User talk:AliveFreeHappy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

July-September 2007

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 00:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to contribute where I can. Arthurrh 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when you add to the To-do list for the project, please put a link around what you have added in your edit summary. It helps a lot.--LWF 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Arthurrh 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

440 Corbon

I was tagging articles as part of a drive. The original list had quite a few false positives and i have to admit i was sceptical about adding the tag to that article. In the end i added it as i believed it to be military. Checking its history i apologise and don't think it should have been tagged. I have very little knowledge about firearms and wouldn't be able to tell you about its use. Sorry for the inconvenience. Woodym555 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you have questions about obscure cartridges as part of your drive, feel free to poke me. I have a pretty good library. Arthurrh 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can i take you up on your offer? Do you know if the Marlin Model 336 has been used by a military or whether you think it should have a milhist tag. Much appreciation. Thanks Woodym555 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm better on cartridges than rifles, but as far as I know and from what I can tell, the 336 was never used by the military. It was introduced way too late for the military to be using a lever-action rifle, by at least 50 years. Arthurrh 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of the .45-70...

Do you, or does anyone you know, load paper patched bullets? I'm thinking that might be worth an article, but I don't have any good references handy, other than online stuff, and I think a book reference would be good to have to lend additional authority. scot 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't load black powder at all, but I did pick up this book on Sunday - Black Powder Handbook & Loading Manual, 2nd Edition; Book by Sam Fadala, Lyman Publications, 2001 UPC #011516971005. It seems to cover a lot of useful information. I'd be happy to collaborate with you and help reference some info if you need it. I don't know that I know enough yet to start an article about it on my own. Arthurrh 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done a tiny bit of BP cartridge loading; my first .45-70 loads for the T/C pistol were "as much Pyrodex would fit in the case with a drop tube (about 60-65 grains BP equivalent for modern solid head brass) topped off with whatever .458 cast bullet I could find"--I figured since the Trapdoor could handle bullets up to 500 grains loaded with a compressed load from a drop tube, anything I could do that way would have to be of equal or less pressure. They worked, and the slower, low pressure burn of the Pyrodex made them relatively pleasant to shoot compared to the smokeless loads I made up from the T/C load data handbook. On the other hand, muzzle brakes and smoky powder don't make you too popular at the range. The T/C Muzzle Tamer ports are located at about 10 and 2 o'clock; I could actually see the target after a shot (a first for BP shooting) but no one to either side of me could see anything downrange... However, that's the extent of my BP cartridge experience, so I have no firsthand knowledge of working with paper patched bullets, though I would some day like to try them out. scot 21:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. that's definitely not going to make you popular - muzzle break AND black powder! I have shot the .45/70 in a T/C, but it was a lot more kick than I get from the BFR. I've been avoiding loading BP for now, waiting until a day when I have more time to play. Arthurrh 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The T/C in .45-70 is pretty potent, even with the muzzle brake, a scope to add some mass, and the rubber backed T/C grips. The muzzle break cuts down on the muzzle climb, but it still pushes back with enough authority that it sheared the little trophy emblems off the adjustment caps on the Tasco scope that's mounted on it. And I always adjust the trigger to give me a whole lot more takeup when I put the .45-70 barrel on it, since you REALLY don't want the trigger to break until you're absolutely ready, and of course everyone on the range wants to try a shot. And on the topic of hand cannons, I've seen some reports on the web about the S&W firing doubles--apparently the movement under recoil is enough to pull the gun, and trigger, far enough back to reset, and when the gun rebounds, it's possible for the shooter to unintentionally pull the trigger again. Certainly sounds plausible, given that even with a muzzle break the T/C, with it's lower bore axis, generates 15 to 20 degrees of muzzle rise. And given that many people are going to be startled by the level of recoil, even after being warned, a reflexive tightening of the grip is certainly understandable as well... I need to talk my dad out of the Ruger #3 he has in .45-70, or get an NEF in .45-70, so I can start playing with some seriously heavy bullet loads. I've