On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:11:24 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:41:04 AM UTC-5, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:04:52 AM UTC-5, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course counterexamples exist. But as I've said, I'm a big fan of normal curves
>> > intelligently interpreted. The data's very firm that more education normally leads
>> > to more accomplishments and more prosperity. Exceptions are relatively rare.
>> > Education also correlates strongly with more intelligence, which is no surprise.
>> >
>> > Very few correlations are 100 percent accurate with no exceptions. That doesn't
>> > mean we should say "ignore the data."
>> +1, Very well said, but I've worked with a number of very talented non-degreed engineering professionals who had the title of 'engineer'. I know it puts a thorn in some peoples paws that someone without an engineering degree has 'engineer' title, but it doesn't bother me one bit, due to the fact the fact that I've worked with so many degreed engineers who were absolutely pathetic (my department is burdened with one right now (and no tommy, it isn't me)).
>
>Sounds like we all agree that exceptions exist, but that they are exceptional.
>
>In my very first job as a plant engineer, the head of the department had only a two-year degree,
>but was very competent. My only complaint: He was a bit awed by my degrees and consequently
>was reluctant to give me guidance. I think I could have learned much more from him, if not for that
>reluctance.
>
>Certain other degreed engineers did slag him behind his back, in ways that were unfair and sometimes
>factually incorrect. I remember them particularly disliking when he diplomatically pointed out some serious
>factor they'd neglected to consider.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

The absolute top "dirt stiff" the company employed- a chap who
excavates and fills the location with dirt, which may seem like a
rather lowly task until you consider that it is the basis on which all
the other construction rests - had, at a maximum, an 8th grade
education, I remember him talking about being hired as a 14 years old
to operate a bulldozer.

But, of course, he also had, some 30 or 40 years of experience (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/11/2022 4:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy (popularly
> called 'inflation') and remembered your post above so I checked the NPV
> of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>
> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your average
> popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>
> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era was pricey.
> No wonder Louis sent muskets!

Circling back to (ahem) bicycles - and inflation. This may be a repeat
post, but:

Back around 1990 I was reading a historical novel set in San Francisco
about the time of their big earthquake. One character in the novel was
throwing a huge, lavish party to impress the upper crust folks. He was
spending $20 per plate!

Apparently that was a lot, so I got curious what that equated to in
current dollars. Now in 2022, one can easily find online inflation apps
to convert dollar values between years, but in those days they didn't
exist.

So I wrote one. It involved a fair amount of library research to find
the rates of inflation for each individual year. The program just
compounded those between the chosen years.

Eventually I used that program as a programming example in class. In the
class discussion that followed, it was interesting to investigate what
items had become cheaper in constant dollars and which had become more
expensive.

Well, one guy in our department was a multi-bike member of the Wheelmen,
those guys who restore and do parades, etc. on historic bikes. He asked
me to put in the original price of his 1880-something high wheeler, for
which he had paid dearly then restored.

While I don't remember the numbers, I remember he was a bit
disappointed. The original sticker price, when adjusted for inflation,
exactly matched the current appraised value of his rare antique bike.
IOW, its current rarity added nothing to its monetary value.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 10:52:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
> >>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
> >>>> Girandoni was rifled...
> >>>
> >>> It was rifled.
> >>>
> >>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
> >>
> >> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
> >> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
> >>
> >
> >I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
> >I have no idea.
> >
> >But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
> >William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
> >some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
> >midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
> >rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
> >circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
> >results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
> >our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
> >critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
> >rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
> >
> >18 April, 1775.
> >
> >* 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>
> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
> and far more versatile for use on the farm.

Yes the myth of Americans fighting with Kentucky Long Rifles is very rampant. Well known. Frontiersmen with their own rifled rifles (?) would pick off the English soldiers like snipers. And win the war. But when the military regiments lined up to fight each other on the battlefields in rows upon rows, they used cheap, plentiful muskets issued by their employer, the government army. And they mowed each other down by the thousands. So losing 10 soldiers to sniper rifles, isn't too comparable to losing 1000 soldiers to musket volleys.

A similar story persists for operation Barbarossa. Russian snipers. Generally women according to the stories I have seen. They were deadly, supposedly. But snipers killing a hundred or two hundred people does not compare much at all to the thousands, millions (?) of dead Russians and Germans on the eastern front. Who were killed by tanks, artillery, rifles, freezing cold, disease.

>
> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>
> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:04:52 PM UTC-6, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 5:18:00 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/10/2022 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >
> > > Certainly, not every "piece of paper" is equally valuable.
> > > And as John has noted, Meriwether Lewis had a college
> > > degree. Beyond that, he had what might be the equivalent of
> > > a Master's Degree, based on further independent study
> > > arranged by Thomas Jefferson.
> > >
> > > But Tom keeps implying degrees or even high school diplomas
> > > are of little value - a classic case of "sour grapes."
> > >
> > > Do you know someone who wants to fly the tilt rotor Osprey
> > > aircraft for the Marines? They need to start by getting
> > > their degree. Pay attention to 0:50 to 1:05 at
> > > https://www.yahoo.com/news/marine-pilots-fly-84-million-163600565.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Related: One of my favorite students had a lifetime ambition
> > > of flying for the Air Force - specifically, the huge
> > > transport planes at our local base. And indeed, within a few
> > > years of graduating, that's exactly what he was doing. (He
> > > was kind enough to give me a tour of our area in a much
> > > smaller plane to thank me.)
> > >
> > >
> > Well put but not dispositive. Goes both ways.
> >
> > Lear, of the first car radio, founder of Motorola and
> > developer of the LearJet had an 8th grade education. Counter
> > examples (degreed certified dolts) abound as well.
> Of course counterexamples exist. But as I've said, I'm a big fan of normal curves
> intelligently interpreted. The data's very firm that more education normally leads
> to more accomplishments and more prosperity. Exceptions are relatively rare.
> Education also correlates strongly with more intelligence, which is no surprise.

WHAT???????????
Are you saying smart people are educated? Shocker!!!!!!!!!!!
Although, I guess, that does explain Tommy boy pretty well.

>
> Very few correlations are 100 percent accurate with no exceptions. That doesn't
> mean we should say "ignore the data."
>
> - Frank Krygowski

On 2/11/2022 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 4:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement
>> policy (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your
>> post above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>
>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>>
>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>
> Circling back to (ahem) bicycles - and inflation. This may
> be a repeat post, but:
>
> Back around 1990 I was reading a historical novel set in San
> Francisco about the time of their big earthquake. One
> character in the novel was throwing a huge, lavish party to
> impress the upper crust folks. He was spending $20 per plate!
>
> Apparently that was a lot, so I got curious what that
> equated to in current dollars. Now in 2022, one can easily
> find online inflation apps to convert dollar values between
> years, but in those days they didn't exist.
>
> So I wrote one. It involved a fair amount of library
> research to find the rates of inflation for each individual
> year. The program just compounded those between the chosen
> years.
>
> Eventually I used that program as a programming example in
> class. In the class discussion that followed, it was
> interesting to investigate what items had become cheaper in
> constant dollars and which had become more expensive.
>
> Well, one guy in our department was a multi-bike member of
> the Wheelmen, those guys who restore and do parades, etc. on
> historic bikes. He asked me to put in the original price of
> his 1880-something high wheeler, for which he had paid
> dearly then restored.
>
> While I don't remember the numbers, I remember he was a bit
> disappointed. The original sticker price, when adjusted for
> inflation, exactly matched the current appraised value of
> his rare antique bike. IOW, its current rarity added nothing
> to its monetary value.
>

Factor in 100 years of bicycle use (or rental fees) and he
still has the equity! Not a bad deal at all!

in re debasement of the currency- Inflation calculators
supply 'average' rates but in so many things, particulars
vary a great deal. Note the ingenious William Norhaus'
economic study of the declining cost to light a room

https://lucept.com/2014/11/04/william-nordhaus-the-historic-cost-of-light/

And I assume some components have steps or reversals such as
restaurants, which have lower raw product cost (with higher
quality and greater selection) but higher all-in labor cost
and serious structural regulatory inefficiencies which must
be priced into your meal as well.

