summer patriot, winter soldier

obama administration cut deal to extend immunity to mexican drug cartel in exchange for "information" on other cartels .... part of the inducement for the deal, guns to the cartel from "fast and furious" ....

and, so it is alleged by a criminal defendant.

a criminal defendant in a chicago, illinois federal court has interposed a defense of "immunity" to the drug charges brought against him.  he claims that his "cartel" was extended immunity in exchange for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of others, and, that as an added inducement, his "group" was to receive weapons from operation "fast and furious."

in short, this criminal defendant is alleging in support of his motion to make the government produce documents memorializing the immunity agreement, that the united states government induced the deal by paying the drug runners in guns.  "fast and furious" is now linked, by the assertion of an alleged drug dealer, that a deal existed between u.s. justice department and a mexican drug cartel, to supply the latter with illegal weapons.  again, a defendant in an illinois federal district courtroom has filed discovery demands with the justice department, for the department to release documents (e.g., provide to the defendant upon "discovery") that would prove his assertion that he is immune from prosecution for drug trafficking, because his crime organization was extended immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing information on other cartels/syndicates/gangs/what have you.  he asserts that part of the quid pro quo to this was the receipt of weapons from "fast and furious." 

 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fast-and-furious-linked-immunity-deal-between-us-and-sinaloa-cartel-trafficking   from the story, "fast and furious" linked to deal between the u.s. and sinaloa cartel, trafficking defendant alleges in court papers," by edwin mora, 12.29.3011 at cnsnews.com.

in my career defending low end drug traffickers never once did i ever have one mention that he enjoyed immunity from prosecution by way of an immunity agreement drawn between the united states and his drug cartel.  well, there is always room for a first, isn't there.  the very audacity of the claim suggests that it was not something spun out of whole cloth by this defendant.  who knows, perhaps he helped negotiate it?  with whom?

john jay @ 1.30.2011

snowbound over a cold winter with obama and madonna on beans, flour and lard .... the g.o.p. presidential primaries ....

"a bore is a man who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company."  gian vincenzo gravina.

thin gruel as a person, but long on self esteem.

it is said that one can fail on a steady and plentiful diet of caribou.  no fat.  no substance.

all true enough, gravina.

ambrose bierce put it more deliciously, though, when he remarked, "bore, noun: a person who talks when you wish him to listen."  he put it in a slightly more acute fashion, when he said, "egotist, a person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me."

contemplate, if you will, an eternity on the howard stern show.  thus has become the obama administration.  obama, clinton, holder, ... , bores.

12.29.2011

 

strategic warfare and the projection of power .... simple facts that define each ....

friends,

for every gallon of fuel the allied forces in europe used in fighting the battle of the bulge, and later in carrying the fight into germany proper, four gallons of fuel were required to get it to the allied war machine.

think about that, for just a moment.

this simple factoid explains the nature of strategic warfare, and the reality of geo-political projection of military and diplomatic power, better than anything i can think of.  and, i do not have a limited imagination.

this humble fact explains that while china and russia can bluff and bluster, they are not capable of projecting military power.  oh, they have weapons.

but, they cannot use them beyond their borders, as the russian "invasion" of georgia so amply demonstrated.  in wwii, the united states produced ships faster than we could satisfy the voracious appetites of the german u-boat wolf packs, and we produced trucks for the "red ball express" that would ship gasoline, supplies, ammunition, food and fuel all over western europe.  in quantities sufficient to sustain offensive warfare.

students of military doctrine call this "logistics."  i prefer simply to describe it as the reality of power.

"git thar fustest wif the mostest."  

and with regard to this strategic precept, only one country in the world during world war ii had the ability to do that, and only one country in the world has the ability to do that now.  the united states can literally ship armies ready to fight all over the world pretty quickly, and can have the marines there almost immediately, as we have demonstrated in asia and the middle east.  the russians could not get matching uniforms to their "troops" in georgia, nor even hats for all of them.  (study the pictures.)

think about it.

john jay @ 12.26.2011

p.s.  don't even get me started on what a pimple on an elephant's butt, is iran.  in terms of strategic power, they are yet a nullity.  and, likely to remain that way, so long as israeli intelligence can detonate bombs almost anywhere they want in iran.

how do you tell tyranny from democracy?

it is actually pretty simple.

democracy is where deposed tyrants go to live out their days.***  they seem to appreciate the absence of police state apparatus.  and, the fact that they can associate with all the "fellow traveler" thinkers to be found in the sinecure of free society.