always leaned to the "big and slow bullet" school, and a 500 grain bullet is already heavier than most 12 gauge slugs. Have to look up the rifling twist rate on the rifles and see just how heavy you could go and keep it stable... scot 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a lot of fun. It's been several years since I shot the .45-70 T/C, but I remember it with a lot of pain in my hand. I'd be interesting to shoot it side by side with the BFR with the same round and measure recoil in inches, etc. I imagine with your BP and brake it's a lot better than what I remember... I know what you mean about the trigger, I had two friends fire the T/C accidentally, and it scared the heck out of both of them... I've tried 500 grain bullets once in my guide gun, but it didn't like them, I haven't tried them yet in the BFR. I suspect it may work somewhat better, because with the Marlin you have to seat the 550 grainer so deep you lose a lot of powder space. The BFR has a long enough cylinder I can seat the bullet way out if necessary. Haven't checked the twist-rate on both of them yet. I believe the Marlin has a 1-20 and the BFR 1-14. I don't think the 1-20 will be adequate for 500's, but should be ok for 405 grains. But the faster twist in the BFR should do the trick. I believe standard Ruger's have the same 1-20, don't know about NEF. I think their new rifles have 1-20, but don't nkow about their old ones. Arthurrh 19:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The key to stability is the overall length of the bullet. The NEF appears to have a 1:20 twist in the .45-70, which according to the Greenhill formula (twist = 150 * Diameter^2 / Length) will handle a bullet up to 1.57 inches in length. If we assume a pure lead cylinder .458 in diameter and 1.57 inches long, that's 748 grains. Trim off a bit of diameter on the front so it rides the tops of the lands, and you should easily get a stable 700 grain bullet in a single shot action. On the other extreme, I've always wondered if a .45 caliber black powder sabot, maybe paper patched to bulk it up another hundredth of an inch in diameter, would work in a .45-70 case. That would let you use .40 caliber bullets for a better BC with lightweight loads. The 1:20 twist is about what most muzzleloaders designed for sabot loads are running these days, and they're getting pretty good performance from them; you can even get .40 caliber polymer tipped spire point, boattail bullets made for shooting from sabots. Granted, you're probably just going to end up with a mild .416 Rigby load, but I've always liked the thought of pushing a particular caliber to the extremes of its performance envelope, and that would certainly offer better maximum point blank range than any equal pressure .458 caliber load. scot 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PS--the BC of Hornady's 200 grain .40 muzzleloader bullet (made for a .45 caliber sabot) is .265, better than anything but the 500 grain .458 bullets. And at under half the mass, you'd expect to get about 40% more velocity (based on equal muzzle energy). scot 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PPS--there is a fair bit of info on loading the Savage 10ML-II muzzleloader with smokeless powder and sabots; the rule o' thumb is to keep it under 35kpsi and 2500 fps (see here). 35kpsi is a pretty hot .45-70 load; the Trapdoor loads are 17kpsi, "standard" (I assume lever guns) loads run 28kpsi, and the Ruger #1 and #3 run at 38kpsi[1]. scot 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PPPS--and don't forget the "forager" loads for the .45-70; your very own 48 gauge revolver, with spreader choke. scot 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm a ways off from the muzzle loading thing. I may try the 500's again in my Marlin, but I suspect it's the action length screwing me up if it's not the twist rate. The bullet has to be WAY deep into the powder space to fit that action. But maybe I'll take another poke at it. Now the "forage" loads was something I hadn't thought about! And timely, since I was bemoaning the fact that I don't have one of those nifty BFR's that use .45 Colt and .410 Shotgun. Could be good medicine for snake country, although at 4.5 lbs empty, the BFR makes a heavy carry piece. Arthurrh 22:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ballistics data, with sources

Looking at your recent contributions (lots of infoboxes) I think you might find this of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fluzwup/Ballistics I started gathering that up about a year and a half back, with the intention of doing a ballistics infobox for various cartridges, and maybe also a set of comparison charts. See here for the discussion on my talk page. If you've got any interest in getting that started up again, I am willing to do some programming to spit out filled out infoboxes from the chart. scot 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... potentially interesting. Looks like a lot of work. Plus at some point I wonder if we're crossing fair use lines with this. I'm not sure, but it's something we should at least think about. I read (raced) through the related talk, now a couple of questions.

what are the mechanics (IE edit the page directly, do the export/import mentioned in the talk, something else?

