For this price oughta get two or three...
 

On 1/14/2015 12:09 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:22:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/14/2015 10:57 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:52:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/14/2015 10:47 AM, John H wrote:
On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 4:04:54 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:46:24 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/13/2015 2:27 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:33:36 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/13/15 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:42:04 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

https://www.classicfirearms.com/heritage-rough-rider-revolver6shotrr22b6?utm_source=Classic+Firearms&ut m_campaign=f0627d4f42-MailChimp_2015-01-12_DelTonRuger&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_afe48e0 3d8-f0627d4f42-239338633

Shoot, it's even pretty!

That is a good price. I understand my Colt Frontier Scout might be
worth $400-500 with the box and the book.


One of my Virginia buddies has one of those, but his came with an extra
cylinder in .22 mag. Nice shooter. Don't much like manipulating the
loading gate and fiddling with the empty shells, but that's something I
don't like on all SA revolvers.

It is a very old technology. I don't like the tube magazine like you
have in the LE but to each his own.

I probably would not have bought this gun if it was more than $100 but
it was a deal I couldn't refuse.
The same guy sold me a 1911 springfield for $100 but he changed his
mind and I let him have it back.

Every collector should have at least one of these puppies.

https://www.classicfirearms.com/vmac...toelectrnickel

I'll bet this sentence, in the description, gave Luddite one of those, you know, erection thingys.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Dumbass me. Forgot to include the sentence: "Electroless nickel is an autocatalytic chemical reduction process that deposits a nickel-phosphorus alloy in a uniformly hard, highly protective finish."

Seems like that alone ought to be worth $400.



Electroless nickel plating has been around for decades. Old technology
and not environmentally friendly. Still, it's cheap and is commonly
used for many plating requirements, including plating of plastics.


I'm sure that's true. but the average VMAC .45 Pistol buyer probably doesn't know that. And you have
to admit, it's a great sounding sentence.


I am not knocking it. It's used extensively in industry although
becoming less common due to environmental reasons and the costs of
dealing with hazardous chemicals.

Vacuum deposited thin films have replaced many conventional plating
technologies but the initial capital equipment costs are much higher.
At one time vacuum deposited thin films could not be used for complex, 3
dimensional objects because the "coating" vapor was line of sight.
That has changed due to improved deposition methods and uniform
coatings can be deposited on almost any surface or configuration.

Plating (both electroless nickel and conventional electroplating)
results in a fairly thick film that can be prone to flaking off,
especially if the substrate surface isn't prepared properly. You can
see that in many plated objects ... older chrome car bumpers, nickel
plated brass fixtures for boats, etc. Coating by vacuum deposition is
a much higher energy level process that can actually "drive" molecules
of material into the object being coated.

You've taken my off the wall comment much more seriously than was intended, but I appreciate the
info.



I know. I just like to blab about one of the few things I know
something about sometimes.

For this price oughta get two or three...
 

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 12:20:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/14/2015 12:09 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:22:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/14/2015 10:57 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:52:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/14/2015 10:47 AM, John H wrote:
On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 4:04:54 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:46:24 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/13/2015 2:27 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:33:36 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/13/15 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:42:04 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

https://www.classicfirearms.com/heritage-rough-rider-revolver6shotrr22b6?utm_source=Classic+Firearms&ut m_campaign=f0627d4f42-MailChimp_2015-01-12_DelTonRuger&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_afe48e0 3d8-f0627d4f42-239338633

Shoot, it's even pretty!

That is a good price. I understand my Colt Frontier Scout might be
worth $400-500 with the box and the book.


One of my Virginia buddies has one of those, but his came with an extra
cylinder in .22 mag. Nice shooter. Don't much like manipulating the
loading gate and fiddling with the empty shells, but that's something I
don't like on all SA revolvers.

It is a very old technology. I don't like the tube magazine like you
have in the LE but to each his own.

I probably would not have bought this gun if it was more than $100 but
it was a deal I couldn't refuse.
The same guy sold me a 1911 springfield for $100 but he changed his
mind and I let him have it back.

Every collector should have at least one of these puppies.

https://www.classicfirearms.com/vmac...toelectrnickel

I'll bet this sentence, in the description, gave Luddite one of those, you know, erection thingys.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Dumbass me. Forgot to include the sentence: "Electroless nickel is an autocatalytic chemical reduction process that deposits a nickel-phosphorus alloy in a uniformly hard, highly protective finish."

Seems like that alone ought to be worth $400.



Electroless nickel plating has been around for decades. Old technology
and not environmentally friendly. Still, it's cheap and is commonly
used for many plating requirements, including plating of plastics.


I'm sure that's true. but the average VMAC .45 Pistol buyer probably doesn't know that. And you have
to admit, it's a great sounding sentence.


