Bit of a rant!

[Onoff]

15 minutes ago, PeterStarck said:

I think the people around here have sussed that our house was built on a budget as they've seen us slaving away for eight years building it and now another three months dismantling the old bungalow by hand. Wendy says having an eleven year old car in the drive also shows we're not in the GD league.

 

Time for the sign to go up?

 

 

[newhome]

On 08/10/2018 at 18:02, Bitpipe said:

 

Also the title 'Engineer' is protected in Germany, like Doctor here. Narks me when I'm told that 'we'll send an engineer' - always want to ask what type of engineering degree they have...

 

  

 

Lol, every job advertised where I work seems to be for an engineer these days; Java engineers, Dev Ops engineers etc. etc. Mind you I don't give 2 sh*ts whether someone has a piece of paper or not. When I interview someone what counts for me is passion, drive, talent and enthusiasm. I've had people come in with IT degrees and some have been worst than useless (not all before anyone yells at me ). One of the very best guys where I work came straight into the company from school at 16 into the lowest grade in a non IT role in customer services. Since then he has had 6 promotions and at 27 is a shining light in IT, proving that pieces of paper are not necessary to succeed if you have the talent and are willing to push yourself. 

 

[Onoff]

1 hour ago, newhome said:

 

Lol, every job advertised where I work seems to be for an engineer these days; Java engineers, Dev Ops engineers etc. etc. Mind you I don't give 2 sh*ts whether someone has a piece of paper or not. When I interview someone what counts for me is passion, drive, talent and enthusiasm. I've had people come in with IT degrees and some have been worst than useless (not all before anyone yells at me ). One of the very best guys where I work came straight into the company from school at 16 into the lowest grade in a non IT role in customer services. Since then he has had 6 promotions and at 27 is a shining light in IT, proving that pieces of paper are not necessary to succeed if you have the talent and are willing to push yourself. 

 

 

Passion, drive, talent and enthusiasm.....I USED to have them.....before the bastards ground me down.....

[Hecateh]

On 08/10/2018 at 18:02, Bitpipe said:

 

Also the title 'Engineer' is protected in Germany, like Doctor here. Narks me when I'm told that 'we'll send an engineer' - always want to ask what type of engineering degree they have...

 

  

 

2 hours ago, newhome said:

 

Lol, every job advertised where I work seems to be for an engineer these days; Java engineers, Dev Ops engineers etc. etc. Mind you I don't give 2 sh*ts whether someone has a piece of paper or not. When I interview someone what counts for me is passion, drive, talent and enthusiasm. I've had people come in with IT degrees and some have been worst than useless (not all before anyone yells at me ). One of the very best guys where I work came straight into the company from school at 16 into the lowest grade in a non IT role in customer services. Since then he has had 6 promotions and at 27 is a shining light in IT, proving that pieces of paper are not necessary to succeed if you have the talent and are willing to push yourself. 

 

 

On holiday one year(at least 30 years ago) someone staying at the same place told us she worked in electronics.  Later in the week we discovered she worked on an assembly line soldering one specific piece of wire into one specific place before it passed on to the next person.

[Onoff]

26 minutes ago, Hecateh said:

 

 

On holiday one year(at least 30 years ago) someone staying at the same place told us she worked in electronics.  Later in the week we discovered she worked on an assembly line soldering one specific piece of wire into one specific place before it passed on to the next person.

 

Would "it" have worked without that one specific component and her honed skill and dexterity in fitting it?

 

Years ago as an apprentice there were mutiple companies vying for the same business. Movement between companies was rare, job security was good but if you left people would often take a particular skill (or design even) to the rival. Our top of the range system existed in the form of carefully stored drawings and velographs. An order would come in to the design office and we (me mainly) would wet print the drawings and deliver them to the factory. The in house joke was that you could give the drawings to another company and though they could make the kit it wouldn't work properly. This was completely true. Looking back then and departments were run and guarded like little kingdoms. Sales, Design, Works, Maintenance, Testing, Commissioning etc. Tbh the companies structured like that "worked". A lot of R&D was done on site. Something didn't work on site and an old hand from the factory would be brought to site by the Commissioning team bypassing the Design Office who were seen as "suits". It was quite often that the commissioning engineer had come from the shop floor anyway so had old allegiances. The required "mod", whether it be machining, heat treatment etc would be carried out on the shop floor when an order came down but never made it back to the Design Office to go onto the drawings. In effect the DO would issue flawed drawings everytime. Because of in house rivalries the shop floor wouldn't even divulge some of the mods. Gave a few lads terrific job security! "Young Jack" became "Old Jack" and was the only one who knew how to do such and such.

 

Good times!

[Jeremy Harris]

That's exactly how the SA80 rifle performed so badly.  The Royal Ordnance Factory that designed it and made and tested the prototypes that went through acceptance testing, didn't get the job of mass producing them.  The drawings were sent to another ROF for them to mass produce and there were half a dozen critical design elements, including the hardening process of the trigger actuating rod, that weren't on the drawings.  The result was around 150,000 really crap rifles being made and put into service.