I do use the various online simple calculators but for any
given product they can be way off, none more than comparing
a $15 in 1962 Princess WE telephone to a $1000 modern
walk-around telephone.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/11/2022 6:49 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 10:52:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>>>>>
>>>>> It was rifled.
>>>>>
>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
>>> I have no idea.
>>>
>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>>>
>>> 18 April, 1775.
>>>
>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>>
>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>
> Yes the myth of Americans fighting with Kentucky Long Rifles is very rampant. Well known. Frontiersmen with their own rifled rifles (?) would pick off the English soldiers like snipers. And win the war. But when the military regiments lined up to fight each other on the battlefields in rows upon rows, they used cheap, plentiful muskets issued by their employer, the government army. And they mowed each other down by the thousands. So losing 10 soldiers to sniper rifles, isn't too comparable to losing 1000 soldiers to musket volleys.
>
> A similar story persists for operation Barbarossa. Russian snipers. Generally women according to the stories I have seen. They were deadly, supposedly. But snipers killing a hundred or two hundred people does not compare much at all to the thousands, millions (?) of dead Russians and Germans on the eastern front. Who were killed by tanks, artillery, rifles, freezing cold, disease.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>>
>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

Well done, Mr Seaton.
All that's true and not in conflict.

American long rifles were indeed superior but rifles and
riflemen were never voluminous enough to change the outcome
except in small-unit skirmishes such as Lexington.

The Red Army did indeed produce very skilled and effective
women snipers in large numbers. But as you note Stalingrad,
where the war turned, was a battle of logistics and
attrition, decided by starvation and cold as much as armor
and tactics.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>>>>>
>>>>> It was rifled.
>>>>>
>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
>>> I have no idea.
>>>
>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>>>
>>> 18 April, 1775.
>>>
>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
>>
>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>>
>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>>
>> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>>
>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
>>
>
>I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
>(popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>
>Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>
>So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>
>Typical selections:
>https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>
>https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>
>where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
>below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000

I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually gave some thought
to doing it as a business after I left the Military, and "back then",
say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights was in the $200
range. And, disregarding my Military pay and allowances, I was making
$10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)

Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your reference above, my
grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a "deer rifle" and
killed his one deer a year under his license (and sometimes two if
the Game Warden was down at the other end of the state) and had one
packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been using for
something like 10 years.

Which might say something about AR-15's, and other shoot em up,
bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:15:14 PM UTC-6, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:53:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >And a comment on Human Factors: There was probably no technical need to
> >make the gun look so much like a flintlock, or to have a fake "cock" or
> >flint holder swinging forward and down. But if soldiers were used to
> >flintlocks, that feature of the air rifle probably aided training.
>
> Design is most commonly evolutionary and rarely revolutionary. In
> other words, a new design tends to build on the old design that it
> attempts to replace. In this case, the 1780 Girandoni prototype was
> probably built from components borrowed from the muskets of the day.
> While the internal pneumatic mechanisms were certainly different, the
> design and placement of the stock, barrel, sighting, breech, etc were
> "good enough" to be used in their original forms. For example, the
> 20/22 shot loader was borrowed directly from "harmonica" guns,
> invented in 1742:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=harmonica+rifle&tbm=isch>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonica_gun>
>
> I don't think training was the most important consideration. What was
> important was to sell the air rifle. The military of the day was
> highly conservative and not particularly receptive to making major
> changes of any kind. It was much like the early machine guns, which
> were declared useless by the military because it wasted ammunition.

I've read stories about the US Army back in the late 1860s, 1870s, 1880s, when looking for a new issue gun for the soldiers. They were not receptive to the new multi shot rifles such as the Winchester lever action rifle (Model 1866, 1873, 1876, etc.) of the late 1860s, 1870s. Because if a soldier had more than one bullet, he would shoot too often and waste bullets. The Civil War era rifled musket began in the 1850s. It was used up until 1872 when the single shot .45 caliber trap door rifle became the standard issue US Army rifle. Single Shot. Then in 1903 the bolt action Springfield became the standard issue. And was used in WW1. Until the M1 Garand semi auto came to be in 1936 and used in WW2.

> Making the air rifle look like something familiar had the advantage of
> making it appear to be a minor improvement to the existing rifle
> rather than a radical redesign hidden inside. However, that would
> only get the air rifle to testing and trials, where the differences
> and limitations would soon be evident. Before soldiers can be trained
> to use any kind of weapon system, the military needs to decide how the
> weapon is to be used.

This brings up kind of a humorous, ironic point. It wasn't until after WW2 I believe when the scholars and educated people studied things, that they realized the key ingredient to winning a battle was number of shots fired. More shots fired, more chance of winning. Germany in WW2 may have been the first ones to realize this concept. They developed many sophisticated machine guns that fired 1200 rounds a minute. Buzzsaw was their nickname. More bullets better. Everyone else caught on later. Just fire bullets in the air. In the Vietnam war we had helicopters flying over the jungle with machine gunners hanging out the sides firing bullets at the jungle. Not that it helped the US win the Vietnam war. But I suspect if you looked at the casualty totals for all involved in the Vietnam war, a lot more north Vietnamese soldiers were killed than US or south Vietnamese soldiers. But in that war the number of dead wasn't the deciding factor for determining a victor.

