Some thoughts about chronographs …

I got the following question, and it was on a topic I’ve been thinking about for a while. I thought I’d share the question and my response.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I want to upgrade my chronograph. Any recommendations?

Actually, that’s a good question. What I have to say is just my personal opinion, and does not constitute any kind of formal endorsement/review by BBTI.

We’ve used about a dozen different chronos over the series of tests. I’ve been pretty impressed with how consistent the different brands are one to another when compared head-to-head or in checking calibration with my Python and ball ammo from one lot over the years. So in that sense, most of the modestly-priced units seem to be of comparable quality.

Where you start to see some differences is in actually getting data – whether or not lighting is a problem, how much space they need, etc. For most people just using them casually, this wouldn’t be a big deal. When you’re doing 6,000+ shots checking for the cylinder gap effect, it can drive you nuts. Of the moderately priced units (actually, on the high end), this is one we’ve had good luck with: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/773378/ced-millennium-2-chronograph-system

Personally, I have a Chrony Gamma I like ( http://www.midwayusa.com/product/331656/shooting-chrony-gamma-master-chronograph-with-ballistic-chrony-printer ) for most of my casual use checking reloads and whatnot. But that was one of the ones we had problems with now and again (and why it’s now my personal unit).

A couple weeks ago we did the .22WMR series of tests, and had a lot of chrono problems. We thought this might be the case, since the .22mag is one of the smallest bullets going the fastest – presenting the biggest challenge for the optical sensors used on a chronograph. Particularly since as you chop the barrel you are always changing the ‘sight picture’ (even though there aren’t actually sights…) and introducing changes to the barrel crown and suchlike. Meaning that you can’t trust that you’ll get the bullet over the sweet spot for the optical sensors.

So as a backup Jim K had a new high-end Oehler unit: http://www.oehler-research.com/model35.html  Very nice, more complicated than it needs to be, and about 3x the price of most other units on the market.

We even had problems with that.

Bottom line, I think most of the moderate priced units ($100 – $200) are about the same in terms of quality. I never use the printer on mine, and we don’t bother to set up a printer when we do our tests – it’s just one more thing to go wrong. But some people love ‘em. If you can, take a look at some of the units, see what features appeal to you, what reviews say, whether the unit seems well constructed. Then make your best bet.

Ammo shortage? What ammo shortage??

Oh — THAT — ammo shortage.

Yeah, the beginning of January I wrote that we were finally moving forward with the testing of polygonal vs. traditional rifling; the so-called “Glock Tests“, and outlined how we were planning on conducting a bit of an experiment in asking for suggested ammo loads to include in the tests, and then seeing what kind of support there was for a slate of different choices by allowing pledges to help purchase ammo.

But, as someone who wrote me put it: where did we think we were going to *find* any such ammo?

Initially, I thought that the shortage we were seeing would be a fairly temporary problem, and that by the time spring rolled around we’d be able to locate sufficient quantities for our testing (we need about 350 rounds of each type).

Yeah, so much for that idea. Now you know why I don’t play the stock market or bet on races.

The ammo shortage has just continued to deepen. It’s to the point where people are having a hard time finding enough of any kind of ammo just to keep in practice with a trip to the range once or twice a month.  I’m damned glad I reload my practice ammo, and have a decent store of most components.

But that doesn’t do a damned thing for our testing. The whole idea is to test factory ammo, not some cobbled-together handload version of factory ammo.

So we’re putting off the “Glock Tests” again, until the situation gets better. Keep an eye here and elsewhere for news about when this will change.

One good bit of news, however: we already had a decent selection and sufficient quantity of each ammo type to do the .22WMR (.22Magnum) tests.  So we’re going to go ahead and do that sequence of tests here this spring — sometime soon!

Sorry for the bad news, everyone — really. These tests have been delayed several times for one (good) reason or another, and we’re just as frustrated by that as everyone else.  But when ammo supplies start to become more available, we’ll be sure to try and get them done as soon as we can.

Cheers!

