|
Cheap Bourbon posted:I'd avoid the brasso. Anything with ammonia is terribly bad for nickel-plated guns (hence the Hoppes being bad as well). Hoppes hasn't had ammonia compounds in it for about 30 years. Check the latest MSDS on it.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 06:35 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 15:15 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Hoppes hasn't had ammonia compounds in it for about 30 years. Check the latest MSDS on it.  http://www.hoppes.com/msds/904_MSDS.pdf: this says that it contains ammonium hydroxide. However, your casual mention of MSDS... 
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 06:54 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Gah, you're right. Color me corrected. I must have looked at the wrong sheet last night, or misread it, or something. I just went back and re-checked and there it is, 2nd from the bottom. And yes, I keep up to date (or at least reasonably so) MSDS sheets on most of the chemicals that I use to clean/maintain my guns. A long while back I (we're talking early undergrad, here) I went through a science geek phase, and this is one aspect which never quite wore off.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 15:25 |
|
|
The most surprising thing on that sheet is that Hoppe's No. 9 is made by Bushnell.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 15:32 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Gah, you're right. Color me corrected. I must have looked at the wrong sheet last night, or misread it, or something. I just went back and re-checked and there it is, 2nd from the bottom. Ah, yes, 1995. (You're old and dorky. So loving dorky. Monumentally dorky.)
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 16:37 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Gah, you're right. Color me corrected. I must have looked at the wrong sheet last night, or misread it, or something. I just went back and re-checked and there it is, 2nd from the bottom. We've got a UCI (Unit Compliance Inspection) coming up, which is basically where people come in and make sure you are complying with the myriad of regs, rules, and other required stuff...one of the required things is that you have an MSDS for all chemically related stuff in the shop. One of our shops got told they needed to have an MSDS for windex and hand sanitizer. 
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 18:26 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:One of our shops got told they needed to have an MSDS for windex and hand sanitizer.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:01 |
|
|
Pitch posted:How dare they require you to keep safety information on-hand for poisonous cleansers. I think he's taken aback by the need to keep complex documentation around that nobody will read, even for very common products whose uses are well understood. MSDS sheets are normally associated with hazardous chemicals whose use constitutes an occupational hazard, so household cleaners which are considered safe to sell to everyone without an MSDS sheets seem a silly thing to require such documentation for.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:27 |
|
|
Pitch posted:How dare they require you to keep safety information on-hand for poisonous cleansers. ...these are shops that are in offices. It's an office. It DOESN'T HAVE an MSDS repository like our other more industrial shops do. If we're talking about our Trailer Maintenance shop, which has a shitton of really nasty grease, lubricants, and corrosion prevention coating, then I don't have (that big) of a problem with them sticking the MSDS for windex or hand sanitizer or whatever in with their big binder o' MSDS. But to require an office to specifically get MSDS for household cleaning chemicals is loving retarded, and, I should note, is usually not required. Usually if it's a "household" chemical, you aren't required to keep an MSDS for it.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:36 |
|
|
Seriously why do you even take issue with it at all? What the gently caress is possibly remotely wrong with needing to keep documentation for poisonous goods -- common or not -- around? What issue could you possibly take with a binder in a desk drawer somewhere containing two sheets of paper? Good God man.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:40 |
|
|
Gtab posted:Seriously why do you even take issue with it at all? What the gently caress is possibly remotely wrong with needing to keep documentation for poisonous goods -- common or not -- around? What issue could you possibly take with a binder in a desk drawer somewhere containing two sheets of paper? Just that it's unnecessary, pointless, and stupid. It also denotes a lack of judgement on the part of those enforcing safety rules and trivializes the safety rules that are relevant.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:45 |
|
|
Fang posted:Just that it's unnecessary, pointless, and stupid. It also denotes a lack of judgement on the part of those enforcing safety rules and trivializes the safety rules that are relevant. Explain how you think it denotes a lack of judgment or trivializes workplace safety to have the chemical data for poisonous substances available to workers.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:50 |
|
|
Gtab posted:Seriously why do you even take issue with it at all? What the gently caress is possibly remotely wrong with needing to keep documentation for poisonous goods -- common or not -- around? What issue could you possibly take with a binder in a desk drawer somewhere containing two sheets of paper? 