the question is, how long will they continue to come to the united states to get a little rest?  the russians has always kind of favored north america, and leon trotsky lived in new york for a brief while during an exile.  he later lived in mexico after another falling out, this time with his fellow bolsheviks, and died there of an allergic reaction to an ice pick in the eye sent him as a gift by joseph stalin.  special delivery.

idi amin favored france, as did a host of middle eastern religious types before the flowering of the arab spring, which they fostered while in exile.  in the west, you can be a revolutionary without being thrown in prison for it, especially if you get on a faculty some day.

vladimir putin at harvard?  not really so improbable as you might think.  stranger things, in fact, have happened.

john jay @ 12.25.2011

p.s.  of course, revolutionaries on faculties sort of blend the concepts of tyranny and democracy, as davis at davis, ayers at illinois, and pliven at columbia.  maybe we could send them to russia?  it's a thought.

***  and, of course, to get adequate medical care.

p.s. were a person to have the druthers, he could probably fashion a pretty respectable facsimile of a .280 british round from .35 remington brass ...

friends:

if you look to your newest edition of cartridges of the world, you will find that the .280 british as initially fabricated had case rim and case head dimensions very similar to the .35 remington, a round extent pretty much contemporaneously with the model 8 remington auto rifle.  

this was a long recoil arm designed by john m. browning, and they were made a long time, and a lot of them are still in use.  good guns.  they will kick the holy bejesus out of you.

but, the .35 remington (cartridge) i think has enough dimension where a resizing die would place the shoulder on a .280 british so that you would not have to do any fire forming.  

as to the .276 pedersen, i think the 7.35 terni/mannlicher carcano might be suitable for it, or at least give you a similar enough round to "fake" it pretty well.

or, you could just be content, as i am, to mess around with the 6.8mm remington spc if you are looking for an intermediate round to go onto an ar-15 platform.

john jay @ 12.24.2011

p.s.  you can get saami  cartridge dimension drawings/schematics at this link,  http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/index.cfm?page=CC

for those who think that the .280 british and the .276 pedersen were pipsqueak cartridges, in comparison to the .30-06 or the .303 british ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British  

bear with me, please, we'll get to a direct comparison of the .276 pedersen and the .30-06 cartridges below & following, but, a little background about the acknowledged "big" infantry rounds, the .303 & the .30-06.--

though the .30-06 as now loaded commercially is a very powerful round, the version of the cartridge that was utilized in by united states as an infantry rifle round in two world wars was loaded to a far more "sedate" level.  the basic infantry round was adopted in 1906, and utilized a 150 grain bullet loaded to about 2700 feet per second velocity.  still a very potent round by most measures, it was loaded about 250 feet per second less than current commercial loadings using bullets of comparable weight.

the various versions of the british infantry rifle, referred to as the lee enfield in the u.s., fought world wars i & ii with the mark vii and mark viii cartridges, loaded with 174 & 175 grain bullets, to muzzle velocities of 2450 to 2500 feet per second.  these cartridges were generally regarded as being a bit less potent than the .30-06, but were nonetheless potent, and quite lethal and dependable killers.

prior to wwii the .276 pedersen was developed on a parallel track with the rifle that became the m-1 garand, and was adopted along with the garand in the late 1930's, ... , for a while.  story has it that the intervention of none other than general douglas maccarther determined that the m-1 would be used w/ the .30-06 cartridge, and the m-1 garand was adapted to fire the larger round.  maccarther probably had legitimate logistics reasons for his decision with war looming, but it is also more than a little likely that he was wedded to the notion that the .308 bullet was necessary for combat infantry use as opposed to a smaller cartridge.  as events associated with the british efforts to get the .280 british approved as a nato standard after ww ii would indicate.

the .276 pederson cartridge would become a footnote.

the same fate awaited the .280 british, although under somewhat different circumstances.

the british military also did some experimentation with infantry rifle and cartridge after wwi, and showed early evidence of fondness towards developing a .284 caliber weapon, but, the usual dithering and delay demanded for logistical reasons that britain fight wwii with the lee enfield rifle and the .303 cartridge.

and, here the story gets pretty interesting.  britain did considerable design and development work on two very similar cartridges, called the .270 and .280 british.  after considerable work, the british actually adopted the .280 british cartridge to be used in the fn fal rifle.  

two things intervened to prevent this from occurring.  the united states intervened, insisting that the n.a.t.o. standard cartridge be of .308 caliber.  and, the united states had its way, principally because winston churchill thought that standardization between the allies was desirable logistically and strategically, and directed the u.s. military to adopt the 7.62x51mm cartridge, now also known as the .308 winchester in civilian circles.