This was a major problem with early machine
> guns, tanks, airplanes, and just about every revolutionary
> technological improvement. When first introduced, officers had no
> idea how these were to be used and had to do quite a bit of
> experimentation before a functional system was contrived. Once that
> was established, then the training can begin.
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 10:00:38 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 5:44:07 PM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 6:33:14 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 4:04:06 PM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 5:37:58 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > > On 2/9/2022 6:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > > > On 2/9/2022 4:11 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > >> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > > >>> On 2/9/2022 3:02 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 12:09:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> On 2/9/2022 2:20 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 9:49:00 AM UTC-8, Frank
> > > > > >>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> On 2/9/2022 12:32 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 9:24:08 AM UTC-8, Frank
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2022 12:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 6:31:18 PM UTC-8, Frank
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Krygowski wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 15:52:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2022 2:16 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 6:10:25 PM UTC-6, John B.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 12:03:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2022 9:22 AM, Tim R wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 3:24:24 PM UTC-5,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 13:52:24 -0600, AMuzi
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > snippity snip snip snip
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> You do realize that Frank considers Lewis and Clark stupid bumbling idiots because they didn't have college educations.
> > > > > >> Simply being able to do it is not a sign of intelligence to Frank. He needs a piece of paper saying that he is intelligent
> > > > > >> to qualify as competent.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That reminds me of a great bicycle story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was great friends with Angel Rodriguez for many years. A Certain
> > > > > > Person, a minor Midwest framebuilder of no great success, walked in,
> > > > > > touting his 'Framebuilder Certification' program with certificate - at a
> > > > > > fee. Angel, who was the 3d largest tandem builder then, with a long
> > > > > > waiting list for his beautiful (& expensive) tandems, bit his lip,
> > > > > > opened the cash register, threw several over-$1000 checks on the photo
> > > > > > copier, handed the copy to that gentleman and said "Here's my
> > > > > > certificate. You can leave now."
> > > > > Certainly, not every "piece of paper" is equally valuable. And as John
> > > > > has noted, Meriwether Lewis had a college degree. Beyond that, he had
> > > > > what might be the equivalent of a Master's Degree, based on further
> > > > > independent study arranged by Thomas Jefferson.
> > > > >
> > > > > But Tom keeps implying degrees or even high school diplomas are of
> > > > > little value - a classic case of "sour grapes."
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you know someone who wants to fly the tilt rotor Osprey aircraft for
> > > > > the Marines? They need to start by getting their degree. Pay attention
> > > > > to 0:50 to 1:05 at
> > > > > https://www.yahoo.com/news/marine-pilots-fly-84-million-163600565..html
> > > > >
> > > > > Related: One of my favorite students had a lifetime ambition of flying
> > > > > for the Air Force - specifically, the huge transport planes at our local
> > > > > base. And indeed, within a few years of graduating, that's exactly what
> > > > > he was doing. (He was kind enough to give me a tour of our area in a
> > > > > much smaller plane to thank me.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > - Frank Krygowski
> > > > To become an officer in the USA military, the person must have a bachelor's degree from a college. You cannot be a member of rank in the USA military without a college degree. Enlisted people are required to have a high school degree or a GED. I am not sure Tommy qualifies to be in the military.
> > > Tell us when you were in the Military Russell. If you haven't why are you speaking about it as if you knew something? Most military officers attend the appropriate military academy such as West Point, Annapolis or United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. If you think that an officer is going to get anywhere with some Podunk college degree you couldn't be more wrong.
> > John F Kennedy, Harvard graduate, Lieutenant Navy, President of USA
> Tell me Russy, do you think that the President is a commissioned officer? Do you know the difference between a Lieutenant and a Captain in the Navy?

No Tommy, the President of the USA is not a commissioned officer of any military. I am pretty sure when Andrew Jackson, and Ulysses Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower became President, they were not serving in the military as generals. You cannot be both. Which is why we have laws, rules, that restrict the secretary of war to being not a military person. Although Congress can pass exemptions. As they did for the current one. In the USA, we do not want a military person running the military. We want to keep control of the military separate from the military itself. The person running the military must be a civilian.

I merely pointed out JFK was a Harvard university graduate, with a college degree, before he became a Navy Lieutenant. And then President a few years later. A simple, easy contradiction of your LIE that read "If you think that an officer is going to get anywhere with some Podunk college degree you couldn't be more wrong." Look above and you can see your LIE in print. You wrote that LIE.

On 2/11/2022 8:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/11/2022 4:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement
>>> policy (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your
>>> post above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>>
>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>>>
>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>
>> Circling back to (ahem) bicycles - and inflation. This may
>> be a repeat post, but:
>>
>> Back around 1990 I was reading a historical novel set in San
>> Francisco about the time of their big earthquake. One
>> character in the novel was throwing a huge, lavish party to
>> impress the upper crust folks. He was spending $20 per plate!
>>
>> Apparently that was a lot, so I got curious what that
>> equated to in current dollars. Now in 2022, one can easily
>> find online inflation apps to convert dollar values between
>> years, but in those days they didn't exist.
>>
>> So I wrote one. It involved a fair amount of library
>> research to find the rates of inflation for each individual
>> year. The program just compounded those between the chosen
>> years.
>>
>> Eventually I used that program as a programming example in
>> class. In the class discussion that followed, it was
>> interesting to investigate what items had become cheaper in
>> constant dollars and which had become more expensive.
>>
>> Well, one guy in our department was a multi-bike member of
>> the Wheelmen, those guys who restore and do parades, etc. on
>> historic bikes. He asked me to put in the original price of
>> his 1880-something high wheeler, for which he had paid
>> dearly then restored.
>>
>> While I don't remember the numbers, I remember he was a bit
>> disappointed. The original sticker price, when adjusted for
>> inflation, exactly matched the current appraised value of
>> his rare antique bike. IOW, its current rarity added nothing
>> to its monetary value.
>>
>
> Factor in 100 years of bicycle use (or rental fees) and he still has the
> equity! Not a bad deal at all!
>
>
> in re debasement of the currency- Inflation calculators supply 'average'
> rates but in so many things, particulars vary a great deal. Note the
> ingenious William Norhaus' economic study of the declining cost to light
> a room
>
> https://lucept.com/2014/11/04/william-nordhaus-the-historic-cost-of-light/
>
> And I assume some components have steps or reversals such as
> restaurants, which have lower raw product cost (with higher quality and
> greater selection)  but higher all-in labor cost and serious structural
> regulatory inefficiencies which must be priced into your meal as well.
>
> I do use the various online simple calculators but for any given product
> they can be way off, none more than comparing a $15 in 1962 Princess WE
> telephone to a $1000 modern walk-around telephone.

Regarding prices and inflation, one of the things a student asked about
was a Ford Mustang. I could look up the numbers, which I don't remember,
but IIRC a current Mustang was considerably more expensive than an early
one. The car's price had outpaced inflation by quite a bit.

But! As with the phones you mentioned, it's not the same product at all.
The original Mustang was about as sophisticated as a ball peen hammer.
The current one has much more sophisticated engine, transmission,
suspension, brakes, electronics, occupant protection, etc. It's faster,
safer, less polluting and probably gets better gas mileage.

I think in general, products that have remained unchanged (basic foods,
most raw materials, and, um, ball peen hammers) have dropped in price in
terms of constant dollars.

In fact, I think if you took a typical middle American family in 1965
and time-transported them to the home of a typical 2022 middle American
family, they'd guess they were in the abode of some wealthy
high-technology mogul.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
>>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
>>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was rifled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
>>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
>>>> I have no idea.
>>>>
>>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
>>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
>>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
>>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
>>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
>>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
>>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
>>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
>>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>>>>
>>>> 18 April, 1775.
>>>>
>>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
>>>
>>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
>>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
>>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
>>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
>>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>>>
>>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
>>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
>>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>>>
>>> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
>>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
>>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
>>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
>>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
>>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
>>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
>>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
>>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
>>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>>>
>>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
>>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
>>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
>>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
>>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
>>>
>>
>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>
>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>>
>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>
>> Typical selections:
>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>>
>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>>
>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
>
> I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually gave some thought
> to doing it as a business after I left the Military, and "back then",
> say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights was in the $200
> range. And, disregarding my Military pay and allowances, I was making
> $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
>
> Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your reference above, my
> grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a "deer rifle" and
> killed his one deer a year under his license (and sometimes two if
> the Game Warden was down at the other end of the state) and had one
> packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been using for
> something like 10 years.
>
> Which might say something about AR-15's, and other shoot em up,
> bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
>

Wrong.
We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times over
the years. My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my
..38 Police Special revolver. Both are faster than
girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester vintage lever, but not
by all that much. None of those are magic lead-spraying
pew-pew-pew television weapons.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 5:05:38 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 1:38:55 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
> > >>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
> > >>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It was rifled.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
> > >>>
> > >>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S..
> > >>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
> > >> I have no idea.
> > >>
> > >> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
> > >> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
> > >> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
> > >> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
> > >> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
> > >> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
> > >> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
> > >> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
> > >> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
> > >> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
> > >>
> > >> 18 April, 1775.
> > >>
> > >> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
> > >
> > > Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
> > > seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
> > > read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
> > > doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
> > > seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
> > >
> > > But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
> > > requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
> > > and far more versatile for use on the farm.
> > >
> > > Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
> > > rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
> > > Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
> > > the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
> > > exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
> > > 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
> > > a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
> > > in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
> > > Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
> > > elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
> > >
> > > Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
> > > revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
> > > Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
> > > estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
> > > French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
> > >
> >
> > I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
> > (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
> > above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
> >
> > Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
> > average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
> >
> > So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
> > was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
> >
> > Typical selections:
> > https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
> >
> > https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
> >
> > where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
> > below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
> Very few people can shoot a rifle. Fewer still a pistol. I don't remember much about my pistols but I must have shot a lot.