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:50 |
|
|
Gtab posted:Seriously why do you even take issue with it at all? What the gently caress is possibly remotely wrong with needing to keep documentation for poisonous goods -- common or not -- around? What issue could you possibly take with a binder in a desk drawer somewhere containing two sheets of paper? This is a UCI covering every single possible aspect of our unit. Not just environmental, or OSH, or anything like that...Every. Single. Possible. Thing. This was during a SAV (some folks came in to "help" us determine if we weren't in compliance) so I guess I'm a) annoyed that they would mention such a flippant thing, and b) annoyed that the actual inspector would even care. How many office environments do you see that have a loving MSDS for windex and hand sanitizer? And not just "hand sanitizer," but a different MSDS for every single brand of hand sanitizer in the office? I'm 110% behind keeping an MSDS for anything that is remotely industrial/hazardous, and like I said before, I don't have that big of a problem with an shop that has other stuff that needs an MSDS throwing in the MSDS for cleaning supplies, etc. Why I have a problem with requiring office environments to do it is that it's not as simple (at least by the Air Force's rules) as putting a binder with two sheets of paper in it in a desk drawer. There are very specific posting, placarding, displaying, and marking requirements for where and how you keep your MSDS. To make an office go through all that asspain for nothing more than windex and hand sanitizer is loving retarded.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:52 |
|
|
Gtab posted:Explain how you think it denotes a lack of judgment or trivializes workplace safety to have the chemical data for poisonous substances available to workers. I don't have to explain it because that isn't what I said.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:56 |
|
|
spankmeister posted:Butbut the gubmint God I love your avatar so much. Also this thread has taught me about the MSDS, neato 
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:56 |
|
|
Gtab posted:Explain how you think it denotes a lack of judgment or trivializes workplace safety to have the chemical data for poisonous substances available to workers. I'm not talking about all MSDS...I'm completely okay with about 95% of the MSDS requirements out there. What I have a problem with is making an office (not an industrial work environment, a loving office with chairs and computers...the worst "industrial hazard" there is getting a papercut or shredding your hand in the paper shredder) get a specifically colored and marked binder and making them display it in a very specific manner for nothing more than windex and hand sanitizer. Like Fang said, requiring MSDS for something that everyone knows is completely harmless (windex) trivializes the MSDS for stuff that is legitimately harmful but doesn't appear so...some of our grease, for example, has no negative effects in the short term, but is a fairly powerful carcinogen. If people don't take the MSDS seriously because of "hurr, there's an MSDS for windex and this stuff doesn't harm me at all," they could have this grease come into contact with their skin on a regular basis due to not taking proper precautions because there's no reason to since there are no negative effects in the short term, but in the long term such behavior will increase their cancer risk. Edit: for clarity. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at Jun 26, 2010 around 20:00 |
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 19:57 |
|
|
ohhhlethal posted:Why does the Px4 never get any love? I think that gun is cool as hell I fondled one, it was OK. If i wanted a Beretta spacegun I'd get a Neos or a 90-Two.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 20:07 |
|
|
Capn Beeb posted:God I love your avatar so much. 
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 20:14 |
|
|
Fang posted:I don't have to explain it because that isn't what I said. yes it is? iyaayas01 posted:This is a UCI covering every single possible aspect of our unit. Not just environmental, or OSH, or anything like that...Every. Single. Possible. Thing. This was during a SAV (some folks came in to "help" us determine if we weren't in compliance) so I guess I'm a) annoyed that they would mention such a flippant thing, and b) annoyed that the actual inspector would even care. youre literally whining that the government has its nose in your job... working for the government. try to get some perspective. iyaayas01 posted:Like Fang said, requiring MSDS for something that everyone knows is completely harmless (windex)
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 20:14 |
|
|
I did the WHMIS (like MSDS, but  ) compliance stuff for a place I worked and all we had was isopropyl alcohol. Was not a big deal. And yet I still had a marketing dude come in and ask if he could "borrow" some to take home to clean some electronics. In this handy empty plastic water bottle. NOTHING BAD COULD COME OF THAT NO SIREE. Marketing guys are pretty much exactly as depicted in Dilbert comics. I'm pretty sure he would have made it 5 steps and gone "oh hey a water bottle with what must be water!" and chugged the whole thing.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 20:22 |
|
|