the .280 british cartridge was dropped, and the fn fal was adapted to fire the larger round.  both the 7.62mm nato and the fn fal rifle became standard weapons of choice in the free world.  the u.s. reneged on a deal to use the fn fal, and adopted the m-14 rifle, a near clone of the m-1 garand instead.  as it turned out, the 7.62x51mm nato as used was nearly as powerful as the standard .30-06 it replaced.

there was no small irony in this latter circumstance, because one of the stated goals in developing the new infantry cartridge was to make it suitable for fully automatic fire in the newer rifles developed, to increase the fire power of infantry without need for the deployment of the light machine guns the allies had used in wwii.  as it turned out, neither the m-14 nor the fn fal were very suitable rifles in fully automatic fire mode, because the heavy recoil of the 7.62mm nato made them very difficult to aim and control in full auto.

well, back to square one, as they say.

these factors led to the development of the 5.56mm nato by another generation of military thinkers, a circumstances not entirely a happy one.

and, it also led to another injustice, an intellectual and factual one, not of historical or political dimension.  and that is, the .276 pedersen and the .280 british are both regarded as ballistic pipsqueaks, as well have having been relegated to the dust bin of historical memory.  and, this is too bad, as both were very capable rounds, and would have fulfilled the role of "intermediate" infantry and assault round weapons very well, and far better than the world standard 7.62x39mm russian, otherwise known as the m43 is soviet block nations.  (i am a fan of the current 6.8mm remington spc cartridge, and it is a good cartridge, better than the russian round by any measure, yet, it must be admitted, that the 6.8mm remington is not the cartridge that either the .276 pedersen or the .280 british were, and the .280 british was a bit more capable than the pedersen, though it was by a slim margin.)

as a matter of fact, a fairly cogent argument can be made that as designed for use in an infantry semi-automatic weapon, designed for mobility and firepower without overpowering the user in semi automatic fire, that both the .276 pedersen and the .280 british were superior to the .30-06 and the .308 winchester as they were designed and as their use in the infantry rifles dictated.

i believe that our friend major general julian s. hatcher made such an argument in his wonderful book, "hatchers notebook."

the following is taken from chapter xvii of "hatcher's notebook", "random notes on various subjects," subpart 16, ballistic data, page 401 of the national rifle association edition, odysseus editions, inc., 1966--

pedersen rifle, caliber .276 [.284]                                          (0.276-a-2)

125 grain bullet  --  p.c.  48,                                                  (a.p.g.

instrumental velocity at 78 feet = [2690 f/s][muzzle velocity]  (august 25, 1927

b.c. for j (v) = 0.2469 when v is greater than velocity of sound

                   = 0.4260 when v is less than velocity of sound

range, yards    angle of departure   time of flight/s      remaining velocity              maximum ordinate

                      min. of angle           in time                  feet/s        ft./lbs              in feet

100              2.3                         .115                   2514           1758                 .07

200              5.0                         .239                   2345           1529                 .23 

300              8.0                         .371                   2180            1322                .57

400             11.2                        .514                   2020            1135              1.09

500              14.6                       .669                   1864               966              1.82

600              18.7                       .837                   1711               814              2.84

700              23.1                     1.021                   1562               679              4.21

800              28.1                     1.222                   1419               560              6.00

900              33.9                     1.444                   1284               450              8.27

1000            40.5                     1.691                   1160               374            11.54

[end chart for .276 pedersen.  note, "angle of departure" in minutes refers to the elevation of the bore above horizontal, to give the bullet sufficient "arc" to travel the required distance of the bullet's horizontal path in yards.  think of it as the "elevation of a cannon barrel."  but note, a degree of angle is comprised of 60 minutes: so to shoot a bullet even at moderate velocity 1,000 yards, the rifle barrel is not elevated even one degree, ... , about 2/3's of a degree in this case.  that's not very much, is it.]

.....................

[begin chart for .30-06 springfield cartridge.  please keep in mind, that the .30-06 is generally regarded as the most powerful infantry round adopted in modern times, and probably more powerful than the 7.92x57mm german mauser.  it was easily more powerful than the .303 british, comfortably so.]

caliber .30 [.308] bullet, 1906 service ammunition,                             (a.p.g., md.

m.v. [muzzle velocity] 2700 fps      c variable, starting w/ 0.410         (april, 1926

                                                                                                        (h-1-0.30/.28

range, yards    angle of departure   time of flight/s      remaining velocity              maximum ordinate

                      min. of angle           in time                  feet/s        ft./lbs              in feet

100              2.5                       0.12                     2481           2051               0.06