Tommy, you really need to see a specialist in mental problems. You state you don't remember much but I must have shot a lot. That sounds very similar to the idiot who crashes his car into a ditch saying he is a great driver..

Regarding shooting a rifle or pistol. Guns are very, very, very easy to shoot. Shooting them accurately from any sort of distance does require training, skill, and repetitive experience. But almost anyone can shoot them. And accuracy isn't really too important either. A man's torso is about 2 feet by 3 feet. 6 square feet. Filled with lots of vital organs. So from about 0 inches up to about 20 feet, it is very easy to hit a torso. And maybe, probably, likely kill said torso. Its somewhat easy.

I have half a closet full of hand loads. Enough that it would come back inside of one shot or two. But rifles are another thing altogether. I shoot rifles in the long range sniper category. My father always had rifles of all sorts around so unlike most people I never thought of them as anything other than a tool. My youngest brother was only alive during the time when my father was crippled with emphysema so he never knew anything about guns. He never went into the service so he never had any experience with them and he is afraid of guns. Maybe now that he is living in Nevada someone will teach him about them. I guess all of those hand loads were around because I had some really high end pistols that wouldn't explode with the highest loads possible. These are so hot that they are really rifle loads.
>
> The latest M1B is a .308. I prefer A 30-06 but it is such a long round that it takes too big a magazine and they were always loaded with clips. They are now making an NATO rifle chambered for a .308 that looks very much like an AR-15. Called an AR-4. These are VERY different from the military version. The military version no longer is fully automatic unless you're in a special mode. Now because they eat ammo so rapidly they are burst fire as a normal condition. Try holding a burst fire .308 on a target and you'll know why they use .223 AR-14s I also like the latest semiauto combat shotguns. 10 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. And then 20 minutes for the barrel to cool down. Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting people like Flunky and all of his close friends at the gay bath houses.

On 2/11/2022 8:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
>>>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement
>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was rifled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
>>>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same
>>>>>> period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
>>>>> I have no idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
>>>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
>>>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
>>>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>>>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured.  They took a
>>>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
>>>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
>>>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
>>>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
>>>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>>>>>
>>>>> 18 April, 1775.
>>>>>
>>>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
>>>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
>>>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
>>>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
>>>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>>>>
>>>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
>>>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
>>>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
>>>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
>>>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
>>>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
>>>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
>>>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
>>>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
>>>> in Allentown in 1772.  And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
>>>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
>>>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
>>>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
>>>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
>>>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
>>>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
>>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>>
>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>>>
>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>>
>>> Typical selections:
>>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>>>
>>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>>>
>>>
>>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
>>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
>>
>> I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually gave some thought
>> to doing it as a business after I left the Military, and "back then",
>> say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights was in the $200
>> range. And, disregarding my Military pay and allowances, I was making
>> $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
>>
>> Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your reference above, my
>> grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a "deer rifle" and
>> killed his one deer a year under his license (and sometimes two  if
>> the Game Warden was down at the other end of the state) and had one
>> packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been using for
>> something like 10 years.
>>
>> Which might say something about AR-15's, and other shoot em up,
>> bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
>>
>
> Wrong.
> We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times over the years.
> My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my .38 Police Special
> revolver. Both are faster than girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester
> vintage lever, but not by all that much.  None of those are magic
> lead-spraying pew-pew-pew television weapons.

38 Police Special: "pew pew pew pew pew pew" and slowly
reload.

Typical AR15: "pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew
pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew."

You know, for hunting.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:13:08 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 6:49 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 10:52:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
> >>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
> >>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was rifled.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
> >>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
> >>> I have no idea.
> >>>
> >>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
> >>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
> >>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
> >>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
> >>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
> >>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
> >>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
> >>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
> >>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
> >>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
> >>>
> >>> 18 April, 1775.
> >>>
> >>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
> >> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
> >> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
> >> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
> >> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
> >> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
> >>
> >> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
> >> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
> >> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
> >
> > Yes the myth of Americans fighting with Kentucky Long Rifles is very rampant. Well known. Frontiersmen with their own rifled rifles (?) would pick off the English soldiers like snipers. And win the war. But when the military regiments lined up to fight each other on the battlefields in rows upon rows, they used cheap, plentiful muskets issued by their employer, the government army. And they mowed each other down by the thousands. So losing 10 soldiers to sniper rifles, isn't too comparable to losing 1000 soldiers to musket volleys.
> >
> > A similar story persists for operation Barbarossa. Russian snipers. Generally women according to the stories I have seen. They were deadly, supposedly. But snipers killing a hundred or two hundred people does not compare much at all to the thousands, millions (?) of dead Russians and Germans on the eastern front. Who were killed by tanks, artillery, rifles, freezing cold, disease.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
> >> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
> >> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
> >> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
> >> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
> >> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
> >> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
> >> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
> >> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
> >> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
> >>
> >> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
> >> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
> >> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
> >> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
> >> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> Well done, Mr Seaton.
> All that's true and not in conflict.
>
> American long rifles were indeed superior but rifles and
> riflemen were never voluminous enough to change the outcome
> except in small-unit skirmishes such as Lexington.

One of the other "problems" with rifles at the time in battle was the time and effort it took to reload them. A rifled rifle took more time and effort to push the slug down the bore. While a smooth bore musket could be reloaded and shot about 3 times per minute I believe. Volume of fire was important even back then.

