what is the difference between Stainless steel grade 308 s and grade 308 ps?
86996
I believe the 308 ps grade has been passivated using either sodiumdichromate or nitric
634581
For 35000 USD I can give you the answer or I could say....\n\n\n\n\n\nPortland Type I or II LA(Low Alkaline) mix which meets ASTM 150/97\n\nI don't believe you will reach the goal of 7 for the pH, more likely an 8.5-9 range.  You may want to look at a coating for the penstock, this will equal more work in the future when wall thickness testing has to be done, but if it extends the life another 2-3 years...\n\nI am not an engineer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but would a chrome be more resistant to corrosion?
285310
Try contact the ASTM Directly - it's one of their specs.\n\nA311/A311M-04 - Standard Specification for Cold-Drawn, Stress-Relieved Carbon Steel Bars Subject to Mechanical Property Requirements.\n\nwww.astm.org\n\nThanks!!! Morgan x :o)
704645
http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/laptop/2006/0424_lt2800.html\n\nYou can make your own decision by looking at the comparison\nthe shootout did.
405025
Yes there is!! Difference in quality is due to the quality of bearings, quality of platters and quality of coating used in manufacturing. But you can't check them yourself easily. So I'll like to suggest you to go for a reputed manufacturer and get the drive having 7200 rpm and 8 MB buffer.
377593
960\n\nL has 480 less, and S has 480 more, so the difference is 960.
414302
This is a hugely variable question. It all depends! \nThis will be an interesting link for you. This is a Luger specialist!\n\nhttp://www.simpsonltd.com/index.php?cPath=1\n\nThis link goes to the NRA Grading standards for firearms. It will help, too. http://www.auctionarms.com/help/NRAGrade.cfm\n\nAlways keep your muzzle in a safe direction!\n\nLeigh \nPortland
275824
None that I know of make direct comparisons/contrasts.\n\nI can help you out a lot more than TheWiseOne, as his answer contains many inaccuracies.\n\nContrary to what the WiseOne stated, the M1 Garand was adopted as the standard US Army infantry rifle in 1936 and was standard issue when we entered the war.  The USMC still had a predominance of '03 Springfields, as they didn't receive new equipment until after the Army.  I find it odd that the WiseOne denigrates the Springfield for being "obviously dated and had been used in World War I.".  That's funny, because the standard infantry rifle the Germans used during WWII, the K98k, was simply a newer, shorter version of the Gewehr 98, the Model 1898 Mauser rifle, developed before and used during WWI (the Springfield used the same action as the Mauser by the way).  Both were fine bolt-action weapons, but couldn't compare with the M1 because of their slow rate of fire (the US was the only army in WWII to have a semi-automatic rifle as it's standard infantry weapon).\n\nThe primary sub-machine gun of the US Army during WWII was the M1928A1, M1, and M1A1 versions of the Thompson sub-machine gun.  A fairly heavy weapon, accurate at short ranges, and it had a lot of stopping power due to the fact it was chambered for the .45ACP round.  From 1944 onwards it was slowly phased out and replaced by the M3 Grease Gun.  It was cheaper and far simpler to mass produce than the Thompson.  Contrary to what the WiseOne states, both used 30 round box magazines (although 20 round was available for the Thompson).  The German MP-40 (the famed Schmeisser, although Schmeisser had no part in it's design) was chambered for 9MM Parabellum.  It was lighter and had a slightly lower cyclic rate than the Thompson (but a bit higher than the M3).\n\nComparing the MP-44 and the BAR is like comparing apples and oranges.  The MP-44 is the ancestor of the modern assault rifle, and was used as such.  The BAR is analagous to the M249 SAW that the US Army currently uses.  The MP-44 was a good weapon, with decent accuracy and range, and a cyclic rate high enough to provide fairly heavy firepower.  Very useful in urban fighting.\n\nThe BAR was a great weapon, heavy, but provided very good, accurate firepower for platoons.\n\nI don't know what "tiny Walther pistols" WiseOne is speaking about.  The standard German sidearms of WWII were the Parabellum-Pistole (popularly known as the Luger) and the Walther P-38.  Both were chambered for the 9MM Parabellum round, and both were fairly accurate.  The P-38 was easier and cheaper to make, and more tolerant of various environmental conditions.  The M1911A1 Colt .45 was a fairly good pistol, not particularly accurate, but the .45 ACP round provided good stopping power, and it was fairly reliable.\n\nThe German MG-42 was an excellent weapon, the best of its' class during the war.  It was the basis for the postwar design of the US M-60 machine gun.  I don't know what the WiseOne is speaking of when he mentions "and other lamer machine guns" when speaking of the US.  The primary US light machine gun was the .30 Browning.  It's sustained fire rate wasn't as good as the MG-42, but nevertheless the air-cooled version was a more than competent, if not very good weapon.  The standard heavy machine gun of the US was the Browning M2 .50.  This was an excellent weapon, best in it's class, and is still in use today by many countries. The M2 was just as accurate as the MG-42, and had greater power and ranger. Then again, pretty much any weapon designed by John Browning turned out to be excellent.\n\nThis following statement is absolutely wrong:\n\n"American planes were better than German planes by the time we entered the war, as the RAF killed off many of their better planes."\n\nThe best American fighters of the war at the time of our entry were the P-40 and F4F.  Neither one was anywhere near as good as the
1051902
The grade of pipe describes how good of pipe it is.\nIn other words, it tells you what the strength of the material that was used to make the pipes is.
525823
Volquartsen makes a good receiver, regardless of what metal it's made of. If you're shooting off a bench, then it matters very little how heavy the receiver is. Get the stainless in that case; it's less expensive and will last longer. Of course, "longer" is measured in tens of thousands of rounds.\n\nBy the way, make sure you get the threaded receiver and marry it to a threaded barrel if you're talking about a 10/22 receiver. The original 10/22 is held together with this wedge that pulls the barrel into the receiver, but it's not a great fit. Threaded barrels take care of any slop and really improve your accuracy.
121593
Hi, if I new your ps version I may be able to be more specific. See the links below...\n\nEdit: no I mean ps6,7,cs,or cs2
20546
Probably a Remington 700 in .308 Win. Can be had at your local Wally world for around 400. Winchester Model 70s are good too as are others.
252159
Classic stainless steel is 74% Iron, 18% Chromium, and 8% Nickel.
763583
If it was me, I would specify the Ra or RMS value, the surface type (cast, machined, polished, ect...), and also the surface hardness (Rockwell B or C scale).  If you have access to a Machinery's Handbook, check it out.
847209
is it possible that you are mis-reading the .800 and it's actually a .300 ? very close in some machined etching.
296729
My preferance between the two would be the .308.  There's a great deal of ammunition for this caliber in a wide range of bullet types and weights to suit any need you might ever have.  Since it is a standard NATO chambering (7.62mm), there is a great deal of cheap, high quality ammunition to practice with avalible. It is a very accurate cartridge and is capable of taking almost any large game in North America.  You can even hunt smaller game if you like by selecting a lower bullet weight loading. You can't go wrong with a .308 anyway you look at it!
23140
http://www.esmalloffice.com/SBR_template.cfm?docNumber=PL12_0700.htm