leroy

DMark:_________ Just wonderin (....by the way, the super looks great!!...). Why did ya decide to use a short trigger on this pistol? leroy

American Handgunner leroy

I'm like you. I would like to see the "adults" take their state back over. Let's hope they do. leroy

I hate to hear this; both for this policeman's family and the community. Have family in Chattnooga and pretty well know where this happened. Chattanooga (....and most other urban areas...) all have the same problem; codling criminals and putting them in time out. Prayers for the family. leroy

crash:_____________ RE: The displacement of metal with a swedging tool vs a hammered type tool (...like a punch or chisel (screwdriver?)...). In one of my former lives (...when i was working...) i spent quite a bit of time on the machining/fatigue of metal parts stuff. The problem is that when you put a divot that has a sharp edge in these hardened parts, it acts as a stress riser and can lead (...with lots of fatigue...) to cracking. That's why you see parts that are subjected to lots of stress machined, carefully radiused, and polished off in machines like rotors, armatures, bolts, etc. The problem aint the hammering; it's the sharp edge that can be left at the bottom of the divot (...or any sharp or square corner...) when you lock the part down by upsetting the metal. If ya have a round nose tool, hammmering doesnt seem to make any difference. The advantage to swedging is that it is more controlled than a hammer blow. Hope this helps a bit. leroy

Plus 1. I like this bag too. The maxpedition bag is about the same thing; both about the same price. This would be a great choice. I need to pick one up myself. leroy

Craig:______________ You have spoken a great truth here. The Glock design is, indeed, an "elegant" (... and i think greatest...) solution to the semiauto (...and other...) handgun problem that has been invented to date. This may be heresy to some; but I think Gaston Glock should be right up there on mount rushmore with J.M. Browning, Samuel Colt, and Messers. Smith and Wesson. As you have said; Mr Glock revolutionized the semiauto pistol and completely changed the approach to designing and building handguns with simplified operation, modular design, simplified parts manufacture, reasonable pricing, and legendary reliability. I believe that they are the best value in firearms today (...they are some artful copies that are close [...read Walther, Kahr, others...], but a bit more expensive...). All this from an old time colt and smith and wesson snob. I never would have believed that i would ever carry a "recycled plastic coke bottle" pistol in place of a smith or colt. I do now (...glock 33 or this 27...). I believe they are the best carry pistol out there. Now, to talk them into building "baby glock" single stack in 40 or 357 sig!. Thanks again for all the help. leroy (...junior apprentice glock armorer...)

I'm kinda like you, Mike. I'm tryin to figure out what is really going on here. This one is interesting. leroy

All:___________________ This is interesting stuff. Link here: Ill. Assn. of Chiefs of Police Support Legalizing Concealed Carry Proposal# Illinois and New York state were the "birthplace" of repressive handgun permit laws. It is, indeed, interesting that these guys have changed their minds. I never dreamed that Illinois would turn into a "shall issue" handgun permit state!! This is either a heinous April fool joke or some of the best news we've heard from the "rustbelt" in a long time. The Illinois house is 54/54 demorat/republican and 35/24 demorat/republican in the senate. This is interesting stuff!!! leroy

I like the Meadowview shows. Used to drive up from Knoxville on occasion to attend them. It seems to me that more individuals and shotgun guys are at that show than in Knoxville. I'm like lots of other folks here; i never go to these shows to see what the "usual vendors" have. It's always the same thing. leroy

You are exactly right. The vaquero has fixed sights; that being said, they normally shoot very well. Sometimes ya have to use a bit of "hold over or under (...depending on the load; light bullets low, heavy bullets high....)" for elevation; but they are generally good for windage. leroy

rod:______________ We got 'em both at my house. The blackhawk is nice because of the adjustable sights; but (...to confuse things more...) i like the vaquero because it has an all steel ejector rod housing and gripframe. That makes 'em balance better for me. The fact is ya cant go wrong with either one of them. They are great. I recommend collecting 'em all!!! Good luck and have fun. leroy

All:______________ Reservoir Dog was exactly right. The baby Glock had an olive new york spring. I traded out the trigger spring for a standard glock, changed the striker spring (...it looked just like the stock glock; probably was...), put in a ghost connector (...the one with the slots...), rubbed a bit on the striker/trigger bar mating parts, and put it all back together. You all will be proud to know i used a 3/32 hex wrench to push the pins (...couldnt find my brass 3/32 line up punches from the latest ar15 lower assembling job!!...). The trigger is much better now, still a tad on the heavy side, but is much smoother. The bigggest headache was removing and replacing the extended magazine release with as standard one (...i'm left handed, and the extended mag release was in the way...). Had to use a hooked pick to pull the spring out of the mag release slot. Thanks again for all the help. leroy (...newly initiated junior apprentice glock armorer...)