>
> The Red Army did indeed produce very skilled and effective
> women snipers in large numbers. But as you note Stalingrad,
> where the war turned, was a battle of logistics and
> attrition, decided by starvation and cold as much as armor
> and tactics.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:34:45 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 8:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/11/2022 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 2/11/2022 4:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement
> >>> policy (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your
> >>> post above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
> >>>
> >>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
> >>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
> >>>
> >>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
> >>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
> >>
> >> Circling back to (ahem) bicycles - and inflation. This may
> >> be a repeat post, but:
> >>
> >> Back around 1990 I was reading a historical novel set in San
> >> Francisco about the time of their big earthquake. One
> >> character in the novel was throwing a huge, lavish party to
> >> impress the upper crust folks. He was spending $20 per plate!
> >>
> >> Apparently that was a lot, so I got curious what that
> >> equated to in current dollars. Now in 2022, one can easily
> >> find online inflation apps to convert dollar values between
> >> years, but in those days they didn't exist.
> >>
> >> So I wrote one. It involved a fair amount of library
> >> research to find the rates of inflation for each individual
> >> year. The program just compounded those between the chosen
> >> years.
> >>
> >> Eventually I used that program as a programming example in
> >> class. In the class discussion that followed, it was
> >> interesting to investigate what items had become cheaper in
> >> constant dollars and which had become more expensive.
> >>
> >> Well, one guy in our department was a multi-bike member of
> >> the Wheelmen, those guys who restore and do parades, etc. on
> >> historic bikes. He asked me to put in the original price of
> >> his 1880-something high wheeler, for which he had paid
> >> dearly then restored.
> >>
> >> While I don't remember the numbers, I remember he was a bit
> >> disappointed. The original sticker price, when adjusted for
> >> inflation, exactly matched the current appraised value of
> >> his rare antique bike. IOW, its current rarity added nothing
> >> to its monetary value.
> >>
> >
> > Factor in 100 years of bicycle use (or rental fees) and he still has the
> > equity! Not a bad deal at all!
> >
> >
> > in re debasement of the currency- Inflation calculators supply 'average'
> > rates but in so many things, particulars vary a great deal. Note the
> > ingenious William Norhaus' economic study of the declining cost to light
> > a room
> >
> > https://lucept.com/2014/11/04/william-nordhaus-the-historic-cost-of-light/
> >
> > And I assume some components have steps or reversals such as
> > restaurants, which have lower raw product cost (with higher quality and
> > greater selection) but higher all-in labor cost and serious structural
> > regulatory inefficiencies which must be priced into your meal as well.
> >
> > I do use the various online simple calculators but for any given product
> > they can be way off, none more than comparing a $15 in 1962 Princess WE
> > telephone to a $1000 modern walk-around telephone.
> Regarding prices and inflation, one of the things a student asked about
> was a Ford Mustang. I could look up the numbers, which I don't remember,
> but IIRC a current Mustang was considerably more expensive than an early
> one. The car's price had outpaced inflation by quite a bit.

Since you brought up Mustangs. Back in the early 1980s, I remember having a conversation with a friend in the basement, next to the pool table my parents bought for us kids (Yeah!!!!!), about whether we would want a Camaro Z28 or a Mustang. Both were the sports car of the day. I have since forgotten which of these cars we liked and why. But they were sort of obtainable sports cars at the time.

>
> But! As with the phones you mentioned, it's not the same product at all.
> The original Mustang was about as sophisticated as a ball peen hammer.
> The current one has much more sophisticated engine, transmission,
> suspension, brakes, electronics, occupant protection, etc. It's faster,
> safer, less polluting and probably gets better gas mileage.
>
> I think in general, products that have remained unchanged (basic foods,
> most raw materials, and, um, ball peen hammers) have dropped in price in
> terms of constant dollars.
>
> In fact, I think if you took a typical middle American family in 1965
> and time-transported them to the home of a typical 2022 middle American
> family, they'd guess they were in the abode of some wealthy
> high-technology mogul.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

On 2/11/2022 7:19 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:15:14 PM UTC-6, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:53:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And a comment on Human Factors: There was probably no technical need to
>>> make the gun look so much like a flintlock, or to have a fake "cock" or
>>> flint holder swinging forward and down. But if soldiers were used to
>>> flintlocks, that feature of the air rifle probably aided training.
>>
>> Design is most commonly evolutionary and rarely revolutionary. In
>> other words, a new design tends to build on the old design that it
>> attempts to replace. In this case, the 1780 Girandoni prototype was
>> probably built from components borrowed from the muskets of the day.
>> While the internal pneumatic mechanisms were certainly different, the
>> design and placement of the stock, barrel, sighting, breech, etc were
>> "good enough" to be used in their original forms. For example, the
>> 20/22 shot loader was borrowed directly from "harmonica" guns,
>> invented in 1742:
>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=harmonica+rifle&tbm=isch>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonica_gun>
>>
>> I don't think training was the most important consideration. What was
>> important was to sell the air rifle. The military of the day was
>> highly conservative and not particularly receptive to making major
>> changes of any kind. It was much like the early machine guns, which
>> were declared useless by the military because it wasted ammunition.
>
> I've read stories about the US Army back in the late 1860s, 1870s, 1880s, when looking for a new issue gun for the soldiers. They were not receptive to the new multi shot rifles such as the Winchester lever action rifle (Model 1866, 1873, 1876, etc.) of the late 1860s, 1870s. Because if a soldier had more than one bullet, he would shoot too often and waste bullets. The Civil War era rifled musket began in the 1850s. It was used up until 1872 when the single shot .45 caliber trap door rifle became the standard issue US Army rifle. Single Shot. Then in 1903 the bolt action Springfield became the standard issue. And was used in WW1. Until the M1 Garand semi auto came to be in 1936 and used in WW2.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Making the air rifle look like something familiar had the advantage of
>> making it appear to be a minor improvement to the existing rifle
>> rather than a radical redesign hidden inside. However, that would
>> only get the air rifle to testing and trials, where the differences
>> and limitations would soon be evident. Before soldiers can be trained
>> to use any kind of weapon system, the military needs to decide how the
>> weapon is to be used.
>
> This brings up kind of a humorous, ironic point. It wasn't until after WW2 I believe when the scholars and educated people studied things, that they realized the key ingredient to winning a battle was number of shots fired. More shots fired, more chance of winning. Germany in WW2 may have been the first ones to realize this concept. They developed many sophisticated machine guns that fired 1200 rounds a minute. Buzzsaw was their nickname. More bullets better. Everyone else caught on later. Just fire bullets in the air. In the Vietnam war we had helicopters flying over the jungle with machine gunners hanging out the sides firing bullets at the jungle. Not that it helped the US win the Vietnam war. But I suspect if you looked at the casualty totals for all involved in the Vietnam war, a lot more north Vietnamese soldiers were killed than US or south Vietnamese soldiers. But in that war the number of dead wasn't the deciding factor for determining a victor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This was a major problem with early machine
>> guns, tanks, airplanes, and just about every revolutionary
>> technological improvement. When first introduced, officers had no
>> idea how these were to be used and had to do quite a bit of
>> experimentation before a functional system was contrived. Once that
>> was established, then the training can begin.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
>> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
>> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Your late 1800s issue list skipped the very successful 1892
Krag.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/11/2022 7:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 8:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/11/2022 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2022 4:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement
>>>> policy (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your
>>>> post above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>>>
>>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>>>>
>>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>>
>>> Circling back to (ahem) bicycles - and inflation. This may
>>> be a repeat post, but:
>>>
>>> Back around 1990 I was reading a historical novel set in San
>>> Francisco about the time of their big earthquake. One
>>> character in the novel was throwing a huge, lavish party to
>>> impress the upper crust folks. He was spending $20 per
>>> plate!
>>>
>>> Apparently that was a lot, so I got curious what that
>>> equated to in current dollars. Now in 2022, one can easily
>>> find online inflation apps to convert dollar values between
>>> years, but in those days they didn't exist.
>>>
>>> So I wrote one. It involved a fair amount of library
>>> research to find the rates of inflation for each individual
>>> year. The program just compounded those between the chosen
>>> years.
>>>
>>> Eventually I used that program as a programming example in
>>> class. In the class discussion that followed, it was
>>> interesting to investigate what items had become cheaper in
>>> constant dollars and which had become more expensive.
>>>
>>> Well, one guy in our department was a multi-bike member of
>>> the Wheelmen, those guys who restore and do parades, etc. on
>>> historic bikes. He asked me to put in the original price of
>>> his 1880-something high wheeler, for which he had paid
>>> dearly then restored.
>>>
>>> While I don't remember the numbers, I remember he was a bit
>>> disappointed. The original sticker price, when adjusted for
>>> inflation, exactly matched the current appraised value of
>>> his rare antique bike. IOW, its current rarity added nothing
>>> to its monetary value.
>>>
>>
>> Factor in 100 years of bicycle use (or rental fees) and he
>> still has the equity! Not a bad deal at all!
>>
>>
>> in re debasement of the currency- Inflation calculators
>> supply 'average' rates but in so many things, particulars
>> vary a great deal. Note the ingenious William Norhaus'
>> economic study of the declining cost to light a room
>>
>> https://lucept.com/2014/11/04/william-nordhaus-the-historic-cost-of-light/
>>
>>
>> And I assume some components have steps or reversals such
>> as restaurants, which have lower raw product cost (with
>> higher quality and greater selection)Â but higher all-in
>> labor cost and serious structural regulatory
>> inefficiencies which must be priced into your meal as well.
>>
>> I do use the various online simple calculators but for any
>> given product they can be way off, none more than
>> comparing a $15 in 1962 Princess WE telephone to a $1000
>> modern walk-around telephone.
>
> Regarding prices and inflation, one of the things a student
> asked about was a Ford Mustang. I could look up the numbers,
> which I don't remember, but IIRC a current Mustang was
> considerably more expensive than an early one. The car's
> price had outpaced inflation by quite a bit.
>
> But! As with the phones you mentioned, it's not the same
> product at all. The original Mustang was about as
> sophisticated as a ball peen hammer. The current one has
> much more sophisticated engine, transmission, suspension,
> brakes, electronics, occupant protection, etc. It's faster,
> safer, less polluting and probably gets better gas mileage.
>
> I think in general, products that have remained unchanged
> (basic foods, most raw materials, and, um, ball peen
> hammers) have dropped in price in terms of constant dollars.
>
> In fact, I think if you took a typical middle American
> family in 1965 and time-transported them to the home of a
> typical 2022 middle American family, they'd guess they were
> in the abode of some wealthy high-technology mogul.
>