Gtab posted:youre literally whining that the government has its nose in your job... working for the government. try to get some perspective. I think you protest too much...this isn't a "hurr gubmint" rant, this is a "hurr stupidity" rant. Honestly, half the OSH rules we follow aren't OSHA driven, they're Air Force driven. You're taking my "while MSDS is generally a good thing but this particularly application of the rule is retarded" rant and turning it into a "haha, look at this dumb tea party paultard right wingnut who wants the government to stop protecting workers from nasty chemicals even though he works for the government! haha!" Stop. Gtab posted:I want you to spray your eyes with Windex and then drink the bottle and then come back and post regular updates about your health, since it's so harmless and everyone knows this. From the Windex MSDS: "EMERGENCY OVERVIEW - The product contains no substances which at their given concentration, are considered to be hazardous to health" So yes, Windex is more or less harmless.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 20:27 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I think you protest too much...this isn't a "hurr gubmint" rant, this is a "hurr stupidity" rant. Honestly, half the OSH rules we follow aren't OSHA driven, they're Air Force driven. You're taking my "while MSDS is generally a good thing but this particularly application of the rule is retarded" rant and turning it into a "haha, look at this dumb tea party paultard right wingnut who wants the government to stop protecting workers from nasty chemicals even though he works for the government! haha!" Stop. The Air Force wants to ensure safety and prevent lawsuits and you're whining about their attention to health and happiness. And you still won't drink it or spray in your eyes so I would go ahead and stop playing like you think Windex is water.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 21:18 |
|
|
I am required to keep MSDSs on file for pepper spray, and even inert training spray (which is mint oil). I am required to keep an MSDS on file for lead. I know, no big surprise.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 21:21 |
|
|
Here's the relevant OSHA requirement regarding the use of "consumer" chemicals in the workplace:OSHA posted:The HCS exempts any consumer product or hazardous substance, as those terms are defined in the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.) and Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq.) respectively, where the employer can show that it is used in the workplace for the purpose intended by the chemical manufacturer or importer of the product, and the use results in a duration and frequency of exposure which is not greater than the range of exposures that could reasonably be experienced by consumers when used for the purpose intended. The AF requirement goes far above and beyond this...why, I don't know, but THAT'S what I'm bitching about. Explaining the AF's obsession with safety might help to better understand why this pisses me off so much...I'm not talking about safety like "hurr, drat gubmint preventing babies from working in coal mines" safety, I'm talking about how if you use rubbing alcohol (nothing special, just basic, could've bought it at the drug store rubbing alcohol) you have to wear latex gloves and goggles, or how you have to do the same if you are using a can of spray paint. Not special super secret stealth F-22 cancer causing spray paint, just basic could've bought it at Lowe's spray paint. These are stupid rules that serve no point. I work around explosives all day, I understand that there are tedious rules out there that serve a purpose (like pretty much anything related to explosives safety). This MSDS crap is just stupid pointless rules. And don't get me started on reflective belts...
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 21:37 |
|
|
I have to keep MSDS sheets for our keyboard duster, plus the other cleaning stuff people have mentioned. I was leafing through our little binder and found one for something called Bi-Pass. Its some kind of organic cleaning stuff, but I have never seen it in my office.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 21:45 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Here's the relevant OSHA requirement regarding the use of "consumer" chemicals in the workplace: because the government hates lawsuits and more than that it hates paying for lawsuits so any possible means it can extend to prevent mishaps or remove responsibility for ignorance and misuse of remotely hazardous materials or objects is a very good thing. any major organization will do the same to cover its rear end, and it should not be remotely surprising to you that a branch of the US government which deals with firearms, explosives, AVGAS, radioactive material, giant loving turbines, and god knows what else, also wants to protect its interests from frivolous lawsuits or claims against it by providing a modicum of supervisory safety guidelines and documentation. your reaction to their concern for your safety, their bottom line, and the tax dollars that pay for both of those is completely ridiculous. much of safety is "inconvenient" and whining about it just makes you look like a petulant child who has to wear a seatbelt
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 21:46 |
|
|
I'm buying a "high end" rifle and I'm choosing between a SAKO TRG 22 or a pimped out Remington 700. Here's a pic of the SAKO:  And here's what I was thinking of when pimping the poo poo out of the 700:  So, it's a Remington VTR in .308Win stuffed in an Accuracy Intl. AICS-stock. Any opinions on those two? I've heard good things about both and none of them seem to be a bad purchase. The SAKO is awesome straight out of the box while the Rem will take some work. Any opinions on the VTR? How much work does it take to get it to shoot nicely? I'm not thinking of shooting anything further than 3-400yards... Does anyone know if the VTR is a straight drop-in in the AICS or do I need to modify the gently caress out of the stock? Is the JAE-700 stock a better option? Am I an idiot for considering any of these? Is my penis too small? The JAE-700:  Edit: Sorry, .308 Winchester not WinMag. Bhm fucked around with this message at Jun 27, 2010 around 15:42 |
