little electricity and see what
it does.  You could also try dissolving some zinc (from a drycell) in acid 
and see how it stimulates the strip.  

As to the hazard of lead on cases, last time I checked shooters are not
dropping dead or going mad.  I'd consider that a MUCH better indication 
of the hazard than the results of what can be charitably be called a
hobbyist chemistry test.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Spent brass lead hazard... test kit found lead
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:42:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: porthos.1992Oct8.135223.5042
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)

I know that this may sound somewhat gross but you might
want to consider testing yourself after shooting.
Either by blowing your nose or very possibly by testing
your blood. In my case after spending a weekend blowing
things up and shooting several hundered to several thousand
rounds and then blowing my nose it comes out pretty nasty.
Now I know the electric and chemical caps have a pretty
high lead content as does the small arms (up to .50 cal)
and am more concerned with internal contamination than
with only having to worry about washing my hands or
wearing latex gloves while reloading. There is also
contamination to clothing, normally my field gear which
includes field jacket and helmet, which I hang up in
the main coat closet for the house. What does that also
mean as far as when I shoot in an indoor range with +15
other people, what also does that do to my kids (6 & 7)
who like to shoot, but mostly my son who has taken to
my .22 Diamondback like it's part of him, maybe no more
indoor ranges, shoot when the wind is coming only from
behind. Man what a can of worms.
On the defensive side are there any unobtrusive filters
that will filter out lead, maybe consider a full NBC
outfit w/a mask. Any ACTIVE DUTY people have access
to military studies done on this, I know that they have
been done because all the indoor ranges that belong
to the 50AD in NJ have been closed to use due to lead
contamination. I also notice that the contractors and
engineers doing the range renovations at Ft Dix over
the last 3 years were all wearing those suits the asbestos
guys wear when clearing asbestos. Someone had to see that
lead levels were high, somewhere, sometime, somehow.
Just try washing your hands while out on a live fire
exercise before stuffing an MRE down your throat while
waiting for the next string or firing prone in the sand
where 20,000+ other shooters fired from. Geeze, I was
happier ignorant (not safer-just happier). Now I'm going
to have to buy the shelf for my alice pack so's I can 
carry a 5gal jug of water, or at a minimum a tube of
"wet ones" for uses other than wiping my posterior :-)
after eating the oil they cook in eggs errr eggs
cooked in oil, sometimes its hard to tell, just wish
theyd get the quaker state emblem off the label though.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I by my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Hoppe's 9 & cleaning fluids & Gloves
Date: 11 Oct 92 06:01:33 GMT
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <1992Oct1.153516.27318@cbnews.cb.att.com> webdw@mvutd.att.com (Bruce D Woods) writes:

#  ...                             I am currently using Playtex
#yellow gloves size large and they last 4 - 6 cleaning sessions before
#they develop holes;  ...
#
#BDW
#
Look for orange gloves at the hardware/garden store.  I can't 
remember the brand name, and it might differ where you are.
A friend of mine uses them for lots of things, including fiber
glassing.  According to him, they will survive anything except
a blow torch!  I wore a pair of his when I was helping him, and
they seem to be larger than the largest Playtex gloves, and they
aren't as thick and bulky as the heavy duty ones the mechanics
and other professional types use.
Of course, not all orange gloves are the same, so you might 
want to try out a pair before buying a life-time supply!
From: samsung!ulowell!harvard!horus!reedp@uunet.UU.NET (Paul Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Shooting left-hand w/right-hand eject
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:23:53 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University, Chemistry, E. Lansing

I'm a left-handed shooter and I've been shooting a right-hand eject pump
shotgun for many years.  No problems.  But now I would like to add an
autoloader to my collection, and I am concerned about the possibility of
an injury resulting from gas or powder or whatever being blown back into my
face or right eye.  I usually wear glasses, but hunting in the rain with
glasses is difficult at best - I like to be able to remove my glasses at
these times.

I have shot a right-hand eject semi-auto a few times, and so far I haven't
had any problems, but I'm still not sure...

If you have any good or bad experiences or recommendations about shooting
left-handed with a right-hand eject semi-auto shotgun, please tell me about
them!  Thanks,

Paul Reed                               Internet: reedp@horus.cem.msu.edu
119 Chemistry Bldg.                     BITNET: REEDP@MSUCEM
Michigan State University               Phone: (517) 355-9715 ext. 331
East Lansing, MI 48824
From: tmoore@tinton.ccur.com (Tim Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Dot Scopes (rec.guns post)
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:13:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: brahms.9210160943.aa28828


smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes...

--> I am seeking recommendations for a dot sight, method of mounting and brand
--> of mount to be installed on a Springfield M1911A1 .45 cal pistol.  This pistol
--> will be used for NRA-style target shooting.

Most serious (actually all the ones Ive seen) use the slide mount.  This is
where a Weaver rail is mounted directly on the slide with three screws.  This
means the scope cycles with the slide.  This looks like a bad idea at first
but actually it works quite well when set up correctly.  Remember you are 
using light bullseye type loads.  The rail has a cutout for the ejection
port.  I got mine from Clark Custom Guns 318 925 0836.  I drilled and tapped
three holes in the slide and presto.  Most of the scopes Ive seen are 
Ultra Dot units.  Ive seen a few Tascos, Im using a Tasco PDP3 which is a
30mm tube but with a small dot.  I dont think the 30mm tubes offers any
advantage for bullseye shooting, the sturdier PDP2 is a better choice for
this.  Any of these scopes will work fine IMHO.  The PDP2 can be had for 
under $100 now days.  Both the Tasco PDP3 and Aimpoint 5000 are 30mm tubes
and come in both large and small dot sizes.
	The Weigand "frame" scope mount is a fine unit (I have several) but is
used mainly for action type shooting.  The thing about a frame mount on a
bullseye gun is that now you have three floating pieces of the gun involved
instead of two.  The barrel must lock up tight to the slide and the slide/barrel
must lock up tight to the frame.  With a slide mount scope, as with iron sights,
you are only worried about the barrel to slide fit.  This is probably *not*
a concern to anyone but the most serious bullseye shooter.  Joe Average will
not shoot any better with one of these.  I chose the route that the
"Big Boyz" were going because it made sense and it is the cheapest way to
go.  The Clark mount is only $35.  You have to use a lighter spring than
you might normally use due to the increased mass of the slide but it works
quite nicely.  I shortened my mount to fit between my adjustable iron rear
sights so I could switch back easily.  I also think that the Weigand mount
puts the scope too high on the gun as do all the grip mounts.  Grip mounts
are an abomination IMHO :)   

Hope this helps, Tim