Jim Downey

Now, about those “Glock” tests…

As mentioned previously, for some time we’ve been planning on doing a series of inch-by-inch chop tests on the Glock-style polygonal barrels  (Glock was unable to supply 18″ barrels, so we’ll be using 6 grove poly and 6 land traditional barrels from Lothar Walther).  We’ve run into a number of unexpected delays, but now have the barrels we need, and are planning on doing the series of tests sometime later this year, hopefully in spring/early summer. For testing purposes, we’ll be conducting traditional ‘land & groove’ barrels in the same calibers at the same time, so that we have direct head-to-head comparisons. Because we’re expecting a fairly subtle difference in performance, we’re going to do 10 (ten) shots for each inch of barrel for both style barrels. And to keep the scope of the project manageable, we’re only going to test two cartridges/calibers: 9mm (9×19) and .45 ACP.

In order to do the tests this way, we’ll need a minimum of 340 rounds of each ammo to test. Add in “real world guns” and allowing for errors/glitches which mean extra shots, we’re planning on getting 400 rounds of each ammo to be tested. Figure an average of about $1 per round for premium self-defense ammunition, and we’re looking at about $400 for each ammo selected for testing. There are some specific ammunition types/loads we’ve tested previously that we want to revisit for comparison purposes, but our selection is hardly comprehensive — time and money are limited.

So we’d like to try an experiment: do Kickstarter-style crowdfunding to see what ammunition types/loads people want to have us test. This will allow two things:

1. To let people help support the project by offsetting our costs.
2. To help us find new ammunition types/loads.

Now, Kickstarter itself isn’t firearm-friendly. And that’s OK — we can do this on our own, just using our own site. What we’ll do is put up a list of different ammo types/loads, and solicit donations targeted for each during a specific time frame. When pledges are made, we’ll keep a running tally total for each ammo, and once it crosses a certain threshold, then that specific type/load will be added to our testing list.

But first we need to create our list of ammo. So, for the next two weeks, either add a comment to this blog post or send an email to info@ballisticsbytheinch.com with one specific 9mm ammunition type/load you would like to see us test. Please, just one type/load per comment or email, and just five or six such entries per person. I’m going to have to collate these myself, so help make it a little easier on me. Just sending in a selected ammo doesn’t obligate you to support that ammo with $ in the second phase of this test, but it’s probably a good idea to only recommend ammo you would be willing to actually support, and ones you think you can get others to support. And remember, keep your recommendations limited to factory mass-produced ammo; handloads or artisanal ammo which the average person doesn’t have access to will not be selected for inclusion in the tests. Also: we’re only accepting recommendations and donations from individuals, not ammo manufacturers.

You can see all the 9mm ammo we’ve tested previously here: 9mm Luger Results.

As I said, this is an experiment. If it works for selecting 9mm ammo to test, we may extend it to the .45 ACP tests, and then see about using a similar approach for other testing. We hope that this will be a way we can expand our research and make it more responsive to what data the firearms-enthusiast community wants to see. You can help by sending in your suggestions, but in also spreading the word on the different forums/blogs where our data may be used.

Thanks, everyone, for your ongoing interest and support!

Jim Downey

275,510

That’s how many visitors we had to BBTI in the last year. And the number has been rising steadily — last month it was averaging 873 a day (total of 27,055) where in October of 2011 it was 456 (total of 14,144). So far this month it has been 945 a day on average.

As it happens, soon the company which we host the site on is going to switch the available analytical software, so such comparisons are likely to change again (as they did when we completely revamped the site a year ago), but that is not a big deal. We know we’re getting significant traffic, we know we’re getting cited a lot, we know we’re getting support from those who find our site useful — that’s all that matters. On the last point, I want to thank everyone who has donated $$$ to the site over the last year — you’ve managed to cover the out-of-pocket costs of hosting the site, and that is very much appreciated.

In terms of citations, here’s the top ten list of referrers over the last year (excluding search engines):

1. en.wikipedia.org
2. thefiringline.com
3. www.defensivecarry.com
4. www.guns.com
5. mouseguns.com
6. www.thefirearmblog.com
7. www.reddit.com
8. www.ar15.com
9. www.thehighroad.org
10. www.thetruthaboutguns.com

And of course tons of other places large & small have used us to educate, to start & settle arguments, to help people make informed decisions about their firearms & ammo choices. That was our goal when we set out on this project, and it is very rewarding to have seen it succeed so grandly over the last four years.