Good point and great example.
https://www.ford.com/suvs/mach-e/

I agree with you about commodities too.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
> >>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
> >>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It was rifled.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S..
> >>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
> >>>> I have no idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
> >>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
> >>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
> >>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
> >>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
> >>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
> >>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
> >>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
> >>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
> >>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
> >>>>
> >>>> 18 April, 1775.
> >>>>
> >>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
> >>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
> >>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
> >>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
> >>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
> >>>
> >>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
> >>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
> >>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
> >>>
> >>> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
> >>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
> >>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
> >>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
> >>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
> >>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
> >>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
> >>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
> >>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
> >>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
> >>>
> >>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
> >>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
> >>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
> >>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
> >>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
> >> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
> >> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
> >>
> >> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
> >> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
> >>
> >> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
> >> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
> >>
> >> Typical selections:
> >> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
> >>
> >> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
> >>
> >> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
> >> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
> >
> > I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually gave some thought
> > to doing it as a business after I left the Military, and "back then",
> > say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights was in the $200
> > range. And, disregarding my Military pay and allowances, I was making
> > $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
> >
> > Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your reference above, my
> > grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a "deer rifle" and
> > killed his one deer a year under his license (and sometimes two if
> > the Game Warden was down at the other end of the state) and had one
> > packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been using for
> > something like 10 years.
> >
> > Which might say something about AR-15's, and other shoot em up,
> > bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
> >
> Wrong.
> We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times over
> the years. My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my
> .38 Police Special revolver. Both are faster than
> girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester vintage lever, but not
> by all that much. None of those are magic lead-spraying
> pew-pew-pew television weapons.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Your AR-15 has a 20 or 30 shot magazine. Most likely .223 Remington or NATO ammunition. Your Police Special has 6 shots. The 5 shot S&W only became common fairly recently. The lever action likely has a 7 or 8 or 9 round tube fed ammo holding system. So roughly the AR-15 has 5 times the revolver capacity and 4 times the rifle capacity. You can easily fire two shots per second. Bang-bang. Thats one second. Maybe you can even fire three rounds per second.

At the June 12, 2016 Orlando Florida mass shooting at a GAY nightclub, a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle (it is an AR-15) and a Glock 17 semi auto pistol were used. 49 people killed, 53 wounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Weapons
"In less than five minutes, Mateen had fired approximately 200 rounds, pausing only to reload." That works out to a little more than 40 rounds per minute. One and a half seconds per shot. Not too fast I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MCX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Glock_17

It wasn't until October 2017, a whole year and 3 months later, that Orlando lost its crown as the biggest mass shooting in US history. That is when the Las Vegas concert killer used the bump stock device on his AR-15 rifles to kill 60 and wound 411.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Weaponry
"Paddock was found to have fired a total of 1,058 rounds from fifteen of the firearms: 1,049 from twelve AR-15-style rifles, eight from two AR-10-style rifles, and the round used to kill himself from the Smith & Wesson revolver."

On 2/11/2022 8:37 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
>>>>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
>>>>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was rifled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
>>>>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
>>>>>> I have no idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
>>>>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
>>>>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
>>>>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>>>>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
>>>>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
>>>>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
>>>>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
>>>>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
>>>>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 18 April, 1775.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
>>>>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
>>>>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
>>>>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
>>>>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
>>>>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
>>>>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
>>>>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
>>>>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
>>>>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
>>>>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
>>>>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
>>>>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
>>>>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
>>>>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
>>>>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
>>>>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
>>>>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
>>>>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
>>>>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
>>>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>>>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>>>
>>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>>>>
>>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>>>
>>>> Typical selections:
>>>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>>>>
>>>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
>>>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
>>>
>>> I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually gave some thought
>>> to doing it as a business after I left the Military, and "back then",
>>> say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights was in the $200
>>> range. And, disregarding my Military pay and allowances, I was making
>>> $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
>>>
>>> Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your reference above, my
>>> grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a "deer rifle" and
>>> killed his one deer a year under his license (and sometimes two if
>>> the Game Warden was down at the other end of the state) and had one
>>> packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been using for
>>> something like 10 years.
>>>
>>> Which might say something about AR-15's, and other shoot em up,
>>> bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
>>>
>> Wrong.
>> We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times over
>> the years. My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my
>> .38 Police Special revolver. Both are faster than
>> girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester vintage lever, but not
>> by all that much. None of those are magic lead-spraying
>> pew-pew-pew television weapons.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> Your AR-15 has a 20 or 30 shot magazine. Most likely .223 Remington or NATO ammunition. Your Police Special has 6 shots. The 5 shot S&W only became common fairly recently. The lever action likely has a 7 or 8 or 9 round tube fed ammo holding system. So roughly the AR-15 has 5 times the revolver capacity and 4 times the rifle capacity. You can easily fire two shots per second. Bang-bang. Thats one second. Maybe you can even fire three rounds per second.
>
> At the June 12, 2016 Orlando Florida mass shooting at a GAY nightclub, a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle (it is an AR-15) and a Glock 17 semi auto pistol were used. 49 people killed, 53 wounded.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Weapons
> "In less than five minutes, Mateen had fired approximately 200 rounds, pausing only to reload." That works out to a little more than 40 rounds per minute. One and a half seconds per shot. Not too fast I guess.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MCX
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Glock_17
>
> It wasn't until October 2017, a whole year and 3 months later, that Orlando lost its crown as the biggest mass shooting in US history. That is when the Las Vegas concert killer used the bump stock device on his AR-15 rifles to kill 60 and wound 411.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Weaponry
> "Paddock was found to have fired a total of 1,058 rounds from fifteen of the firearms: 1,049 from twelve AR-15-style rifles, eight from two AR-10-style rifles, and the round used to kill himself from the Smith & Wesson revolver."
>

meh.