200              5.2                       0.25                     2267           1712               0.27

300              8.2                       0.38                     2059           1412               0.62

400            11.6                       0.53                     1858           1150                1.1

500            15.6                       0.70                      1664            923                2.0

600            20.4                       0.89                      1481            731                3.3

700            25.9                       1.11                      1315            576                5.0

800            32.5                       1.35                      1174            459                7.4

900            40.3                       1.62                      1065            378              10.8

1000          49.4                       1.91                        989            326              15.2

 [end chart for ballistics of the .30-06 government round adopted in 1906, and called the 1906.  i want to emphasize something here.  these are ballistics tables prepared by the united states government, probably army ordnance, and such as were published by a retired major general officer who worked in ballistics and production of military small arms, supervising various functions of the springfield armory when it was a united states armory, and supervising the production of ammunition for the army at the frankford ammunition plant, a u.s. govt. plant.]

[and, i would bring your attention to the initials "a.p.g." & "a.p.g., md." at the top of the separate charts.  that stands for "aberdeen proving grounds, maryland" where these ballistics test were performed and tabulated, or i will eat my hat.  these statistics are not cooked.  period.]

let's look at a couple things in these charts.--

first, let us look to the comparative weights of the bullets, the .276 pedersen being a bullet of .284" in diameter, and weighing 125 grains, the .30-06 model 1906 cartridge having a bullet of .308" in diameter, and weight 150 grains.

both leaving the muzzle of their respective arms at similar velocity, at 2690 fps for the .276 pedersen, and 2700 fps for the 1906 .30-06 bullet.

look at the striking energies and velocities of the two bullets at 400 yards, a fairly convenient yardstick for the effectiveness of an infantry round.  at 400 yards, the .276 pedersen bullet is traveling at 2020 feet per second, and carrying 1135 foot pounds of energy.  at 400 yards, the model 1906 .30-06 bullet is traveling at 1858 feet per second, and carrying 1150 foot pounds of energy.  the .308" caliber bullet has yielded a clear velocity edge to the .284" caliber bullet, but still retains a slight edge in foot pounds because of its greater weight of 25 grains.

by 500 yards the .308" caliber bullet has yielded its advantage in foot pounds of energy, as well as in velocity.  the .276" bullet is traveling 1864 feet per second carrying 966 pounds feet of energy, while the .308" bullet has slowed to 1664 feet per second carrying 923 pounds feet of energy.

in the united states it is generally held that in order for a rifle cartridge to be a humane killer of deer, it must pack around 1,000 pounds feet of energy to assure sufficient penetration to vital organs and vascular structures, and to assure destruction of them when it hits them.  and, you may reasonably be assured that if a round has enough "oomph" to humanely kill a deer, a very sturdy animal indeed, it may be counted upon as quite lethal against a human adversary.

these charts assure that being possessed of an adequately designed bullet, that the .276 pedersen would have been a very lethal device upon a modern battlefield involving a conflict between rival groups of infantry.  this is more or less assured, because the .30-06 and the .303 british sure as hell were.

whatever we may say of the .276 pedersen we may also say of the .280 british, as it too was a .284" diameter bullet of slightly greater weight and slightly greater velocity.

simply put, the .276 pedersen and the .280 british are two of the finest intermediate to full power infantry rounds never to see the battlefield.  used in the semi-automatic battlefield rifle format, such as a suitably scaled fn fal or scaled m-14 type rifle, they would have been indeed formidable in terms of lethality, and far superior to the rounds and rifles adopted in their stead in terms of weight, mobility, and quite likely accuracy being far easier for the average infantryman to shoot comfortably, & without being punished by the heavier recoil of the rounds that kept them from the battlefield, that being the .30-06, the 7.62x51mm nato, and the .303 british.  (i have always liked the johnson semi-automatic rifle, model of 1941, and i can only believe that the rifle properly scaled to the .276 pedersen or the .280 british, or, even in this day to the 6.8mm remington spc, would be just about ideal for an infantryman.  i won't live long enough to find out, i am afraid.)

i don't know if they would have been flexible enough to have carried out the full automatic fire requirements of the modern infantry squad, .e.g, whether in full auto they would have been competent squad automatic weapons.  i do know that the weapons using the above rounds in the main battle rifles were not.

these charts speak eloquently that politics and logistics and production needs kept these rounds from being adopted by the u.s. and british military, because in terms of ballistics they were superior to the intended task of arming the modern infantryman, than to the rifles and cartridges which did.

it is a pity.

and, you are going to have to argue to you are blue in the face, to convince me that these cartridges were pipsqueaks, and not suitable for the modern battlefield.