Things have been fairly quiet this year in terms of testing, though that doesn’t mean that we’ve stopped our research. As I noted in August we have a whole series planned to look at how the Glock polygonal barrels perform in inch-by-inch chop tests, but a combination of delays on getting the barrels and our individual schedules have moved those tests from this year to next. But look forward to hearing more about them in the new year!

Thanks to one & all — and particularly to my Good Lady Wife who does all our web-work — from the BBTI team.

Jim Downey

 

And once again…

…I am reminded of how happy I am to not have to deal with the public day in and day out.

As I said two months ago:

People really will always find something to bitch about, won’t they? Even if it is free & unencumbered research data that they can’t get elsewhere.

This time I got a complaint from someone about our having excluded a particular make of handgun. No “Hey, thanks for the data, I wonder why you haven’t tested This Brand?” Or “I love the site, but is there a reason why you’ve not included This Brand?” Just an email with the header “WHY NO GLOCKS TESTED?” Yeah, all caps. Nothing else other than the question repeated in the body.

I actually get some variation of this  question just about every week. Let me rephrase that: at least every week. Which is why that question is at the top of the FAQ on the BBTI site.

I responded, as I usually do, with that link and some variation of: “we didn’t include them because we hate them” (which is joking off of what the FAQ says). Usually this takes care of the issue.

But sometimes people either don’t go look at the FAQ, or are too dense/sarcasm-impaired to “get” my response. That was the case with the current querent. After a couple more exchanged emails I finally convinced him that we don’t actually hate Glocks.

But the truth is, we *have* intentionally excluded Glocks so far. As I told my querent in my final email:

There are a lot of different factors which go into the selection of the guns we include in our tests. Glocks have a different barrel structure, so comparing them with the ‘standard’ rifling tends to skew results. For this reason we’ve so far avoided including them.

I say “so far” because we’re presently in the process of finalizing a test sequence where we do the formal inch-by-inch chop tests on Glock polygonal barrels. It’s taken us two years to be able to get the necessary 18″ blanks to do this properly. Having that data will allow us to do head-to-head comparisons with the ‘standard’ rifling results, and so give everyone data which actually is useful rather than just anecdotal. And yes, as part of that sequence we will be testing actual Glocks in different calibers and with different barrel lengths. We hope to be able to conduct these tests yet this fall, but are waiting on the gunsmithing work to be done.

This isn’t actually “news” – I hinted at it in June on the BBTI Facebook page (which you should “Like” if you’re on FB, so you see these things sooner), but it is the first I’ve mentioned it here or on any forums.

Anyway, yeah, I’m glad I don’t have to deal with the public on a daily basis any longer. My blood pressure problems would be a lot worse than they actually are.

Jim Downey

Blimey.

Blimey. Just got the following email:

Someone directed me to this page from your site: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

Now, I appreciate what you are doing, but how you are presenting it is not very helpful.

What a useless page that is. Hey, look, columns of unlabeled numbers! How exciting!

Is that velocity? Muzzle Energy? Momentum? Power factor? Drop over distance? What are the units?

It’s labeled at the top as “.357 Mag Results”. Why not “.357 Mag Muzzle Energy in ft-lbs”?

My response? This: “Sorry to disappoint you. We’ll be happy to completely refund your money.”

The guy wrote back, protesting that he meant it as “constructive criticism.” And then went on to protest that he *still* didn’t know what the data represented (in spite of the fact that it is listed on the Y-axis of every ammo graph and indicated elsewhere on the site).

Sigh. I wrote back the following:

From the homepage of the site, and also referred to in multiple locations elsewhere on the site: “Since we first launched BBTI three years ago, it has become a primary reference tool for firearms enthusiasts of all stripes and from around the globe. Our initial research data covered the relationship between barrel length and velocity for some 13 common handgun calibers/cartridges.”

But you’re absolutely correct, we didn’t spell out that the numbers were velocity in feet-per-second (the standard velocity measurement in the US). We’ll correct that to make it more explicit. The funny thing is that you are the very first person in 3.5 years to not understand that this was what was indicated. Probably because you came at it from someone else’s link direct to that one results page. At least that’s the most charitable conclusion I can come to.

And that, dear friends is why now each caliber/cartridge page now says .22 Results in fps. (or whatever the caliber/cartridge is). Never let it be said that we won’t go the e x t r a inch for the dimwitted and deliberately dense.