I am not knocking it. It's used extensively in industry although
becoming less common due to environmental reasons and the costs of
dealing with hazardous chemicals.

Vacuum deposited thin films have replaced many conventional plating
technologies but the initial capital equipment costs are much higher.
At one time vacuum deposited thin films could not be used for complex, 3
dimensional objects because the "coating" vapor was line of sight.
That has changed due to improved deposition methods and uniform
coatings can be deposited on almost any surface or configuration.

Plating (both electroless nickel and conventional electroplating)
results in a fairly thick film that can be prone to flaking off,
especially if the substrate surface isn't prepared properly. You can
see that in many plated objects ... older chrome car bumpers, nickel
plated brass fixtures for boats, etc. Coating by vacuum deposition is
a much higher energy level process that can actually "drive" molecules
of material into the object being coated.

You've taken my off the wall comment much more seriously than was intended, but I appreciate the
info.



I know. I just like to blab about one of the few things I know
something about sometimes.


===

Have you ever thought about starting another company? My youngest
son's father-in-law has started a bunch and still sits on the boards
of some of them. Being a successful entrepreneur is a real talent all
by itself.

For this price oughta get two or three...
 

On 1/14/2015 1:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 12:20:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/14/2015 12:09 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:22:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/14/2015 10:57 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:52:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/14/2015 10:47 AM, John H wrote:
On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 4:04:54 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:46:24 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/13/2015 2:27 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:33:36 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/13/15 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:42:04 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

https://www.classicfirearms.com/heritage-rough-rider-revolver6shotrr22b6?utm_source=Classic+Firearms&ut m_campaign=f0627d4f42-MailChimp_2015-01-12_DelTonRuger&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_afe48e0 3d8-f0627d4f42-239338633

Shoot, it's even pretty!

That is a good price. I understand my Colt Frontier Scout might be
worth $400-500 with the box and the book.


One of my Virginia buddies has one of those, but his came with an extra
cylinder in .22 mag. Nice shooter. Don't much like manipulating the
loading gate and fiddling with the empty shells, but that's something I
don't like on all SA revolvers.

It is a very old technology. I don't like the tube magazine like you
have in the LE but to each his own.

I probably would not have bought this gun if it was more than $100 but
it was a deal I couldn't refuse.
The same guy sold me a 1911 springfield for $100 but he changed his
mind and I let him have it back.

Every collector should have at least one of these puppies.

https://www.classicfirearms.com/vmac...toelectrnickel

I'll bet this sentence, in the description, gave Luddite one of those, you know, erection thingys.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Dumbass me. Forgot to include the sentence: "Electroless nickel is an autocatalytic chemical reduction process that deposits a nickel-phosphorus alloy in a uniformly hard, highly protective finish."

Seems like that alone ought to be worth $400.



Electroless nickel plating has been around for decades. Old technology
and not environmentally friendly. Still, it's cheap and is commonly
used for many plating requirements, including plating of plastics.


I'm sure that's true. but the average VMAC .45 Pistol buyer probably doesn't know that. And you have
to admit, it's a great sounding sentence.


I am not knocking it. It's used extensively in industry although
becoming less common due to environmental reasons and the costs of
dealing with hazardous chemicals.

Vacuum deposited thin films have replaced many conventional plating
technologies but the initial capital equipment costs are much higher.
At one time vacuum deposited thin films could not be used for complex, 3
dimensional objects because the "coating" vapor was line of sight.
That has changed due to improved deposition methods and uniform
coatings can be deposited on almost any surface or configuration.

Plating (both electroless nickel and conventional electroplating)
results in a fairly thick film that can be prone to flaking off,
especially if the substrate surface isn't prepared properly. You can
see that in many plated objects ... older chrome car bumpers, nickel
plated brass fixtures for boats, etc. Coating by vacuum deposition is
a much higher energy level process that can actually "drive" molecules
of material into the object being coated.

You've taken my off the wall comment much more seriously than was intended, but I appreciate the
info.



I know. I just like to blab about one of the few things I know
something about sometimes.




===

Have you ever thought about starting another company? My youngest
son's father-in-law has started a bunch and still sits on the boards
of some of them. Being a successful entrepreneur is a real talent all
by itself.


No way, at least not anything serious. When you live most of your life
without two extra nickels to rub together, a growing family to support,
a mortgage to pay (and all that goes with that) ... when lightening
strikes and you are fortunate to be able to get ahead there is little
interest in risking it again .. at least for me.

I am not a trained, professional entrepreneur type and pretty much
ignored all traditional rules and protocols that are taught in business
courses or schools ... mostly out of ignorance. Seat of the pants
management.