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 21:51 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:From the Windex MSDS: "EMERGENCY OVERVIEW - The product contains no substances which at their given concentration, are considered to be hazardous to health" See, I wouldn't have known that if it wasn't for the MSDS.  My two cents on the debate is that I'm required to keep them as well, and I totally forgot they existed until this debate started. I should probably look for them next time I'm there. Talk about useless safety stuff, I remember my mother telling me about how every year her company made everyone watch safety training videos that had nothing to do with her job. She worked in an office and the videos were all about factory and other industrial work. From what I remember she mentioned stuff like safety harnesses for climbing on the roof, how to safely de-energize industrial machinery and the lockout-tag out thing, and what to do about toxic waste spills. There were some office workers that would sometimes need to go to the warehouse part. They would usually wander onto the floor, talking on cell phones, and would almost get run over by for lifts because they would walk through the big loading doors instead of the smaller people door.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 21:59 |
|
|
Bhm posted:So, it's a Remington VTR in .308WinMag .308 Winchester or .300 Winchester Magnum or .308 Norma Magnum? Those tactical stocks are expensive and gimmicky as gently caress. Check out the long-range shooting thread for lots of info about better long-range cartridge choices and some better stocks that wouldn't pass the video game coolness test but will probably give more accuracy and comfort for your dollar.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 22:02 |
|
|
Apparently cupric oxide and 300 mesh aluminum powder will create an energetic thermite that can be set off with a .22LR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AXq...e=youtube_gdata someone who has actually studied chemistry in the last 5 years tell me why I am dumb and shouldn't try this (I'm looking at YOU Pitch)
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 22:09 |
|
|
Copper is too expensive, regular ferric oxide works fine (rust).
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 22:10 |
|
|
I thought iron thermite binary mixtures just deflagrated and required a very high activation energy, like a magnesium fuse strip. This stuff seems to actually detonate like Tannerite except it can be set off with something like a .22 rather than a .223.
|
| # ? Jun 26, 2010 22:19 |
|
|
Gtab posted:because the government hates lawsuits and more than that it hates paying for lawsuits so any possible means it can extend to prevent mishaps or remove responsibility for ignorance and misuse of remotely hazardous materials or objects is a very good thing. I think you've taken this troll far enough.
|
| # ? Jun 27, 2010 00:13 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Here's the relevant OSHA requirement regarding the use of "consumer" chemicals in the workplace: On the one hand, I've seen military personnel do some amazingly stupid things. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect those people to read an MSDS before doing something amazingly stupid.
|
| # ? Jun 27, 2010 00:50 |
|
|
WimpBastard posted:On the one hand, I've seen military personnel do some amazingly stupid things. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect those people to read an MSDS before doing something amazingly stupid. You don't understand, the MSDS is there because they care about your safety, so it uh keeps you safe and stuff.
|
| # ? Jun 27, 2010 00:53 |
|
|
There was a book I think Cyrano recommended a while back during one of those "The Wehrmacht was just normal soldiers!" thing. The title was something like Ordinary Men or something similar.
|
| # ? Jun 27, 2010 01:25 |
|
|
Detective Thompson posted:There was a book I think Cyrano recommended a while back during one of those "The Wehrmacht was just normal soldiers!" thing. The title was something like Ordinary Men or something similar.
|
| # ? Jun 27, 2010 01:30 |
|
|
Pitch posted:Is this a question? The title was Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. Yes it was a question despite the lack of a question mark and thank you for the title.
|
| # ? Jun 27, 2010 01:58 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 15:15 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:...these are shops that are in offices. It's an office. It DOESN'T HAVE an MSDS repository like our other more industrial shops do. If we're talking about our Trailer Maintenance shop, which has a shitton of really nasty grease, lubricants, and corrosion prevention coating, then I don't have (that big) of a problem with them sticking the MSDS for windex or hand sanitizer or whatever in with their big binder o' MSDS. But to require an office to specifically get MSDS for household cleaning chemicals is loving retarded, and, I should note, is usually not required. Usually if it's a "household" chemical, you aren't required to keep an MSDS for it. We have a UCI coming up too, and we (office) don't keep MSDS info for our windex. 
|
| # ? Jun 27, 2010 05:16 |
|