I'm not sure. Generating templates could be done offline, with a program that parses the database and spits out filled out templates. A 'bot could probably be written to insert those into the pages, or they could be inserted manually. In addition to adding ballistics templates to existing articles, we could (optionally) create article stubs with just the ballistics data, or group them into pages with titles like "Other .45-.46 caliber rifle cartridges".

are we most interested in factory / commercial loads, handloads, don't care? Doing comparions between a handload in one caliber and a commercial load in another caliber is most likely going to be misleading.

It's going to have to be some of both, because there are some important wildcats out there that don't have factory loadings. EVERY load should be sourced, and I could probably fairly quickly add a field to tag each load as commercial or handloading data. In many cases handload data provides a much wider range of bullet weights and velocities, so it supplements the commercial data and provides a more complete picture of the cartridge's performance range.

is pressure something you want to record where available? It helps understand the differences between load velocities to some degree. However most commercial ammo producers don't provide it. Some reloading references do provide it. But methods are unfortunately highly variable, as well as limits used in reloading references.

Right, I think the data coverage going to be too spotty to include at this point. Since everything is tagged with source information, anyone interested could always track it down. Another possibility would be to take some interesting calibes and create a big graphic, showing relative pressure data of a bunch of cartridges.

what about barrel length - see previous.

Right now I'm dealing with that by splitting things out into rifle and pistol sections. Exceptional barrel lengths (say, over 10" in a pistol) might be worth a mention in the notes section. Other than that, a general disclaimer (actual results vary based upon many factors, including test firearm and barrel length) should be good to cover it. The beauty of using online data when available is that it's easy for a reader to go look it up.

Have you looked at the book The Hunters Guide to Ballistics that has data for lots of commercial rounds? I think it's pretty comprehensive. And I believe there are other similar books available. But again, if we just peel data out of it, is that still fair use? Or should/can we scape the ammo manufacturers site?

Data cannot be copyrighted; it exists independent of the creative process. As long as we don't copy charts exactly (including exact wording and format), then it's not a copyright issue. On the other hand, I'd prefer to have multiple sources for every load if possible, and I think at least one commercial load and one handload for each would be best.

Ammo manufacturer ballistic information is notoriously suspect. You can probably count on bullet weight, but velocity is highly suspect, especially without barrel length and pressure info. Even [[ballistic coefficient|BC] is often inaccurate. It seems like some ammo companies like to overstate the performance of their ammunition.

To some extent that's not an issue; we're not after "the truth", we're after verifiability. Also, inclusion of handloading data is going to serve to counteract this, as they should provide much more precise data along with the testing equipment used.

I see there were some attempts to scrape data from reloading sites, where does that stand? Has anyone tried to scrape the new version of the Hodgdon web site? And of course, this also raises the fair use question.

I have scraped some data from powder makers' websites. And since I'm putting the data in my own format, copyright isn't an issue. If you can find clean columnar data, it's fairly easy to cut and paste the data into a good editor (I prefer vim, but then I'm a Unix geek) and create a quicky macro to pound it into submission.

what is the criteria for inclusion in the list - what about wildcats, proprietary, improved, and obsolete cartridges?

At this point, I'd say anything we can get data on, ideally from more than one source. If data is available from only one source, then I'd question notability. On the other hand, as long as we're just gathering data, there's no reason to be restrictive, we can filter out the non-notable cartridges when we start adding data into articles.

perhaps on the fair use we need to not just use automated tools and rely heavily on only a few sources? But this does dramatically increase the difficulty of putting the data together. Also I do have a LOT of reference data if we decide to go forward on this, but it looks like a bunch of work to peel it out of books. Other thoughts? Is there a good way to get some others involved to discuss these and other issues related to it? Arthurrh 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was kicking this all around back before the firearms group was active, so the next step would probably be to run it up the flagpole over there, and maybe create a sub-page for discussion. In the meantime, if you have any data to add, feel free to grab a screen scrape of my database--import it into Excel or your favorite spreadsheet program as comma separated values (CSV), add your data, and save it back out as CSV and stick it back on my database page. scot 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Caliber chart