Bingo!! A great observaton; full of truth. Keep up the good work! leroy

All:_______________ Check this link out: Japan nuclear 'suicide squads' paid fortunes as 'battle is lost for reactor 2' | Mail Online Great pictures. I dont necessarily agree with the article and analysis; but the pictures show just how bad these plants were hit and damaged. leroy

Nuclear Fuel Services (...owned now by Babcock-Wilcox, the biggest builder of navy nuclear propulsion reactors; they may be the only ones --- i dont know....). They fabricate nuclear fuel (...not reprocess it---that being said; this may be a "semantics problem" ---see the next sentence ....). They do, however, take highly ennriched fuel (...bomb grade material from russia and elsewhere, i suspect, but dont know for sure...) and blend it to a "lower" level (...of enrichment...) for initial fuel for navy and other reactors. They dont do any spent fuel reprocessing (...that i know of....). This type fuel aint a big problem as far as radiation is concerned. It's the "spent fuel" that has been in the reactors and fissioned (...split into two lighter elements -- always radioactive...) that is the problem. When you hear of Iodine 131 and Cesium 135, Strontium 90, fallout, etc; that is a fission product in the spent fuel. Check out this link for more info on fission products: Some Physics of Uranium: Education: World Nuclear Association That's the fuel that is giving so much problem in the japenese reactors. You get all the nasty fission products (....stuff where the u235 or plutonium fuel has split...) that become radioactive from the fission and need to be cooled down for some time as well as shielded to keep down the radiation hazard. No one that i know of now reprocesses commercial nuclear fuel in the usa. They may reprocess some of the navy nuclear propulsion fuel at Savannah River; it seems i remember they used to; but i dont know about that for sure. The link for NFS is here:Nuclear Fuel Services | Home Interesting read on their website. Gives the "public" history of NFS. There is a "legend" that says that the initial fissionable material for the Israeli nuclear weapons program was spirited out of this very facility way back when. Of course, its just a legend, but it's a very interesting one. Hope this helps leroy

DMark:_____________ I like it!! Been thinkin about doin a "carry" 38 super myself. Can't wait to see the progress on this one. leroy

Hate to hear it!! Thanks for posting the link. leroy

All:________________ RE: The fuel reprocessing issue. It seems good ole USA quit reprocessing spent fuel in the Carter era (...imagine that!!...). We know how to reprocess spent fuel (...we did it at Hanford (...plutonium for the first bombs...)) and at Savannah River (...navy nuc fuel...). That greatest of American thinkers, Jimmy Carter wanted to stop "nuclear proliferation", and ordered the US to stop fuel reprocessing. It seems his concept didn't work; everybody else kept reprocessing their fuel (...looks like some of them used it for weapons...). Carter's idea didnt work ---think packistan, india, north korea, etc... It did accomplish one thing; all the commercial spent nuclear fuel generated by plants in the USA is laying around in spent fuel pits and in dry storage on individual plant sites (...i think...). That is not happening in lots of other countries. Re-prossessing would cut down tremendously on the volume of nasty stuff to strore. It would also reclaim some of the products (...plutonium and some u235...) for fuel. The biggest problem seems to be that no one wants a spent fuel processing plant in his neighborhood. Check this article out for some thoughts on the subject from that noted rag, the NYT: Is the solution to the U.S. nuclear waste problem in France? - NYTimes.com . By the way, since lots of other nations reprocess spent fuel (...they seem to be a bit smarter and more pragmatic than our "genius" Carter; and a bunch of other stupo and demigogue politicos...); mabee we can send our spent fuel to them and get them to reprocess it. Looks like everybody else that might need a bomb already has one. leroy