People really will always find something to bitch about, won’t they? Even if it is free & unencumbered research data that they can’t get elsewhere.

Blimey.

Jim Downey

(Cross posted to my personal blog.)

Great new resource.

The folks over at LuckyGunner.com have started a blog, and the first post up is some really solid data from their testing of the differences between 5.56 NATO and .223 Remmington. From the post:

The differences between .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO have been hashed out many times on the internet. Unfortunately, many of the “facts” that are often thrown around are simply what someone has heard from someone else, leading to a lot of misinformation being accepted as gospel.

In order to create this article, I temporarily set aside all of my previous knowledge and opinions while several months’ worth of new research and experimentation on the topic was undertaken. In addition, extensive discussions with gunsmiths, ballisticians, and laboratory technicians were conducted.

My findings, and the opinions of many experts in the industry who deal with the topic every day, were not exactly what some might expect. In fact, many of them had already discovered what I am reporting, although my research was conducted independently.

It’s a long, and really solid piece of research. If this is going to be typical of their stuff (and I think it will be — I know one of the guys involved with this, and respect his intelligence & commitment a lot), then this will be one hell of a great resource for those of us who are looking for good information that we can trust.

Check it out!

Jim Downey

Now linked to reviews.

Good afternoon!

Just wanted to let folks know that we’ve updated the BBTI “Real World Guns” page to include links to all the reviews I’ve done of those guns for Guns.com (where I am a writer). Currently that includes over 40 different reviews, and we’ll be adding more periodically as they run at Guns.com.

This is convenient for two reasons: it gives everyone a chance to see and learn about the guns we’ve used, and it gathers together in one place a lot of my reviews for reference. Of course, you can also just check my profile on Guns.com if you want to see *all* of my reviews and articles.

Cheers!

Jim Downey

One day doesn’t make *that* much of a difference . . .

Got the stats for February, and they’re good. Very good. Some 22,258 visitors. Which is just about only 400 fewer visitors than our huge numbers in December, when we re-launched the site. More importantly, that’s almost a 50% improvement over what we did in February 2011 (15,802). Granted, last month had an extra day, but that only added 738 visitors to the total.

Thanks, everyone!

And just an FYI: this Sunday the Kindle edition of my science fiction novel will be available for free download. You don’t even need to own a Kindle to get it for free. Full info here. Help spread the word!

Jim Downey

Go forth and edit!

Just a quick note to let everyone know that there’s a new page up on Wikipedia about BBTI. If you see any edits that need to be done, as per usual with Wikipedia, please just make them. In particular, linking to other articles about BBTI or to other pages on Wikipedia would help to make the page that much more useful for anyone who goes to it.

Thanks!

Jim Downey

New feature!

Thanks to some excellent work from S. W. McPherson, there’s a new feature on the BBTI website: the ability to directly compare the performance curves for each ammunition brand/loading to the next for all the Cylinder Gap test data! This is an Excel application which will allow you to mix & match different performance curves as you see fit. You can find the Comparison Chart for the Gap Test Data on the “Raw Data” page.

This is a really great tool I think that many people will find very useful. And we owe S. W. McPherson a huge debt of gratitude for tackling this technical problem and coming up with an elegant solution. Check it out!

Jim Downey

By any measure . . .

Good morning, and welcome to 2012!

The beginning of January I usually do a look-back over the last year, to assess how things with the BBTI site and the blog have done. That’s a little more complicated because of the massive overhaul of the site on Dec. 1, 2011, but I think we can still draw some conclusions.

A year ago I wrote the following:

My, how things have grown in the last year. Sometimes I feel like we’ve created a monster.

Yeah, same feeling this year. Even though comparing numbers head-to-head between the site before the redesign and after is difficult, let’s see what we can do. January – November of 2010 we had a total of 2,437,348 hits. January – November of 2011 we had a total of 3,493,374 hits. That’s an increase in over one million hits for the two time periods where all the metrics are the same.

Now, because of the way the site loads, trying to compare the hits it receives under the old design versus the new design is very much a case of comparing apples to shoes. So, when I say that in December 2010 we had 457,007 total hits and in December of 2011 we had 387,164, it looks like the redesign didn’t lead to any increase in traffic.