And every day (more than usual this week) there are multiple
stabbings and sword/machete murders.

https://www.wate.com/news/sword-attack-in-indiana-leaves-2-dead-1-wounded/

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Sword-wielding-man-shot-by-New-Braunfels-police-16836088.php

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 8:04:05 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 7:19 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:15:14 PM UTC-6, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:53:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> And a comment on Human Factors: There was probably no technical need to
> >>> make the gun look so much like a flintlock, or to have a fake "cock" or
> >>> flint holder swinging forward and down. But if soldiers were used to
> >>> flintlocks, that feature of the air rifle probably aided training.
> >>
> >> Design is most commonly evolutionary and rarely revolutionary. In
> >> other words, a new design tends to build on the old design that it
> >> attempts to replace. In this case, the 1780 Girandoni prototype was
> >> probably built from components borrowed from the muskets of the day.
> >> While the internal pneumatic mechanisms were certainly different, the
> >> design and placement of the stock, barrel, sighting, breech, etc were
> >> "good enough" to be used in their original forms. For example, the
> >> 20/22 shot loader was borrowed directly from "harmonica" guns,
> >> invented in 1742:
> >> <https://www.google.com/search?q=harmonica+rifle&tbm=isch>
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonica_gun>
> >>
> >> I don't think training was the most important consideration. What was
> >> important was to sell the air rifle. The military of the day was
> >> highly conservative and not particularly receptive to making major
> >> changes of any kind. It was much like the early machine guns, which
> >> were declared useless by the military because it wasted ammunition.
> >
> > I've read stories about the US Army back in the late 1860s, 1870s, 1880s, when looking for a new issue gun for the soldiers. They were not receptive to the new multi shot rifles such as the Winchester lever action rifle (Model 1866, 1873, 1876, etc.) of the late 1860s, 1870s. Because if a soldier had more than one bullet, he would shoot too often and waste bullets. The Civil War era rifled musket began in the 1850s. It was used up until 1872 when the single shot .45 caliber trap door rifle became the standard issue US Army rifle. Single Shot. Then in 1903 the bolt action Springfield became the standard issue. And was used in WW1. Until the M1 Garand semi auto came to be in 1936 and used in WW2.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Making the air rifle look like something familiar had the advantage of
> >> making it appear to be a minor improvement to the existing rifle
> >> rather than a radical redesign hidden inside. However, that would
> >> only get the air rifle to testing and trials, where the differences
> >> and limitations would soon be evident. Before soldiers can be trained
> >> to use any kind of weapon system, the military needs to decide how the
> >> weapon is to be used.
> >
> > This brings up kind of a humorous, ironic point. It wasn't until after WW2 I believe when the scholars and educated people studied things, that they realized the key ingredient to winning a battle was number of shots fired. More shots fired, more chance of winning. Germany in WW2 may have been the first ones to realize this concept. They developed many sophisticated machine guns that fired 1200 rounds a minute. Buzzsaw was their nickname. More bullets better. Everyone else caught on later. Just fire bullets in the air. In the Vietnam war we had helicopters flying over the jungle with machine gunners hanging out the sides firing bullets at the jungle. Not that it helped the US win the Vietnam war. But I suspect if you looked at the casualty totals for all involved in the Vietnam war, a lot more north Vietnamese soldiers were killed than US or south Vietnamese soldiers. But in that war the number of dead wasn't the deciding factor for determining a victor.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This was a major problem with early machine
> >> guns, tanks, airplanes, and just about every revolutionary
> >> technological improvement. When first introduced, officers had no
> >> idea how these were to be used and had to do quite a bit of
> >> experimentation before a functional system was contrived. Once that
> >> was established, then the training can begin.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> >> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> >> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> >> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
> Your late 1800s issue list skipped the very successful 1892
> Krag.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Correct. Sorry. Although I am not sure you can correctly describe the Krag as "very successful". It was the official Army rifle for 11 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Model_1892%E2%80%9399
"With the Krag's replacement with the Mauser-derived M1903, the rifle is tied for the shortest service life of any standard-issue firearm in US military history (1892–1903)."

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:05:36 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 1:38:55 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
>> >>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
>> >>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It was rifled.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>> >>>
>> >>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
>> >>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
>> >> I have no idea.
>> >>
>> >> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
>> >> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
>> >> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
>> >> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>> >> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
>> >> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
>> >> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
>> >> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
>> >> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
>> >> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>> >>
>> >> 18 April, 1775.
>> >>
>> >> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
>> >
>> > Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
>> > seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
>> > read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
>> > doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
>> > seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>> >
>> > But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
>> > requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
>> > and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>> >
>> > Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
>> > rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
>> > Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
>> > the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
>> > exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
>> > 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
>> > a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
>> > in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
>> > Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
>> > elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>> >
>> > Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
>> > revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
>> > Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
>> > estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
>> > French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
>> >
>>
>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>
>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>>
>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>
>> Typical selections:
>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>>
>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>>
>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
>
>Very few people can shoot a rifle. Fewer still a pistol. I don't remember much about my pistols but I must have shot a lot. I have half a closet full of hand loads. Enough that it would come back inside of one shot or two. But rifles are another thing altogether. I shoot rifles in the long range sniper category. My father always had rifles of all sorts around so unlike most people I never thought of them as anything other than a tool. My youngest brother was only alive during the time when my father was crippled with emphysema so he never knew anything about guns. He never went into the service so he never had any experience with them and he is afraid of guns. Maybe now that he is living in Nevada someone will teach him about them. I guess all of those hand loads were around because I had some really high end pistols that wouldn't explode with the highest loads possible. These are so hot that they are really rifle loads.
>
Goodness Gracious! But I read that there are some 20 million target
shooters in the U.S.
https://www.nssf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Target-Shooting-in-America-Economic-Impact-report-2018zip.pdf
Silly me. I hadn't realized that 20 million was "very few".