Mike, OS, Lumber_ and all:________________ Thanks for the kindness. I spent several years working on this stuff in both construction and plant maintenence. Got to work on some really interesting stuff. OS hit the real problem with nuclear power dead on the head here: The problem with the radwaste is the public perception as much as the technical "what to do". Folks are simply afraid of this stuff. That makes it a real political football. The guys at ORNL did a bunch of work on vitrification (...turning to glass...) of radwaste several years ago. There were also a bunch of tests of "in place vitrification" conducted if i remember right. I wonder how they turned out? Thanks again leroy

Mike, OS, and all:_______________ Here's a crack at answering some of the questions: Mikes question here: What did the "most damage"? The tsunami. As i remember they have revised the tsunami height upward to about 14 meters. The seawalls around the plant were about 6 or so meters. That means eight or so meters of water came over the wall. Thats about 25 or 26 feet high above the wall. I suspect this flooded everyting and swept all the transformer equipment and switchward stuff away. That did away with outside power. The diesel generators start up on loss of plant power and they evidently fired up when the earthquake hit. My guess is that the tsunami took them out due to flooding or damage to the fuel tanks. That shut them down. RE: The explosions. Under normal plant operation there is a gizmo called a "recombiner" that recombines the hydrogen and oxygen generated in the reactor and turns it back to cooling water to prevent just the kind of explosion that happened here. As i remember, the neutrons in the reactor make the cooling water dissassociate into hydrogen and oxygen as a normal part of reactor operation. The recombiner fixes that problem and "recombines" the two elements making them non-explosive. When the plant lost power, the "recombiner" shut down with everything else. The gasses in the reactor keep building up with no "recombiner" to fix the problem. The result is the explosion. RE: The question about the building damage due to the explosions. The explosions probably could not (...and did not...) damage the "real important" part of the building. The fuel pools and the areas around the steel containment vessel. The explosion just blew out the upper panels on the top of the reactor building and probably damaged the refueling crane. That's why they were'nt too concerned about the building. RE: The containment systems: This question: The containment is basically in three sections. The first is the structure called the reactor pressure vessel. They are round with hemispherical ends and are on the order of 5 or so inches thick. Built of the best high strength steel. Cladded with stainless steel on the inside. It holds the fuel bundles in place in the reactor and is the "tea pot" thru which the water is circulated to make steam for the turbine and cool the fuel after shutdown. The reactor pressure vessel is housed in a second containment (...along with piping, pumps, etc...). This is called the "containment vessel" This vessel looks like an upside down lightbulb (....look thru the old links, there are pictures, or just google "mark one containment" and you can probably find a picture...). This vessel is all steel (...again, the best high strength steel...) and is on the order of 1 1/2 to 2 inches thick. It contains an equipment airlock for access to get tools, fuel, parts, etc in thru. It also has several manways to get people in to access the reactor and work on equipment when the plant is off line. Connected with the containment vessel is a third structure that looks like a doughnut. It is made out of the same stuff as the containment vessel. It looks like a doughnut. It is called a "torus" or "suppression chamber". The arrangement of the torus with respect to the containment vessel kinda looks like a lightbulb setting above a doughnut with several heavy pipes connecting the two structures. The purpose of the torus is to condense (...suppress...) the reactor system steam if the unit trips under load. Steam from the reactor is diverted thru a set of valves and dumps into cool water in the torus and that takes the energy from the steam and condenses it. As you can imagine, that's a helluva operatrion. Lots of powerful jet forces and hammering during this operation. There are those (...and im inclined to believe them...) that believe that the rattling and rumbling they are hearing is from piping and valves torn loose during the continuous steam dump into the torus as the reactor cools down. I suspect you can also get hydrogen buildup here too, and there may have been an explosion withing the torus. I'm inclined to believe that the torus contained any explosion, and that the increased radioactivity in water found in the plant is comming from damaged instrument lines or bypass lines damaged in the quake. They are small in relation to the main steam and main coolant lines and pose no danger to overall loss of coolant; but they can dump quite a bit of water over time (...think garden hose size and smaller lines here...). The third feature of the reactor containment is the concrete building structure itself. Built "hell of stout" with tons of steel reinforcement and high strength concrete. It completely surrounds and encases the containment vessel and torus. Picture link from here: http://winterpatriot.com/files/images/GE%20Mk1%20Containment.jpg RE: The generators. If they could have kept the diesel generators running none of this would have likely happened. The diesel-generator system is the backup to the loss of outside power from the transmission line grid. That loss of power from outside plus the d-g sets being damaged basically caused this confligration. Hope this answers a few questions and explains things a bit. leroy