This was something pointed out to me a long time ago, but since I had started keeping track of hits, I was kinda stuck with continuing to do that since the data available only goes back for 18 months. As it turns out, I should have been keeping track of ‘visitors’ all along. If we compare the number of actual visitors for December 2010 (17,643) to visitors for December 2011 (22,498) you can see that there was actually a substantial jump in traffic.

One thing which doesn’t need any explanation is which sites were our biggest referrers in 2011 (excluding search engines and this blog):

1. en.wikipedia.org
2. thefiringline.com
3. www.stumbleupon.com
4. www.mouseguns.com
5. www.thefirearmblog.com
6. www.thehighroad.org
7. www.guns.com
8. www.defensivecarry.com
9. www.ar15.com
10. www.reddit.com

Interesting to see how things have shuffled around a bit from previous years. I am glad to see my new writing gig – Guns.com – make the list.

So, there you have it. By any measure, BBTI continues to be a very big success. Thanks to all of you who have cited us in discussions, or posted data from our site in analysis of different firearms, or just told your friends about us. It has been very much appreciated!

Here’s to a great new year to come for all!

Jim Downey

.22 article is now up.

As most know, one of my sidelines is as a feature writer and reviewer over at Guns.com. I don’t cross-promote all my articles or reviews here, but if you’re interested you can find them under my profile there.

Anyway, there’s a new article up there about our .22 tests and the resultant data. Check it out:

To .22 or not to .22, that is the Question: BBTI’s Killer .22 ‘Defense Rounds’ Test Findings

Jim Downey

The Rimfire Podcast interview.

Just thought I would pass along that I had a nice interview with Ken Kowalski, who does The Rimfire Podcast. If you’re interested, it can be downloaded or listened to streaming here: Episode #11 Ballistics By The Inch Interview with Jim Downey. If you’re on Facebook, pop by and “like” his page.

We had a good discussion, mostly about our .22 tests/data, but also talking about the whole project and firearms in general.

Jim Downey

A little chat.

Here’s something for the .460 Rowland fans and those curious: Dear Santa: I want a .460 Rowland AR Upper

Had a bit of fun with that. Though admittedly, I have an offbeat sense of humor…

Jim Downey

Excellent initial analysis & discussion.

Check out the post on The Firearm Blog titled: Fascinating Phenomenon in Cylinder Gap Data.

As I noted on our Facebook page, this is exactly the sort of discussion & analysis we hoped to engender by collecting all the data. As I have noted in the past, none of us on the BBTI team are statistics geeks, and all of us have busy lives to demand our attention elsewhere. I am perfectly happy to just do the grunt work, then turn the data loose in the world for others to play with.

Jim Downey

OK, thanks.

I had a bit of a temper tantrum the other day. I won’t apologize, because it was how I really felt. But I will say that a couple of things have happened which have helped me get past my grumpiness.

And those couple of things have been donations. Both of them were decided votes of confidence that our work on BBTI is valued, all our time and effort appreciated.

This may seem silly, because OF COURSE our site is appreciated. Except . . . well, I pretty regularly get emails or come across comments on forums which are complaints. Yup: complaints. That we didn’t test a particular ammo. Or that we’ve slighted some brand or model of firearm by not including it in our tests. Or that we haven’t put our data into this or that form of file so that people can just download it. Or that our data isn’t perfect – that we’ve made mistakes. Or that we haven’t conducted rifle cartridge tests. Et cetera.

It gets old. It gets a little demoralizing, to be honest. The sense of entitlement which some people have is pretty amazing – we’ve busted our asses, worked hard and incurred all the costs of conducting the tests as well as creating and hosting the data on our website, and people bitch because the data isn’t up to *their* standards or expectations. It is very much like we owe it to them to do exactly what they want, and right now.

I don’t mind the criticism. I don’t mind people pointing out where there are areas where we could improve our procedures or range of items tested. We fully recognize that there are more things we could do, ways we can make the data better. And we welcome suggestions on what particular improvements people would like to see – that helps us to make decisions about what is important enough to sink another big chunk of time, money and energy investigating. This isn’t a full-time job for us, after all.

