First the mirrors will go then this:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ne_shutter.jpg

No more vibrations, frame rate limited only by sensor read-out speed.

This begs the question "how much plastic will be used in a camera that
utilizes this technology"

On 12/28/2015 10:05 PM, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 28 December 2015 10:42:29 UTC-5, PAS wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ne_shutter.jpg

No more vibrations, frame rate limited only by sensor read-out speed.

This begs the question "how much plastic will be used in a camera that
utilizes this technology"

Right now, the most "plasticy" cameras are cheap DSLR's. But then without moving parts and electronic shutters, more plastic could be used without any major risk.


So plastic is only for cheap cameras. I guess these are intended to be
cheap and disposable too.

"Polymer pistols have become increasingly popular as lightweight and
ergonomic, particularly among women, a fast-growing demographic among
gun users. "

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/03/news/companies/army-gun-new-beretta/



--
PeterN

On Dec 29, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/28/2015 10:05 PM, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 28 December 2015 10:42:29 UTC-5, PAS wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cal-plane_shut
ter.jpg/665px-Focal-plane_shutter.jpg

No more vibrations, frame rate limited only by sensor read-out speed.

This begs the question "how much plastic will be used in a camera that
utilizes this technology"

Right now, the most "plasticy" cameras are cheap DSLR's. But then without
moving parts and electronic shutters, more plastic could be used without
any major risk.

So plastic is only for cheap cameras. I guess these are intended to be
cheap and disposable too.

"Polymer pistols have become increasingly popular as lightweight and
ergonomic, particularly among women, a fast-growing demographic among
gun users. "

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/03/news/companies/army-gun-new-beretta/

With quality handguns the polymer is only found in the frame and magazine,
all the other components are steel or a light weight alloy. The Glock system
is simple, tested and works, but it is also a design that is over thirty
years old and competed with the Beretta M9 for the last US contract and lost.
The S&W M&P is a current production pistol, and is very good, and probably a
good choice over the Glock and other polymer frame pistols. However, if
tested against the M9, or even the old 1911, the M&P might prove to be their
equal, in performance, but the only real improvement is going to be in weight
reduction.

That said, the military already permits optional use of other handguns in
special units that includes 1911 type 45’s made by Kimber and Springfield,
and various caliber pistols from Sig Sauer and Heckler&Koch.

For the record I have owned a Glock M23 for over 25 years, and a Kimber CDP
II, a 1911 type 45ACP. My preference is for the Kimber.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:05:55 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: On Monday, 28 December 2015 10:42:29 UTC-5, PAS wrote:
: "RichA" wrote in message
: ...
: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ne_shutter.jpg
:
: No more vibrations, frame rate limited only by sensor read-out speed.
:
: This begs the question "how much plastic will be used in a camera that
: utilizes this technology"
:
: Right now, the most "plasticy" cameras are cheap DSLR's. But then without moving parts and electronic shutters, more plastic could be used without any major risk.

How can that device be described as "without moving parts"?

Bob

On 2016-01-02 03:22:58 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:05:55 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: On Monday, 28 December 2015 10:42:29 UTC-5, PAS wrote:
: "RichA" wrote in message
: ...
:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ne_shutter.jpg
:


: No more vibrations, frame rate limited only by sensor read-out speed.
:
: This begs the question "how much plastic will be used in a camera that
: utilizes this technology"
:
: Right now, the most "plasticy" cameras are cheap DSLR's. But then
without moving parts and electronic shutters, more plastic could be
used without any major risk.

How can that device be described as "without moving parts"?

Just remember, it is useless without a Rube Goldberg camera triggering device.

https://youtu.be/qKpxd8hzOcQ
https://vimeo.com/22111968


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Jan 2, 2016, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 10:07:48 UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 29, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/28/2015 10:05 PM, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 28 December 2015 10:42:29 UTC-5, PAS wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cal-plane_shut
ter.jpg/665px-Focal-plane_shutter.jpg

No more vibrations, frame rate limited only by sensor read-out
speed.

This begs the question "how much plastic will be used in a camera
that
utilizes this technology"

Right now, the most "plasticy" cameras are cheap DSLR's. But then
without
moving parts and electronic shutters, more plastic could be used
without
any major risk.

So plastic is only for cheap cameras. I guess these are intended to be
cheap and disposable too.

"Polymer pistols have become increasingly popular as lightweight and
ergonomic, particularly among women, a fast-growing demographic among
gun users. "

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/03/news/companies/army-gun-new-beretta/

With quality handguns the polymer is only found in the frame and magazine,
all the other components are steel or a light weight alloy. The Glock
system
is simple, tested and works, but it is also a design that is over thirty
years old and competed with the Beretta M9 for the last US contract and
lost.
The S&W M&P is a current production pistol, and is very good, and probably
a
good choice over the Glock and other polymer frame pistols. However, if
tested against the M9, or even the old 1911, the M&P might prove to be
their
equal, in performance, but the only real improvement is going to be in
weight
reduction.

That said, the military already permits optional use of other handguns in
special units that includes 1911 type 45's made by Kimber and Springfield,
and various caliber pistols from Sig Sauer and Heckler&Koch.

For the record I have owned a Glock M23 for over 25 years, and a Kimber CDP
II, a 1911 type 45ACP. My preference is for the Kimber.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Sure, there are plenty of guns with plastic parts, but they don't function as
part of the firing mechanism.

No **** Sherlock!

Stocks are popular in plastic for rifles owing
to their cheapness an resistance to moisture, plus they can be made hollow to
hold things.

As can wooden stocks which have been hollowed and fitted with boxes for
patches, primers and/or cleaning tools for some 250-300 years. The venerable
Lee-Enfield rifle which from the MkI to the No. 4 have had a brass butt plate
with a door behind which you would find an oil bottle, and a pull through for
cleaning. The US M1 Carbine had a similar arrangement with a slot cut in the
stock for an oil bottle which was also used for securing one end of the
sling.
I am the last person you should be trying to educate with regard to firearms,
handgun, or rifle, historic or contemporary.

I've got a S&W 686 stainless revolver that has plastic
(rubberized) grip panels.

Nice reliable handgun.
As far as handguns go I have target and combat weapons I have owned since
1964. A S&W M41, a Hi-Standard Supermatic Trophy, a S&W M52, a S&W K38
Masterpiece, a S&W Model 29, a Glock M23, and a Kimber CDP II. As a retired
Peace OfficerI am qualified annually to carry the Glock and the Kimber.
https://db.tt/ZGNPoEQm

....and I have no trouble using them proficiently.
https://db.tt/FszZBooz



--

Regards,
Savageduck