I felt the need to expand the chart a bit more with some of the wonderfully confusing calibers, like .38 and .45, where bullet diameters vary a lot. I also changed the column head to read "actual bullet diameter", since that I think is the important bit and avoids the lands/grooves issue. That may have made things too confusing, what do you think? scot 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone need to flesh it out, esp for handguns, and I ran out of time for that. I think it's ok now. I didn't really want it to be yet another comprehensive list for someone to maintain, but I think it's nicely representative of most of the basic calibers now. Arthurrh 21:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering though what the limiting factor should be; should it be actual bullet diameter? The only odd one there is the .38 Speical (at .357) vs. the .38-40 (at .400, at least in modern loadings). I currently have two .38 caliber rows for that. scot 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that like my splitting the 6.5 rows between .257 and what we like to call 6.5 is the same issue, I think we kind of have to do it that way. Arthurrh 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Award

On behalf of the Firearms WikiProject, I, Thernlund, hereby award

AliveFreeHappy

the Shooters Award for outstanding contributions to Firearms-related articles on Wikipedia.

I've noticed you plugging away at firearms articles. Good job. (You're actually the first person to receive this award that I know of.) —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Way cool. Thanks. Arthurrh 06:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GA pass for M1 Garand rifle

Congratulations - you have done a superb job, and I have now passed M1 Garand rifle as a Good Article and updated the various templates on the talk page. You may like to copy the following template: {{User Good Article|M1 Garand rifle}} and paste it to your user page or somewhere suitable. This will produce

This user helped promote the article M1 Garand rifle to good article status.

and add you to the category "Good Article contributors". Excellent work - well done! EyeSerene^TALK 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your guidance in how to create a good article was helpful and informative. I'm sure we'll apply the same to many other firearms articles. Arthurrh 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - glad to be of help ;) EyeSerene^TALK 11:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Centerfire ammunition; Bolt (firearm); Breechblock; Remington 11-87
Cleanup: Cowboy action shooting; Semi-automatic firearm

Merge: Webley and Scott
Add Sources: .30-03; Bolt action
Wikify: Scout rifle

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On your Copyedit of the Remington 700

You did a copyedit of the remington 700, where you rearranged what I wrote, but now it looks like there is only one model of the remington 700: the remington 700P. I merged 700P into 700, but there are many other versions available. I wanted to check with you before I undid those edits, because I believe it is confusing and incorrect now. I write this here because I don't know if you watch the Remington 700 talk page. --Boris Barowski 11:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, I tried to make it less confusing, but didn't really succeed. I just took another crack at it, check it again. It needs a lot of expansion in the consumer section, but I think it now makes sense, let me know what you think. FYI, I'm setup to automatically watch any page I edit, which includes the talk pages for those articles by default, so feel free to put comments there as needed. Glad to have another active editor on the project. Arthurrh 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoring article

Hi - at your request, I've restored the article and talk page on .41 Action Express. MastCell ^Talk 15:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Arthurrh 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Accurizing

I'm in the process of a total re-write of accurizing, after moving the old version to Wikibooks, and since you just evaluated it, I'd appreciate hearing any thoughts on what you'd like to see included in it. The only section of my "to-do" list that I haven't filled out yet is the section on barrel harmonics, and I think I might do a stub of a section on handloading (mainly pointing to the handloading article) as well. scot 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did the basic rating for the template, and put some comments on the talk page there. Arthurrh 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging Blowbacks

I took the liberty of replacing yourtags with a combined tag. It's cleaner. I'd comment, but I'm tied up with a revert war on the SIG SG 552 article. Feel free if you'd like to take a look. I'm going to sleep on it. Thanks for the merge tags, BTW, I think they should be together in one article as well.--Asams10 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know how to do that. Thanks. Arthurrh 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference help

I put in the first reference to the Shooting Times Guide to Accuracy stuff you sent me, and had to guess at some of the citation parameters based on data I got from the website. Could you provide me with any other info, like the editors, ISBN (if any) and check on the publisher? The reference is under the Crown section, and info on the citation template is at {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} depending on which you think is appropriate. scot 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a single special issue from Shooting Times. Let me give you what I have on it. "Citation is missing a .