john jay @ 12.24.2011

p.s.  i want to point out something to you that you have glossed over, in all probability.  and that is the little column, "angle of departure in minutes."  my guess is, you said "huh," or "so what?", and skipped looking at these values entirely.

there is a reason the u.s. army and major general julian hatcher derived the values, and also why they published them.  and, it goes to this.  this value is intimately related to the task of the infantryman in aiming his rifle at an enemy soldier at extended distance, because it relates directly to how much he has to adjust his rifle sights to zero in on that enemy soldier.

the greater the value, or number, of minutes, the higher the rear sight of the infantry weapon must be raised in order for that soldier to correctly aim his rifle at him.  and, the greater the number, the higher the arc the bullet must describe in order to reach a target, and the steeper the angle of descent a bullet makes at the end of the "arc," (actually, i think a trajectory is more like an ellipse, but, i am tired, and i am not gonna check on that.  you get the point, i think, even if inexactly drawn.  pun intended.)

what this means precisely is this.  the less sight correction that is needed, the more tolerant of slight errors in aim is the flight of the bullet.  the steeper the angle of descent, the less tolerant is the trajectory to sighting errors.  

it may seem a small matter in these charts, but the fact is, the .276 pedersen was easier to aim and hit with by an infantryman, as a matter of mathematical determination, than a weapon firing the 1906 version of the .30-06 cartridge.

that is just simple irrefutable truth.

the .276 pedersen was hardly an underpowered pipsqueak of a round.  it was superior to, and more powerful in some respects, than the .30-06 springfield 1906 round.  and that round equipped itself nobly on battlefields in two world wars.

 

 

how hot does it get in a rifle barrel?

major general julian s. hatcher knew a thing or three about firearms and ballistics, gained over a long career in the united states military, at various times being in charge of the production of military ammunition at frankford arsenal, and also commanding various elements of the springfield armory which produced infantry arms for the united states.

his book, "hatcher's notebook," most recently published by the national rifle association, by odysseus editions, inc., is considered a must have and an authoritative comment on such matters as above.

and, for good reason.

the following is taken from chapter xvii, "random notes on various subjects," subpart 13, distribution of the heat energy of powder, page 399 of the above edition.--

"each pound of modern single base smokeless powder has a potential energy of about 1,250,000 foot pounds.  if this powder is fired in a .30 caliber rifle, it will supply charges for about 140 cartridges, and each will fire a 150 grain bullet at 2800 feet per second muzzle velocity, with a muzzle energy of 2612 foot-pounds.

"the amount of this powder potential that has appeared in the form of muzzle energy of the bullets is therefore 140 x 2612, or 365,680 foot-pounds, or only about 29 1/4 percent.  [the bullets, in other words, have only absorbed about that percentage of the potential energy of the powder upon its ignition. jjjay.]  where did the other 70 3/4 percent go to?

"in 1929 the ordnance department set up a technical staff test program to determine this.  the firing was done in a browning machine rifle, with results as follows:

"heat distribution of one round in a browning machine rifle.

heat to cartridge case   ................................................  131.0 b.t.u.

to kinetic energy of bullet  ............................................  885.3 b.t.u.

to kinetic energy of gases  ............................................  569.1 b.t.u.

heat to barrel  ..........................................................  679.9 b.t.u.

total                                                                                        2,864.0 b.t.u.

heat generated by friction  ...........................................   212.0 b.t.u.

it is obvious from this that were some methods developed which would enable the bullet to absorb more energy, say from a very obvious source such as the remaining kinetic energy in the propellant gases which emerge from the barrel following the bullet in the form of incandescent heat and flame, that the bullet could be made to go much faster: one obvious way to do this would be to extend the length of a barrel so by the time they exited  the barrel they would have given more energy up to the bullet.  but, look at the figures, ... , if you extend the barrel, it is going to absorb just that much more heat from the energy in the propellant gases, to the detriment of the bullet's velocity.

and, so it goes.

i am developing a load for a rifle, a 7mm remington magnum shooting a 130 grain sierra matchking bullet, the end design/result which will be to propel the bullet a little over 3,000 feet per second from the muzzle.  right now, at the early stages of developing this load, i am using about 60 grains of hodgdon h-4350 powder.  440 grains equals an ounce.  60 grains of this particular powder is just a little less than the volume of one teaspoon of powder.  in other words, looking at hatcher's analysis, approximately 1/3 of the energy in this powder is propelling the bullet at over 3,000 feet per second from the barrel, while the rifle barrel, the weight of the propellant plus the heat energy it has been converted to is going out the end of the barrel without being utilized.

