Salt!!!!!

Page 1 of 2  
The salt grinder stopped working so I took it apart and found it was all choked up with caked salt. I got that out with a chisel (not a good one) and used the Dremel to clean and buff the metal parts as well as sanding the inside of the wooden body which I then polyurethaned to stop ufure adhesaion. I washed in water the tools (not the Dremel motor but the collet and so on), dried them then sprayed with CRC (=WD40). Ten days later - thick rust and the little wire brush had almos corroded away to nothing. Scary stuff. Nothing good or irreplaceable damaged though
--
Just a smile. Just a glance.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Mackie wrote:

Sorry to have to tell you this, but IME poylurinstain won't stand up to salt. I had a pretzel platter that got eaten.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kill, spam wrote:

Blow. The inside of the grinder came unfinished. I reasoned that the water from the salt was being drawn into the wood as humidity bounced up and down, causing it to form a solid cake inside the grinder. I'll see how it goes. We live in generally moderate to high humidity here.
--
Just a smile. Just a glance.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So Don, ;~) you mention "Scary Stuff". Are you talking about the salt and water that rusted your tools or the CRC?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Both! I was just amazed that what I thought was careful washing, drying and application of hydrocarbon didn't get rid of the stuff... Do you think grease woudl have done any better? Or vaseline?
--
Just a smile. Just a glance.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Mackie wrote:

I've been told by a number of people that WD-40 contains water - most recently when the lock on my shop door had frozen and I mentioned to the neighbor whose torch I was borrowing that I intended to dose the lock with WD-40 as soon as I could get inside. He told me to use regular oil because the water content of the WD-40 would worsen the freezing problem.
Anyone here on the wreck know more about this?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
M-16 functioning in actual field conditions.
--
Nahmie
Those who know the least will always know it the loudest.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Norm Crow writes:

Probably not. It's 50 years old and the M16 isn't. Should have stuck with the M1, but evidently it's easier to teach troops to use a hose than to aim and shoot.
Charlie Self I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

The M1 was a good rifle (provided that your thumb maintained a friendly relationship with the bolt :-) but was heavy (11.6 pounds with ling and bayonet, IIRC). The M-16 is a lot lighter, packs more of a whollop, and as you noted has a selector switch. Seems to me that the .223 ammo is considerably lighter, too - although I'm not sure.
When the M16 came out, I traded in a .45 "grease gun". Talk about a no-aim hose...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm not up on this stuff much, anymore. Ron Magen prolly knows the straight dope.
I'm thinking, without looking it up, that the M-1 had more foot pounds per round than the M-16.
The M-16 could throw more lead, faster.
I like a 1903-A3, myself but it calls for a more leisurely approach to things.
I'm still a little pissed of that they gave up on the 1911 sidearm.
That .45 was a heavy hitter and, if you weren't all that accurate with it, the sumbitch was heavy enough to club the enemy to death.
Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) (Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:56:55 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:

Gramps (Coast Artillery Corps & duty in the Philippines during the Morrow uprising said the Army changed to the .45 cause the dudes would wrap themselves in ripped up bed sheets and keep coming at you with their swords, and the .38 wouldn't do much to stop 'em, but the .45 would knock them on their arse, sheets and all.
--
-Doug


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn responds:

It was the Moros, but otherwise right on the nose with what I was told.
Charlie Self I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I thank you, Thomas.
While I don't know everything, I can make a few valid comments . . . all though sufficient ones have probably already been made.
The 'best battle implement' M-1 {per Gen. G.S, Patton} uses the same 30-06 round as the venerable '03. Typically, .30 caliber Military 'Ball Ammunition' has a 180 grain bullet with an MV {muzzle velocity} of 2700fps and a ME {muzzle energy} of 2910 ft/lbs.
The .223 cartridge - present metric military designation is 5.56mm - is much lighter at 56 grains, with a MV of 3250fps and a ME of 1320ft/lbs.
That says it in a nutshell - along with the simple equation Energy equals Mass times Velocity which will give the energy at range {discounting factors such as bullet drop, sectional density, etc.}
For background - read the following, or stop here.
A 'direct comparison of effectiveness' is not really valid - each was developed for different times, and different functions. The 30 caliber, 30-06 round was developed from the 30-40 Krag cartridge and the 1903 rifle was 'developed' from the stronger German Mauser action. This was a period where Accuracy of shooting was of primary concern and the 'Generals' believed that rapid fire would 'waste ammunition'. {It is also an old saying that 'Generals/Armies always prepare to fight the last war' }The development of the machine gun in WWI punctured that balloon !! However, at the beginning of WWII the 1903-A3 was 'on the line' along with the M-1 {The Marines were probably the last to be changed over - rent the B&W movie 'Guadalcanal Diary', and read 'From Here to Eternity' }. All services still adhered to the doctrine of identifying the target and AIMING.
The M-16 was developed from the Stoner ARMALITE civilian rifle. The Army actually turned Stoner down, which is why it was first offered to the 'commercial' marketplace. It was actually an Air Force General {SAC ?}who purchased some for airbase protection that started the military 'investment'. By the time Viet Nam started 'warming up', the long range {1,000 yards +}, accurate shooting 30-06 - and later adoption & re-designation of the slightly shorter & 'softer shooting' .308 Winchester to 7.62mm, was found un-necessary in the close-quarter jungle fire fights. Also Doctrine had changed. Other than for Snipers {.308 Remington Mod 700 action based rifles}the ability to lay down 'massed area fire' has replaced selecting individual targets. Therefore, the ability to CARRY a LOT of ammunition, with an 'effective range' of less than 300 meters {maybe 100 meters?}, and a lighter & 'handier' weapon, now has primary importance.
Just as a 'by-the-by' a Military round is NOT designed to KILL - but to 'incapacitate'. It takes much more personnel to save, move, and care for an injured man, then to simply 'remove' him. Of course, in this time of 'Martyr Brigades' and 'Suicide Bomber's ' I wonder how much 'care' is given . . . other than when the cameras are rolling.
Regards, Ron Magen Backyard Boatshop

SNIP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
One small nit in an otherwise accurate summary:

The development of the .308 was a step on the way to the .223. The goal of the .308 was to duplicate 30-06 ballistics in a smaller case, enabling a soldier to carry more rounds and making a shorter action in the firearm, which would allow for more reliable fully automatic fire. Due to the quirks of interior ballistics a .308 firing the same bullet at the same velocity as a 30-06 has *higher* felt recoil thanks to greater chamber pressure.
Most of the old military rifles had hardwood stocks, some actually had quite nice wood until the armory and the troops soaked them with cosmoline and gun oil. Gun oil, even if purchased from Denmark, doesn't really give a Danish oil type finish.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Douglass writes:

Never heard of a Marine Corps armory soaking a stock in cosmoline or gun oil. We sure as hell spent more time than I liked rubbing raw linseed oil into the stocks at Parris Island. Takes forever to get a high gloss--required, though. No BLO allowed until later, which saved some time but was an absolutely awful finish for something that got banged, scraped and rained on with too great frequency.
Charlie Self I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And a tiny nit in your nit. The chamber pressure is an indirect cause. The shorter barrel length results in a shorter bullet acceleration time and a higher & narrower energy impulse delivered to the gun, which gives the higher felt recoil. If the gun is also lighter than the 30-06 (I don't know) this will also contribute to a higher recoil.
Art
"Tim Douglass" wrote in message ...

[snip]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You are quite right that either a shorter barrel or lighter rifle will increase felt recoil (in fact a lighter rifle increases the real free recoil energy), but, bearing in mind that I'm not a ballistician (nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), what I understand is the thing between the .308 and 30-06 is that for exactly the same bullet weight, barrel length and muzzle velocity the .308 will generate a faster rise in the pressure curve which causes the recoil to *feel* greater. The total free recoil energy (area under the curve) is identical but the shape of the curve is quite different. You can create the same difference in felt recoil by using faster or slower burning powder as well. In loading for an older friend of mine I use as slow a powder as I can get away with because it flattens the pressure curve and takes some of the edge off the recoil.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ron Magen wrote:

Should read "150 grain bullet".
-Bruce

SNIP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson wrote:

I think the big incentive came from the fact that 9mm ammo is cheaper, and you can get more of it into the magazine. 15 rounds vs. seven, plus all the pussy Europeans were using it, so we had to follow suit.
I miss my 1911. (No, I wasn't in the military. I bought a civilian version as my first handgun, when I turned 21...) That thing was fun as hell to shoot, and used to scare everyone at the range half to death to boot. Nothing like walking up with my .45 while everybody else is plinking with nines and 22s. Ping, poot, bang, KA-BLAM! Heads turn... "What the hell was THAT?"
Ah, the days when I could afford to piss away 40 cents every time I pulled the trigger.
Those things just aren't economical unless you reload, and I never got into reloading. I wound up selling it. I wish I hadn't. :(
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Silvan wrote:

I like my .45, but for a serious weapon I think the AR-10 beats the M-16 hollow.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.