Either specify one, or click here and a bot will complete the citation details for you. [2]" (September 2007). Shooting Times Accuracy Secrets (Special Edition). UPC 09281 07783. Sorry it's not better, but the Masthead doesn't say much. Arthurrh 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hello. I replied to your vandalism warning on my talk page but am replying here as well in case you don't see that. To see if the edit in question was vandalism you need to compare it to the previous version, not the one after. My edit was reverting one vandal edit but I missed an earlier piece of vandalism which the edit after mine took out. Your mistake is understandable, but please check more carefully before leaving vandal warnings. Thanks.--Michig 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't dive deep enough. Arthurrh 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Linkdirect

[[Buick V8 engine#215|215]] Got it. Damndest thing, tho. A couple of days ago, I trued using this exact form, & it wouldn't hook up to the subhead... Now, it does. Go figure. Trekphiler 09:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You never know... I had problems with it once, but it turned out to me missing spaces or some silly thing like that. But this seems to do the job. Arthurrh 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A. Uberti, Srl.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of A. Uberti, Srl., and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Uberti. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 19:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move from Uberti. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. — madman bum and angel 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well now it's all screwed up and apparently can't be moved at all. Arthurrh 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can. I've flagged it for an administrator to handle. Don't worry about it. :) — madman bum and angel 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

K. thanks. Arthurrh 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

All fixed up; no problem. Just use the [move] button next time. :) — madman bum and angel 20:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, I forgot, it's pretty rare that I do moves. Arthurrh 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

references

I know you like to put the references in small print, but I think that makes it much harder to read than necessary. Also I think that in normal size, the size isn't too big, I don't mind the normal size even on larger lists of references and notes. Almost all articles on wikipedia, even FA's etc with many, many notes use the normal size. I like the normal size. Apparently most people like the normal size too. And I have no interest in fighting a childish edit war with you, so can we come to a consensus ? Thanks --Boris Barowski 22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not a big deal. But there's lots of articles all over the place with big and lots with small. So doing a revert just to change an article like you did isn't really going to do anything. The style guidelines allow for both styles, and I expect they'll both persist. Personally I find the smaller list easier to deal with than the large type, but it has a lot to do with what monitor and resolution people choose. You can leave that article whatever way you want, as you say thaere is no reason to war over it. I'm still going to be using the {{reflist}} as I write articles because I happen to like it better. We could go with the guidelines, which is to use the small when there are more than 10 references, I think that's a pretty good compromise. Arthurrh 23:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Normal when <10 references, small when >10 references, I like that. so ok for me :) --Boris Barowski 22:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Arthurrh 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

great power

i was not vandalizing the great power page. i deleted a section that would cause great controvery. nobody likes lists of great powers/middle power/empires etc. its too controversial. i will continue to delete the article if it is put back. and i will report you if you continue to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.67.23 (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like others don't agree with you. Arthurrh 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

74.136.204.115 vandalism

Arthurrh, someone on my subnet is vandalizing Wikipedia. How can I prevent them from doing this further and therefore preserve my ability to edit pages in a constructive manner? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.204.115 (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you create an account and use that instead of just the IP address, then you shouldn't have any problems. Let me know if you have any questions. Arthurrh 17:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for repairing the vandalism to my user pages yesterday. Looking at the ip's history log I'm sorry to see you were targeted too. Background is there's someone who has a personal beef with a record producer called Robin Millar and I've been removing the irrelevant nonsense they've been putting up and now they've obviously decided to attack my page. Numbnuts like that ruin wikipedia. Yorkshiresky 10:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Glad to help. Arthurrh 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)