I've been through the start-up process of two serious companies, once as
a small, sweat equity minority stockholder and then later as the
founder, majority stockholder and CEO of the last one. Both were
exciting, demanding and rewarding. I never made anything other than a
paycheck in both. The founder of the first company
financed everything with OPM (Other People's Money), banks and venture
capital. After eight years it fell into involuntary bankruptcy and a lot
of people, including vendors, took a major hit. I vowed that if I ever
attempted a company I would never do that. If my cash flow projections
fell short of my obligations I'd shut the company down before anyone was
hurt.

The one I started later turned out to become very desirable to a much
larger, public Corporation and that is where the reward was. During the
time I owned it I had engineers working in the company making
considerably more than I drew as a salary.

Never had a bank line or financing. I had learned during the first
experience what it was like to have others controlling your business.
All growth, technology, markets and financial was organic. If we needed
a new welder, computer or fork truck I bought it if we had sufficient
profits. I never hired a new employee unless I could guarantee them a
job for at least a year. I used to tell them that when they were hired
so they were aware of the risks involved with a small, technology based
company.

It wasn't a huge company. 70 employees at the most. First year's
revenues was about $500K with three or four people. The last year I had
it revenues were just over $17 million.

Several professional business financing companies along with banks were
always making overtures of providing financing. I was never interested.
Many people called me foolish (including my accountant)
but my feeling was that if I ever went under, I didn't want to do so
owing anybody a nickel.

I occasional consult to similar companies from a technology or market
expansion standpoint but nobody in their right mind would be interested
in my business philosophies. :-)

Sorry for being long-winded but it's hard to explain in a concise manner.

For this price oughta get two or three...
 

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:07:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/14/2015 1:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 12:20:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/14/2015 12:09 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:22:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/14/2015 10:57 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:52:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/14/2015 10:47 AM, John H wrote:
On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 4:04:54 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:46:24 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/13/2015 2:27 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:33:36 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/13/15 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:42:04 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

https://www.classicfirearms.com/heritage-rough-rider-revolver6shotrr22b6?utm_source=Classic+Firearms&ut m_campaign=f0627d4f42-MailChimp_2015-01-12_DelTonRuger&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_afe48e0 3d8-f0627d4f42-239338633

Shoot, it's even pretty!

That is a good price. I understand my Colt Frontier Scout might be
worth $400-500 with the box and the book.


One of my Virginia buddies has one of those, but his came with an extra
cylinder in .22 mag. Nice shooter. Don't much like manipulating the
loading gate and fiddling with the empty shells, but that's something I
don't like on all SA revolvers.

It is a very old technology. I don't like the tube magazine like you
have in the LE but to each his own.

I probably would not have bought this gun if it was more than $100 but
it was a deal I couldn't refuse.
The same guy sold me a 1911 springfield for $100 but he changed his
mind and I let him have it back.

Every collector should have at least one of these puppies.

https://www.classicfirearms.com/vmac...toelectrnickel

I'll bet this sentence, in the description, gave Luddite one of those, you know, erection thingys.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Dumbass me. Forgot to include the sentence: "Electroless nickel is an autocatalytic chemical reduction process that deposits a nickel-phosphorus alloy in a uniformly hard, highly protective finish."

Seems like that alone ought to be worth $400.



Electroless nickel plating has been around for decades. Old technology
and not environmentally friendly. Still, it's cheap and is commonly
used for many plating requirements, including plating of plastics.


I'm sure that's true. but the average VMAC .45 Pistol buyer probably doesn't know that. And you have
to admit, it's a great sounding sentence.


I am not knocking it. It's used extensively in industry although
becoming less common due to environmental reasons and the costs of
dealing with hazardous chemicals.

Vacuum deposited thin films have replaced many conventional plating
technologies but the initial capital equipment costs are much higher.
At one time vacuum deposited thin films could not be used for complex, 3
dimensional objects because the "coating" vapor was line of sight.
That has changed due to improved deposition methods and uniform
coatings can be deposited on almost any surface or configuration.

Plating (both electroless nickel and conventional electroplating)
results in a fairly thick film that can be prone to flaking off,
especially if the substrate surface isn't prepared properly. You can
see that in many plated objects ... older chrome car bumpers, nickel
plated brass fixtures for boats, etc. Coating by vacuum deposition is
a much higher energy level process that can actually "drive" molecules
of material into the object being coated.

You've taken my off the wall comment much more seriously than was intended, but I appreciate the
info.



I know. I just like to blab about one of the few things I know
something about sometimes.




===

Have you ever thought about starting another company? My youngest
son's father-in-law has started a bunch and still sits on the boards
of some of them. Being a successful entrepreneur is a real talent all
by itself.


No way, at least not anything serious. When you live most of your life
without two extra nickels to rub together, a growing family to support,
a mortgage to pay (and all that goes with that) ... when lightening
strikes and you are fortunate to be able to get ahead there is little
interest in risking it again .. at least for me.