now, if you have a chance, sometime, stand by someone discharging a rifle, and from a position of absolute safety, grasp the barrel about midway when the rifle is shot.  you can feel the heat of the cartridge's discharge migrate up the barrel from the chamber area, as its energy flows toward the muzzle.

this brings up an interesting topic, and that is how fast this sort of energy transfer, and containment of energy, will wear out a barrel.  well, as a matter of fact, a rifle barrel gets eaten alive by the erosive and cutting effect of modern propellants very quickly: it is just that you don't notice it.

a high velocity rifle bullet will exit a rifle barrel in roughly 1/1,000's to 1/1,500's of a second.  a rifle barrel is good for firing in competition for say, 2,000 to 2,500 rounds, before the rifling becomes so eroded in the barrels throat that the accuracy of the barrel degenerates so as to render it of no more utility for shooting targets.

just suppose if you fired it for 10,000 rounds the damage that the very hot powder flame/column would do to the interior of a barrel.  well, it would chew it up.

10,000 rounds divided by 1/1000's of a second means that a cumulative time of 10 seconds is enough to destroy a barrel.  think about it.  it still sounds ridiculous, doesn't it.

if you still think it is ridiculous, talk to a military veteran who was a machine gunner in the military service, and ask him how long it takes to "cook" a machine gun barrel under very hard use.  most machine guns have a cyclic rate of 4 to 500, or perhaps 6 to 700 rounds a minute, which is upwards of 10 rounds a second.  (even at that rate, that means that for each second in which 10 rounds go down the barrel, that is only 10/1,000's second of exposure, and 999/1,000's second in which the barrel does not have the maximum exposure to the heat, cutting, erosion and friction of a bullet traversing the barrel.)  and, when you consider that even in a machine gun, the gunner's asst. has to be feeding belts and magazines into the gun to keep it supplied with fodder and firing, the actual rate of fire deliverable from a machine gun is about 150 rounds or so a minute.

even so, machine gun barrels get chewed up in a hurry in "continuous" fire, which is why it is very desirable in a tactical and strategic sense for a machine gun crew to be able to change barrels very quickly, in the heat of battle: in the best of machine guns, it can be done very quickly, indeed.  it's also why the smart machine gunner will have a couple asbestos gloves with him, in spite of what the e.p.a. may think of that, in case he inadvertently grabs a nearly red hot barrel in the wrong spot while changing it.  a rather unforgettable experience, i should imagine.

now, i went to the range today to test my loads, and to see if i am on the right track with my load.

i fired 6 rounds.  over a period of 20 minutes or so.  in cold weather.  even so, i checked the barrel between shots, to make sure the barrel was not heating.  (it's a simple procedure, ... , you grasp the barrel with an un-gloved hand.)  so, the total exposure of the barrel to all the un-pleasantries of the rifle propellant's temperature and cutting characteristics, was about 6 to 10 1/1000's of a second.

i've got a ways to go towards expending the 10 to 15 seconds of barrel life, under use.

john jay @ 12.23.2011

p.s.  for a fascinating analysis of what happens to gunpowder after its ignition, during its burning and then its cooling upon the exit of the barrel, look to this very thorough analysis of the composition of gun powders and their residues at this forensics site, http://www.wavesignal.com/Forensics/GSR.html .

an acetylene flame, upon exposure to air burns at about 2400 degrees centigrade, and 3100 degrees centigrade upon admixture with additional pure oxygen.  (that why acetylene torches have an oxygen bottle attached, as well.)  http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flame-temperatures-gases-d_422.html .

let's see if i can find the temperature of the gases produced by the ignition of modern smokeless powder in the closed vessel of a gun's chamber and barrel, and, if i am lucky, what happens to the hot gases when they reach the open atmosphere.  (hint:  this latter occurrence, is what makes a gun go "bang."  the gases burn like crazy, for a bit, expand incredibly producing a shock wave, e.g. "bang," and then the atmosphere comes rushing back into the comparative vacuum with another shock wave, prolonging the "bang."  and, it all resonates.  how do i know that?  well, it has to, now, doesn't it.  everything resonates.  laughing.)

this is pretty interesting.  but, i cannot find anyone who says exactly what the temperature of the powder gas is while burning in the confined areas of the rifle's chamber and barrel.  aggravating, this.  but, in the meantime, read this.  http://www.z-hat.com/Efficiency%20of%20the%20300%20Hawk.htm 

the answer: as to the question, how hot does smokeless powder get in a rifle barrel.  well, it turns out that the answer is a bit more complicated than i thought.  i found an abstract (actually, a first page in lieu of an abstract) at this site, and it appears that you can find out the answer, over the web, for what i expect is probably a small fee, or you can go to a very large and very good library and obtain the paper there.  but, at any rate, here is the address of the website which will give you a leg up on your query, ... , actually, my query, eh?  and, i will keep looking.  but, tonight, it is time for the pbs.  http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50257a006  and, for printed materials.