 

The sad thing is that the exact cause for the problems with the rifle wasn't uncovered until Heckler & Koch won the contract to upgrade all the rifles to the new L85A2 that's currently in service.  The first thing H&K did was disassemble and analyse around 100 SA80s, and compare them with the stored reference rifles from the initial batch of prototypes.  They found that almost all the reliability problems were caused by differences between the drawings and the prototype rifles, with all the prototypes being far better built and more reliable than the in-service rifles.

 

Pretty impressive spending a day on the range during the initial reliability testing of the first batch of L85A2s.  We fired 10,000 rounds in a day through ten rifles, with only two misfires, and both of those were due to blind rounds.  Previously, the best the SA80 had done was around 40 rounds before it jammed or misfired, so it was a hell of an improvement.

[daiking]

On 08/10/2018 at 18:02, Bitpipe said:

 

Also the title 'Engineer' is protected in Germany, like Doctor here. Narks me when I'm told that 'we'll send an engineer' - always want to ask what type of engineering degree they have...

 

  

 

To be fair, I have an engineering degree but I’m a terrible engineer. It doesn’t mean much nowadays. I’m just thankful I can be a professional gatekeeper.

 

”Thou shall not pass!”

[Onoff]

9 hours ago, JSHarris said:

That's exactly how the SA80 rifle performed so badly.  The Royal Ordnance Factory that designed it and made and tested the prototypes that went through acceptance testing, didn't get the job of mass producing them.  The drawings were sent to another ROF for them to mass produce and there were half a dozen critical design elements, including the hardening process of the trigger actuating rod, that weren't on the drawings.  The result was around 150,000 really crap rifles being made and put into service.

 

The sad thing is that the exact cause for the problems with the rifle wasn't uncovered until Heckler & Koch won the contract to upgrade all the rifles to the new L85A2 that's currently in service.  The first thing H&K did was disassemble and analyse around 100 SA80s, and compare them with the stored reference rifles from the initial batch of prototypes.  They found that almost all the reliability problems were caused by differences between the drawings and the prototype rifles, with all the prototypes being far better built and more reliable than the in-service rifles.

 

Pretty impressive spending a day on the range during the initial reliability testing of the first batch of L85A2s.  We fired 10,000 rounds in a day through ten rifles, with only two misfires, and both of those were due to blind rounds.  Previously, the best the SA80 had done was around 40 rounds before it jammed or misfired, so it was a hell of an improvement.

 

I believe the SA80 concept originated in 1946 from the EM1 Thorpe rifle.

 

1940's:

 

 

I think the EM2 was very nearly bought by the Americans as it outperformed the Garrand in tests!

 

My brother who was in the Army starting out with the SLR, Stirling etc and progressing to the SA80 always reckoned for the average squaddie we should have ditched the SA80 and bought AK47s!

[curlewhouse]

Yep. My 1984 landrover with different coloured doors probably does the same ?

[Jeremy Harris]

8 hours ago, Onoff said:

 

I believe the SA80 concept originated in 1946 from the EM1 Thorpe rifle.

 

I think the EM2 was very nearly bought by the Americans as it outperformed the Garrand in tests!

 

My brother who was in the Army starting out with the SLR, Stirling etc and progressing to the SA80 always reckoned for the average squaddie we should have ditched the SA80 and bought AK47s!

 

The original SA80 was designed specifically to address problems with the SLR in NI.  The guys on patrol had to leave their rifles in a rack in the back of the vehicle, as they were too long to be carried when sat down.  The terrorist snipers knew this, so took advantage of the fact that the guys had to get out of a stationary vehicle unarmed, and walk to the back to grab their rifle.  The other big factor was weight.  The guys on foot patrol had to carry a heavy rifle plus heavy ammunition, which created fatigue problems after many hours on foot. 

 

The original SA80 was a 4.85mm calibre weapon, to reduce the weight and size from the 7.62mm SLR.  Late in development NATO standardised on 5.56mm, so the SA80 was re-chambered  to accept the larger calibre, but they didn't reposition the gas port to allow for the slower burn of the NATO ball powder, something that added to the later reliability problems, by reducing the amount of force available to drive the bolt carrier back during ejection and reload.  The concept for a bull pup rifle had been around since the 1940s, but there had always been a great deal of resistance to having one as a general service rifle, partly because a short, light, rifle doesn't look good on parade, believe it or not.  Enfield was a damned good ROF, and the SA80s they made were pretty good, with the sole exception of the lack of a guard over the mag release button. 

 

The latter caused a lot of embarrassment in NI, as guys would get out of a vehicle quickly, then hear the clatter as the magazine fell out, because the mag release would catch on their webbing whilst sat down.  That was fixed quickly by retrofitting a guard around the mag release, initially araldited (!) on in the field, with full production runs having the guard spot welded to the receiver.  The problems all arose when production was moved to the ROF at Nottingham, because the guys on the shop floor at Enfield knew all the tweaks they did that weren't ever put on the drawings and they didn't pass this on to the guys at Nottingham.