I am not a trained, professional entrepreneur type and pretty much
ignored all traditional rules and protocols that are taught in business
courses or schools ... mostly out of ignorance. Seat of the pants
management.

I've been through the start-up process of two serious companies, once as
a small, sweat equity minority stockholder and then later as the
founder, majority stockholder and CEO of the last one. Both were
exciting, demanding and rewarding. I never made anything other than a
paycheck in both. The founder of the first company
financed everything with OPM (Other People's Money), banks and venture
capital. After eight years it fell into involuntary bankruptcy and a lot
of people, including vendors, took a major hit. I vowed that if I ever
attempted a company I would never do that. If my cash flow projections
fell short of my obligations I'd shut the company down before anyone was
hurt.

The one I started later turned out to become very desirable to a much
larger, public Corporation and that is where the reward was. During the
time I owned it I had engineers working in the company making
considerably more than I drew as a salary.

Never had a bank line or financing. I had learned during the first
experience what it was like to have others controlling your business.
All growth, technology, markets and financial was organic. If we needed
a new welder, computer or fork truck I bought it if we had sufficient
profits. I never hired a new employee unless I could guarantee them a
job for at least a year. I used to tell them that when they were hired
so they were aware of the risks involved with a small, technology based
company.

It wasn't a huge company. 70 employees at the most. First year's
revenues was about $500K with three or four people. The last year I had
it revenues were just over $17 million.

Several professional business financing companies along with banks were
always making overtures of providing financing. I was never interested.
Many people called me foolish (including my accountant)
but my feeling was that if I ever went under, I didn't want to do so
owing anybody a nickel.

I occasional consult to similar companies from a technology or market
expansion standpoint but nobody in their right mind would be interested
in my business philosophies. :-)

Sorry for being long-winded but it's hard to explain in a concise manner.




===

Thanks, interesting perspective. One of my old sailing buddys went
bust on OPM and it wasn't pretty at all.

For this price oughta get two or three...
 

On 1/14/2015 4:32 PM, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:07:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Sorry for being long-winded but it's hard to explain in a concise manner.




===

Thanks, interesting perspective. One of my old sailing buddys went
bust on OPM and it wasn't pretty at all.



This type of company is only possible in certain types of businesses.
The product was high dollar value capital equipment
that might run $500K to well over a million and take 6 months to a year
to design and build. Progress payments were the norm, so I'd usually
get about 25% of the contract value with the order and then continued
payments based on achieving certain schedule milestones. The result is
that the customer basically finances his own project so there was little
need for outside financing.

Every so often the customer's financal officer would want to impose a
penalty clause in the contract in the event we didn't meet the scheduled
delivery. Some of the proposed penalties were severe and a three or four
week delay could represent big bucks. I learned to accept them, but
only with an additional clause that allowed for an equally sized bonus
for each week of early delivery. Usually solved the problem and the
idea of a penalty clause was scrapped.

For this price oughta get two or three...
 

John have you ordered the .22 revolver yet?

For this price oughta get two or three...
 

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 06:20:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

John have you ordered the .22 revolver yet?

Yeah, three of them. One for me and one for each SIL. Next is ordering the cylinder upgrade to .22
Magnum. Those cost $29.95 each.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

For this price oughta get two or three...
 

On 1/15/2015 3:38 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 06:20:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

John have you ordered the .22 revolver yet?

Yeah, three of them. One for me and one for each SIL. Next is ordering the cylinder upgrade to .22
Magnum. Those cost $29.95 each.

Why not just order the revolver in 357 magnum and save on bullets.

--


I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off!
Respectfully submitted by Justan

For this price oughta get two or three...
 

On Thursday, 15 January 2015 16:38:18 UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 06:20:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

John have you ordered the .22 revolver yet?

Yeah, three of them. One for me and one for each SIL. Next is ordering the cylinder upgrade to .22
Magnum. Those cost $29.95 each.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.


You truly are a 'gun nut'.

For this price oughta get two or three...
 

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:02:14 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/15/2015 3:38 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 06:20:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

John have you ordered the .22 revolver yet?

Yeah, three of them. One for me and one for each SIL. Next is ordering the cylinder upgrade to .22
Magnum. Those cost $29.95 each.

Why not just order the revolver in 357 magnum and save on bullets.

The gun on sale is $130, that's the 22 LR version. That price is about $30 cheaper than I've seen it
anywhere. Cabellas has it 'on sale' for $199. I don't think this pistol comes in a .357 magum
version. Besides, the S&W Mod 28 handles that round.

I've not priced the magnum version anywhere. But I doubt it would be less than $160. As the sale is
over tomorrow, and many of the other guns on sale were 'sold out' yesterday evening, I figured I'd
just jump on it.

The gun get's pretty good reviews.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.