 

A. M. Ball

Ind. Eng. Chem., 1931, 23 (5), pp 498–501

DOI: 10.1021/ie50257a006

Publication Date: May 1931

good hunting.

 

 

conan o'brien and the "lighting" of the "human" menorah ...

chanuka is the celebration of the victory of the maccabee rebellion, and the assertion of jewish control over the holy city of jerusalem, and the rebuilding of god's temple.

the menorah is a ritual "celebration of lights" taking place over the eight days in this revered jewish holiday, replete with stories of the sacrifice of martyrs & the deeds of great warriors in the fight of the jews to resist syrian and hellenistic attempts to stamp out judaism.

the lighting of the candles anew each night of the holiday is accompanied by time honored prayers, and is led by a leader of the household, with the participation of children and family members.

it is sacred, and as central to jewish religious life and ritual as baptism and the celebration of jesus's sacrifice on the cross is to christianity.  you may read a very abbreviated history, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah .

this thursday evening, conan o'brien celebrated the second evening of the lighting of the menorah, with the lighting of the "live menorah," a daisy chain of persons dressed in silver costumes crawling on their hands and knees, with the head of each following person wrapped in a hood like device, securing his head in position directly over the ass and sphincter of each person preceding him/her: hardly dignified, hardly a celebration of religious ritual. they had large electric "candles" fastened to their backs, and o'brien lit the second one tonight by screwing a bulb into its fixture.

well, why go to great lengths to explain what occurred?  it was ridicule of a people and their religion, and it was desecration of a people and their religious tradition.  to my eyes, it was as offensive as painting a swastika on a synagogue, or a gang of thugs pushing a rabbi around on a street.  even an adolescent like o'brien knows their is no explaining this reality away.

it shows him for the destructive wrecker that he is.

i will leave to the jewish community any further elaboration of my remarks, or explanation of any inaccuracy w/ regard to my descriptions of ceremony or event, if any is necessary.

i want to touch on another subject, and that is what conan o'brien has revealed himself to be by this idiocy.--

this stunt reveals, as no other act could, that he is a coward. and, provides a precise measure of the magnitude of his cowardice.

for this simple reason.

conan o'brien will have no similar demonstration of his "daring humor" with regard to islam.  he is afraid that from islam would come swift and terrible retribution for his childish excess.  and, he is afraid to risk it.  simple truth.

for his ridicule of channuka, for his profaning of the lighting of the menorah, he is an abject idiot.

for his cowardice, for the fact that no similar denigration of islam will ever occur, he is a simple chickenshit coward.  i do not think him anti semitic.   he is far too stupid to have any theological hostility towards anyone: he is a little boy, playing with his little pecker in front of people, and nothing else.

but, he is smart enough to know who doesn't hit back if you insult the jews, and he is smart enough to know, by contrast, who cuts off your shit spewing head for making fun of mohammad & islam.

so, in sum, he is an idiot for his profanity and desecration.  and, he is a chickenshit coward for his refusal to insult islam in the same manner.  surely, it would be as "funny."

any bets?

he truly is a very tiny insignificant little male person.  he comes nowhere close to being a man.  and, i will hazard a guess, ... , he will never be a man.  he may summon on occasion the teenagers idiotic bravado, or the perverts need for exhibitionism, who knows, but he will never be a man.  ever.

john jay, milton freewater, oregon  usa @ 12.21.2011

 

 

huh?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8964734/EU-demands-25bn-lifeline-from-the-UK.html .  hat tip, http://www.theospark.net/ .

p.s.  (this p.s. first, in case you are a "short read.")by the way, in the otherwise excellent article above, you will not find one mention of the real point in this scheme, to put the u.s. taxpayer on the hook to bail out european excess, miscalculation and profligacy one more damned time.  not one mention of it.

and, you know what?  i do not recall one european even asking, ever, or even thanking us for our contributions, ever.  i say, let 'em sink or swim, on their own dimes.