 

The H&K made L85A2 is probably one of the most accurate and reliable lightweight rifles around.  Personally I don't like the pressed metal and plastic construction much, as it's far from being "squaddie proof", but it meets or exceeds the specification that was set, and it's hard to see how a lightweight rifle could be made without using pressed metal and plastic parts, and weight is critical.  The AK47 is really crap in so many ways.  It's heavy, uses heavy ammunition, it's very inaccurate (pick one up and shake it and it rattles, as every part in it is a very loose fit).  It's saving grace is that it can be repaired very easily, and tends to be reasonably reliable.

[Red2000]

But I did like the SLR ?

Edited October 15, 2018 by Red2000

[PeterW]

32 minutes ago, Red2000 said:

But I did like the SLR ?

 

Me too..! The SLR had its faults, including the delightful issue of the gas plug going in both ways up yet only working one way up... I had the joy of playing with most stuff up to GPMG however if you wanted a real big boys toy, the MILAN2 was sooo much fun !!

[curlewhouse]

On 13/10/2018 at 08:15, JSHarris said:

 

The H&K made L85A2 is probably one of the most accurate and reliable lightweight rifles around.  Personally I don't like the pressed metal and plastic construction much, as it's far from being "squaddie proof", but it meets or exceeds the specification that was set, and it's hard to see how a lightweight rifle could be made without using pressed metal and plastic parts, and weight is critical.  

Yes, after using the SLR and sterling  I was hugely. Impressed with the accuracy and weight difference of the later SA80s - but as a left hander it was a complete pain in the backside to have to learn to shoot wrong handed (for those who don't know,you cannot shoot it left handed) & I was never as fast or quite as accurate (though admittedly could still hit a fig 11 somewhere vital every time,but those milliseconds difference could have cost me dear one day). With owning my own civilian rifles I agree,  the military stamped metal and plastic feels very wrong, but it works I suppose.

[Onoff]

I'm on the lookout for replica Stirling plans if anyone knows of any. Want to make make one for my brother as an ornament.

 

[curlewhouse]

On 05/10/2018 at 09:28, Red2000 said:

Have you noticed that some people's reaction to 

 

I went up to the counter of a sports supplier a couple of years ago and asked the assistant for a particular piece of equipment.  "What's it for?" was the reply.  I secretly wanted to say "None of your effing business, mate" but I was polite and told him.  Then another character who was leaning against the counter put his oar in and gave me the benefit of his knowledge, telling me that what I was trying to do would never work. ......

Yep, had this happen to me. In the field I work in I have had these "leaning on the counter" types offering unasked for advice not realising they've probably read about me too ?.  Not saying we know it all of course, but probably more than someone who spends his day leaning on the counter in a shop he doesn't work in ?

[Jeremy Harris]

20 minutes ago, Onoff said:

I'm on the lookout for replica Stirling plans if anyone knows of any. Want to make make one for my brother as an ornament.

 

 

I gave away a working Sten a few years ago.  It had been given to me as a "deactivated" trophy, "liberated" by an acquaintance in the early 1950s, and stored, together with a load of ammo, in his loft for decades.  When I stripped it, I found it wasn't deactivated at all; all that had been done was to remove the extractor.  As this is just a simple bit of 1/8" hardened steel plate, and as I had access to a drawing, it didn't take long to get the gun working.  Terrifying thing to fire, it jumps up violently with every round fired.  When I spoke to the chap that had given it to me he said they'd been told to aim at the target's feet, and with luck the second or third round would hit their centre of mass...

 

I may well have a set of Sten drawings around somewhere, I'll try and dig them out.

[Onoff]

5 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

I gave away a working Sten a few years ago.  It had been given to me as a "deactivated" trophy, "liberated" by an acquaintance in the early 1950s, and stored, together with a load of ammo, in his loft for decades.  When I stripped it, I found it wasn't deactivated at all; all that had been done was to remove the extractor.  As this is just a simple bit of 1/8" hardened steel plate, and as I had access to a drawing, it didn't take long to get the gun working.  Terrifying thing to fire, it jumps up violently with every round fired.  When I spoke to the chap that had given it to me he said they'd been told to aim at the target's feet, and with luck the second or third round would hit their centre of mass...

 

I may well have a set of Sten drawings around somewhere, I'll try and dig them out.

 

Thanks. 

 

I once saw a PIRA Sten copy made from square section including the barrel! 

[Jeremy Harris]

Just now, Onoff said:

 

Thanks. 

 

I once saw a PIRA Sten copy made from square section including the barrel! 

 

It's an exceptionally crude bit of kit, that even when produced by a reputable factory looks like it's been made in someone's garage.  The only parts that needed accurate machining, rather than bench fabrication, were the barrel and breech block IIRC, everything else is pretty much just sheet metal or tube.  The hardest part to make is probably the magazine, as that's a weird affair that feeds rounds in side by side over most of it's length.