So when I get a note from someone saying “thanks, and oh, have you thought about this…” I welcome it. When someone sends us a donation – of any size – that is a tangible statement that they think our efforts are worthy of supporting. And if someone does send a donation, along with this kind of message, it really means something:

I have used your website for the past two years as a reference tool, and I find the data available amazing. Thank you for putting all of that information together. I was able to donate $x.xx today and I hope the rest of your viewing public gets it and drops you a few dollars as well.

I am sure there is a tremendous personal expense involved in the guns and ammunition used, and I get that you use your personal guns.

Glocks are obviously absent from your data set. I get that you cannot test everything, however with the enormous amount of Glocks in the public, it would seem prudent to at least have one in each caliber and I am positive with your connections they could be provided to you for testing.

You can also just tell me to buzz off…

Thanks again for the awesome data.

Now, *that* is how you make a suggestion which will be remembered.

So, thanks to those who have sent thanks, as well as the donations. It really does mean a lot.

Jim Downey

(Cross posted to my personal blog.)

Take a walk on the wild side.

I’m a blockhead.

No, really. Samuel Johnson’s quote establishes it beyond a doubt:

“No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”

For years I listened to people go on and on about how beneficial my writing about being a care-giver was. All the praise, the sharing, the requests to write more, to collect my writings into a book. The final result has been for Her Final Year to sell a grand total of 32 copies, after years of work and months of flogging the book. What a staggering success.

Yup, a blockhead.

Also for years now I’ve listened to countless proclamations of how incredible and valuable Ballistics By The Inch is. How it is an amazing resource for anyone interested in hard data. This has been in discussions on different forums and blogs which I have stumbled upon. And it’s reflected in the hits & usage of the site, as well, with over 8 million hits total and something on the order of 500,000 unique visitors. There’ve been plenty of people who have written me, thanking me, telling me that we should accept donations to support our work. So, for the re-launch we have done just that – added a way for people to show how much they value the site with a small donation. And in the short time we’ve had the new site up we’ve had over 5,000 unique visitors, and gotten just one donation of $10. At that rate, we’d have gotten a stunning total of $1,000 in donations since the start – it wouldn’t even cover the cost of hosting the website.

Yup, a blockhead.

My novel has been downloaded over 35,000 times in the last 5 years. People have told me they love it, that it’s brilliant and just like the classic SF of the golden era. Sometime in the next few weeks we’ll offer a self-published version of the book in hardcopy and for the Kindle. And I’m not so much a blockhead that I expect to actually sell copies of the thing. But I bet – I just bet – that somehow I’ll manage to be disappointed, nonetheless. Probably when I start getting complaints that the book is no longer free.

Screw it. I swear, I am seriously tempted to just shut down all the websites. Yup, BBTI too. Just leave a brief description of the project up with an email address where people can contact me to buy access to the data. Like the song says:

Little Joe never once gave it away
Everybody had to pay and pay
A hustle here and a hustle there
New York City’s the place where
They said hey babe, take a walk on the wild side
They said hey Joe, take a walk on the wild side

But being a blockhead, we’ll see what happens.

Jim Downey

(Cross posted to my personal blog.)

And we’re off!

Well, initial coverage is off to a good start, with a couple of excellent pieces in The Firearm Blog and Guns.com. Guns.com should also be posting a piece by me about what I think you can conclude from the new .22 data sometime soon.

And I got the following private message from someone very well known and highly respected on one of the major forums:

Jim,

I’ve got to say that your site really impresses me. I’m sure that most shooters realize how much of an investment in terms of ammunition money is represented in the website, but as an analyst/engineer, I also understand how much time and effort is required to collect and collate data in such a way as to make it easily accessible and useful.

Great work!!

I’m sure in the coming days the news of the relaunch will propagate around the web, but it is always exciting to see it start.

Quick bookkeeping note: last month we had a total of 336,809 hits to the site, bringing the total as of Dec. 1 to 8,110,033. That translates to 12,900 unique visitors, or 45,443 page views. Compared to one year ago, we had 387,198 hit in November 2010, with 13,335 unique visitors and 51,094 page views. December 2010 still remains our high benchmark, with 459,020 hits, 15,622 visitors and 60,799 page hits. Be interesting to see if we can beat that this month! Help spread the word!

Jim Downey

It’s Up!

The new Ballistics By The Inch site is now up and running! Bigger, Faster, And with More DATA! Take a look, spread the word, let us know if there are any glitches or problems.

Jim Downey