(and, it ought to frost you no end, that european governments can obligate the united states, and put the u.s. taxpayer under the yoke one more time, without the matter being passed upon by congress.  sovereignty over our own public weal?  what damned sovereignty?)(end p.s.)

begins the essay proper.  the european union is dunning its member states to loan $200 billion to the i.m.f., aka the international money fund.

why?

to loan to european countries.

huh?

who would they loan money to someone so that they can borrow it?  the i.m.f. will turn right around and give it right back to them.  this seems curious.

but, it is terribly straight forward.  for you see, by doing so they put the united states of america behind the loans they are gonna make, as a guarantor for the repayment of the funds.  to the tune of 17% of the moneys loaned.

what this means is that the europeans anticipate that the greeks, the italians, the spaniards and the irish, and probably the french may/probably/are gonna default in their payments anyway, but at least the united states will pay the i.m.f. $34 billions, eventually in all probability.

which is $34 billion the euro states will not have to pay back.  which is the european union taking $34 billion right out of our pockets, however you wish to look at it, and however it turns out on the "repayment" of the money the euro's are giving to themselves.  pay $200 billion, get $200 billion, and get another $34 billion "in the event" of an almost certain default on it.  hell, the god damned europeans don't have the money to pay their obligations now  ...  switching it from one pocket to another isn't payment.

sweet deal, extracting $34 billion from the united states for switching their non-existent money from one "account" to "another."

cynical bastards.  they are foisting their financial irresponsibility off onto the american tax payer, who already has his own government's misdeeds, seeing as how the u.s. govt. is asshole deep in, ... , well, ... , criminal wastrel wreckers in the first damn place.

i love the euro's.  full of culture, and all those lovely stone buildings, and very pretty ladies.  an occasional movie capable of comprehension.  but, to this whole rotten fucking scheme, i say, fuck 'em.  right up the arse.  as far as i am concerned, they can take all their troubles to their own little hell, which they fashioned, in a hand basket, and be done with 'em.  just fuck 'em.

i don't think we should pay them a damned dime of our "i.m.f. obligation."  we should simply default on the payment.  fuck 'em.

in the last century we bailed western europe's ass out of two ruinous world wars, defended them from communism on our dime and the blood of our soldiers, the whole while being derided by them as stiffs.  very snotty, unappreciative bastards.

they did not pay us back for "lend lease," they have never paid for the "marshall plan" which rebuilt their economies and societies from the ravages of wwii (which they started in europe and promoted in the pacific), and they have never paid their share of the united nations nor of n.a.t.o.  their soldiers for years wore hair nets on n.a.t.o. maneuvers, which tell you exactly their level of commitment to their own defense.  in short, for years europe had no defense budget to speak of, because they knew that america would pay in blood stopping the fucking russians at the fulda gap.

and, now, they pull this bullshit.

fuck 'em.  just fuck 'em.

john jay @ 12.18.2011

p.s.s.  and, it will be a very cold day in hell when the euro's ever come to our aid.  if i should live so long, the day the first damned french dollar/franc/euro comes rolling in to help us for flood, famine, pestilence, disease, disaster or attack, i will get down on my hands in knees on milton freewater's main street, and push a peanut down the center stripe for an entire city block, at high noon, to register my amazement at so singular an act of selfless friendship from the froggies.  i should live a million years.

p.s. this is how the last drop of blood, ... , er, money, is wrung out of the markets ...

it is called, with no small contemptuous irony, the "rally."

the market sags upon the news of debt and the likelihood of collapse, and then, there is an announcement of this plan or that plan, or an infusion of cash, and the market "recovers," with news of gains.

it is the rally.

and, it garners fresh cash, good money, as investors come back to the markets with the hope of continued gain.

and, so it goes, in a wave like progression of loss and gain, each cycle gaining new cash.  it makes little difference that the paper value of the stocks and other commodities goes up and down, that is simply not relevant in any sense compared to the money in the form of cash and liquidity that comes in.

and, with each cycle it is skimmed, and into the hands of those who control such matters.

related post:  http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2011/12/let-me-explain-how-the-collapse-of-the-euro-union-will-proceed-.html .

the rallies will go on until even the most pollyanna-ish of investors has had it, or, runs out of money.  when it reaches a point where such manipulations no longer can attract the fresh money, and it is close to that, as evidenced by the reluctance of anyone to buy government bonds, the whole thing will come to a screeching halt.  some will play, however, until the lights are turned out.

john jay @ 12.17.2011

p.s.  you have no doubt watched "the world series of poker," and other such televised pap.  you know what the real poker players call those amateurs attracted to such tournaments, those who play the side tables to become "qualifiers?"

they call them "hamburger."  that's what.

i don't know what those who sit in the chateau's call the rest of us.  i don't know the term for "peasants with money."   do you?