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 8:51:22 p.m. UTC-5, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:13:08 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/11/2022 6:49 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 10:52:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
> > >>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
> > >>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It was rifled.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
> > >>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
> > >>> I have no idea.
> > >>>
> > >>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
> > >>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
> > >>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
> > >>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
> > >>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
> > >>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
> > >>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
> > >>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
> > >>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
> > >>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
> > >>>
> > >>> 18 April, 1775.
> > >>>
> > >>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
> > >> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
> > >> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
> > >> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
> > >> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
> > >> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
> > >>
> > >> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
> > >> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
> > >> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
> > >
> > > Yes the myth of Americans fighting with Kentucky Long Rifles is very rampant. Well known. Frontiersmen with their own rifled rifles (?) would pick off the English soldiers like snipers. And win the war. But when the military regiments lined up to fight each other on the battlefields in rows upon rows, they used cheap, plentiful muskets issued by their employer, the government army. And they mowed each other down by the thousands. So losing 10 soldiers to sniper rifles, isn't too comparable to losing 1000 soldiers to musket volleys.
> > >
> > > A similar story persists for operation Barbarossa. Russian snipers. Generally women according to the stories I have seen. They were deadly, supposedly. But snipers killing a hundred or two hundred people does not compare much at all to the thousands, millions (?) of dead Russians and Germans on the eastern front. Who were killed by tanks, artillery, rifles, freezing cold, disease.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
> > >> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
> > >> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
> > >> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
> > >> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
> > >> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
> > >> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
> > >> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
> > >> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
> > >> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
> > >>
> > >> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
> > >> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
> > >> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
> > >> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
> > >> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
> > >> --
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> John B.
> > Well done, Mr Seaton.
> > All that's true and not in conflict.
> >
> > American long rifles were indeed superior but rifles and
> > riflemen were never voluminous enough to change the outcome
> > except in small-unit skirmishes such as Lexington.
> One of the other "problems" with rifles at the time in battle was the time and effort it took to reload them. A rifled rifle took more time and effort to push the slug down the bore. While a smooth bore musket could be reloaded and shot about 3 times per minute I believe. Volume of fire was important even back then.
> >
> > The Red Army did indeed produce very skilled and effective
> > women snipers in large numbers. But as you note Stalingrad,
> > where the war turned, was a battle of logistics and
> > attrition, decided by starvation and cold as much as armor
> > and tactics.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Then the hollow base rifle bullet was invented. The bullet slid as easily if not easier down the barrel than a round ball did and upon firing the rifle the hollow base expanded to form a tight seal on the rifling. I use such slugs in my .50 caliber percussion cap Hawken rifle. It made quite the difference in speeding up reloading time.

Cheers

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 9:37:50 p.m. UTC-5, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
Snipped
> Your AR-15 has a 20 or 30 shot magazine. Most likely .223 Remington or NATO ammunition. Your Police Special has 6 shots. The 5 shot S&W only became common fairly recently. The lever action likely has a 7 or 8 or 9 round tube fed ammo holding system. So roughly the AR-15 has 5 times the revolver capacity and 4 times the rifle capacity. You can easily fire two shots per second. Bang-bang. Thats one second. Maybe you can even fire three rounds per second.
Snipped

You cab tape two 30 rounds AR15 magazines together with the openings opposite each other. With that setup you can easily change the magazine in a second or two at the most.

Cheers

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:19:50 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:15:14 PM UTC-6, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:53:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >And a comment on Human Factors: There was probably no technical need to
>> >make the gun look so much like a flintlock, or to have a fake "cock" or
>> >flint holder swinging forward and down. But if soldiers were used to
>> >flintlocks, that feature of the air rifle probably aided training.
>>
>> Design is most commonly evolutionary and rarely revolutionary. In
>> other words, a new design tends to build on the old design that it
>> attempts to replace. In this case, the 1780 Girandoni prototype was
>> probably built from components borrowed from the muskets of the day.
>> While the internal pneumatic mechanisms were certainly different, the
>> design and placement of the stock, barrel, sighting, breech, etc were
>> "good enough" to be used in their original forms. For example, the
>> 20/22 shot loader was borrowed directly from "harmonica" guns,
>> invented in 1742:
>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=harmonica+rifle&tbm=isch>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonica_gun>
>>
>> I don't think training was the most important consideration. What was
>> important was to sell the air rifle. The military of the day was
>> highly conservative and not particularly receptive to making major
>> changes of any kind. It was much like the early machine guns, which
>> were declared useless by the military because it wasted ammunition.
>
>I've read stories about the US Army back in the late 1860s, 1870s, 1880s, when looking for a new issue gun for the soldiers. They were not receptive to the new multi shot rifles such as the Winchester lever action rifle (Model 1866, 1873, 1876, etc.) of the late 1860s, 1870s. Because if a soldier had more than one bullet, he would shoot too often and waste bullets. The Civil War era rifled musket began in the 1850s. It was used up until 1872 when the single shot .45 caliber trap door rifle became the standard issue US Army rifle. Single Shot. Then in 1903 the bolt action Springfield became the standard issue. And was used in WW1. Until the M1 Garand semi auto came to be in 1936 and used in WW2.
>

There is a story, I believe attributed to Julian Hatcher about a
fore-runner of the Garand which used a "luger" like folding breach
block. Apparently in test firing, by a General Officer, the folding
block knocked his hat off and that was the reason that the design was
turned down
https://tinyurl.com/3y7cc4p2

>> Making the air rifle look like something familiar had the advantage of
>> making it appear to be a minor improvement to the existing rifle
>> rather than a radical redesign hidden inside. However, that would
>> only get the air rifle to testing and trials, where the differences
>> and limitations would soon be evident. Before soldiers can be trained
>> to use any kind of weapon system, the military needs to decide how the
>> weapon is to be used.
>
>This brings up kind of a humorous, ironic point. It wasn't until after WW2 I believe when the scholars and educated people studied things, that they realized the key ingredient to winning a battle was number of shots fired. More shots fired, more chance of winning. Germany in WW2 may have been the first ones to realize this concept. They developed many sophisticated machine guns that fired 1200 rounds a minute. Buzzsaw was their nickname. More bullets better. Everyone else caught on later. Just fire bullets in the air. In the Vietnam war we had helicopters flying over the jungle with machine gunners hanging out the sides firing bullets at the jungle. Not that it helped the US win the Vietnam war. But I suspect if you looked at the casualty totals for all involved in the Vietnam war, a lot more north Vietnamese soldiers were killed than US or south Vietnamese soldiers. But in that war the number of dead wasn't the deciding factor for determining a victor.

I hate to squish a really good stories but cartridges per kill is
basically an exercise in logistics.

No one ever, at least no one that was ever actually in combat, ever
though it was. And yes, I do know some people that spent considerable
time in combat and yes, they generally do like automatic weapons but
not because they thought that just firing off a lot of bullets results
in some sort of mystical kill ratio but rather that when you are
scared s--tless and your hands are shaking you have a better chance of
hitting the guy.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:35:18 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
>>>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
>>>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was rifled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
>>>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
>>>>> I have no idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
>>>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
>>>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
>>>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>>>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
>>>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
>>>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
>>>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
>>>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
>>>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>>>>>
>>>>> 18 April, 1775.
>>>>>
>>>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
>>>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
>>>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
>>>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
>>>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>>>>
>>>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
>>>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
>>>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
>>>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
>>>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
>>>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
>>>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
>>>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
>>>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
>>>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
>>>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
>>>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
>>>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
>>>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
>>>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
>>>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
>>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>>
>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>>>
>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>>
>>> Typical selections:
>>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>>>
>>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>>>
>>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
>>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
>>
>> I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually gave some thought
>> to doing it as a business after I left the Military, and "back then",
>> say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights was in the $200
>> range. And, disregarding my Military pay and allowances, I was making
>> $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
>>
>> Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your reference above, my
>> grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a "deer rifle" and
>> killed his one deer a year under his license (and sometimes two if
>> the Game Warden was down at the other end of the state) and had one
>> packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been using for
>> something like 10 years.
>>
>> Which might say something about AR-15's, and other shoot em up,
>> bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
>>
>
>Wrong.
>We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times over
>the years. My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my
>.38 Police Special revolver. Both are faster than
>girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester vintage lever, but not
>by all that much. None of those are magic lead-spraying
>pew-pew-pew television weapons.

I do hear what you are saying and agree in principal but still, I read
stories about people going to the range with their - whatever - and a
whole ammo box full of "bullets" and shooting them all.

A .30 Winchester? A 30-30? Aren't they still being made?
Oh Yes, same speed as a revolver? That's 8 shots in 1 second, or 480
rounds/minute (:-),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM
--
Cheers,

John B.