RE: OS question: An attempted answer in a couple of parts. Here they go: 1. The ground accelerations can be used to compute the forces on the individual components, supports, foundations, walls ...etc. ya get the picture. All plants are designed to a plant specific "design earthquake". That's what the "acceleration" stuff is about. This is how the individual components like the piping systems, cable trays, reactor vessels and supports (...interior and exterior...), containment vessels, structural steel, concrete structures, etc are designed within the plant structure. 2. The question about "...what if the plant sets directly on top or very near an earthquake upthrust or displacement?..." is a whole another story. If there is an "unthinkable design condition"; this is it; just like the "station blackout" thing. I was around this stuff quite a bit, and never saw any data on this condition. My guess (...and it is a guess...) is that the design approach is similar to the design of gravity dams (...think norris dam here, this wont work with earth fill dams...). Designers look for the overall stability of the structures. They are analyzed to determine if they will either stay, tip over, or slide as a unit; and are designed accordingly. That means if you get vertical displacement at (...or under...) the structure, the whole plant would either stay put (...what they really want...); slide as a unit, but stay in tact; or "teeter" or come out of plumb by leaning as a unit (...staying in tact...); but i dont know that for sure. The concept would appear to be the building of an "indestructable box" containing all the plant equipment that contains that equipment no matter what. Kinda like shaking your fist in God's Face (...ala Titanic...). I can tell ya the excavation and construction sequence for these plant foundations (...ive seen and worked on several...) The reactor and turbine building foundations are excavated into solid bedrock. They are notched into that rock some distance (...it seems that i remember excavations into rock greater than sixty feet; it depends on the characteristics of the rock...). Those foundation excavations are carefully inspected by geologists for any old faults (...cracks in the rock...) and, if they are clean, the foundation mat is poured. These "foundation mats" are full of very large reinforcing steel on about an 18" centers both ways and are poured in about five foot lifts using very high quality structural concrete. The foundation base mat for these plants was probably 25 or 30 feet below the base (...think basement floor -- the reactor supports set here...) of the reactor building. The idea is to make the plant foundation a monolith socketed into, but stronger than the bedrock on which it sets. The problem with what you are concerned about is that there is vertical displacement and shearing of the bedrock if the earthquake happens beneath your plant and the fault displacement or upthrust reaches the rock surface directly beneath the plant foundation(...many times it doesnt, it happens way down in the earth's crust...). I suspect some smart guys have (...or will...) finally look(ed) at a math model of some sort that takes into account what you are thinking about with regard to vertical displacement. My guess is that the massive weight of the foundation and the strength of the foundations would cause the buildings to move around like a building block scooting around as was described above. It will be interesting to watch what comes out of this with regard to revised design criteria for these plants. RE: Regarding the accuracy of my observations. Question one (1). I know that is how they do it. Question two (2). I DONT KNOW THE DETAILS, AND IVE NOT SEEN THEM PERSONALLY. I do now that the discussion about dam stability is the accepted approach for gravity dams; it would seem to fit for reactor buildings and turbine buildings as well. Hope this gives a bit of perspective and insight. That's why these things are so expensive to build. leroy

Hamilton Bowen. Bowen Classic Arms, Louisville, TN... leroy

Al:____________ I see now. My bet is that they will center it on the slide the best they can and hand it back to you. Then you tootle off and shoot to see if it needs a bit of adjustment. That's the problem with fixed sights. It may work for one shooter and not for another. leroy

Youall are killin me with this phone stuff. I need to get a new phone, and i'm on information overload. Dont know what to do: Android, Blackberry, I-Phone..... Way too much technology rush for us old guys. I guess i'll finally get one of the HTC phones if i can find one on sale. technologically challenged leroy