Monday, March 2, 2015

2 of 2 today




A rocket stove isn’t exactly a new idea.  I have, from a loyal minion, a one piece clay stove similar but not as enclosed which is traditional in the Philippines for saving fuel.  And there is the Dakota Hole which is just a straight hole down with one at its side which is at an angle intersecting the bottom of the straight hole, where you feed sticks into the slanted and place your pot over the straight.  Less light, a tactical consideration, and no heat loss from the earthen insulation.   A rocket stove is made from cheap material and made for the tropics where you couldn’t dig in the moist soil, but using the same concept.  A rocket stove is merely a way to draw air in at the same intake as the fuel and concentrate the flame under a pot at the top ( shaped as an L ), so there is no wasted heat escaping from the bottom sides of the pot as on a stove top, nor in every other direction as on a camp fire.  It saves fuel for regions with overpopulation and hilltops denuded of vegetation from cooking fuel needs.  If you are still saying to yourself, geez, I have no idea what this idiot is saying, just think of the Great Depression Hobo Stove.  An empty coffee can turned upside down so the opening is in the dirt, with a small door on the side at the bottom, and at the top, a few holes punched in the sides.  You feed the sticks of wood into the door and the holes at the top draw the fire up ( if you don‘t punch holes in the sides, put a few rocks around the rim of the top and have a hole in the middle under the pan ).  That is the first American rocket stove.


Now that you know about the Hobo Stove and the Dakota Hole, I trust you won’t be swayed by commercial versions of the Rocket Stove.  You can so easily make your own it is a world class crime to consider paying some damn fool a hundred bucks to do it for you.  Go online and see the hundreds of homemade versions.  A word of warning from one reader, do NOT use the concrete cinder block version as in time the intense heat causes them to become very brittle and shatter.  Use fire brick.  They are cheap enough and you can even use them with a mud mortar if you want to easily move them elsewhere later.  Just buy them now as they are affordable and stack them to one side for future use if you have little use for it today.  But in the future, this stove can replace your propane one ( in my case, having no forests here, I’m saving the sagebrush for future fuel.  If you don’t have this lack of fuel issue, you can switch over now ).  And once you see it in action, you’ll never want to use a regular camp fire again.  For those fools still wanting to buy one, whining about camping or some such, just use the coffee can version.  It is lightweight, replaceable ( there are still a few brands sold in a metal can-I’d stock up on those as it seems to be an endangered species.  Yes, resource draw-down deniers [ “any decade now, .22 rimfire will become cheap and plentiful again” ], even regular metal is become scarcer and more dear as the remaining ore is so diffuse the refining needs huge fuel and machinery inputs ), and while not as pretty will do the job adequately.  What are we, a bunch of friggin girls comparing how much crap costs for social brownie points?  Rugged manly men take junk and create tools, and call city pukes who spend money effeminate metero-sexuals. 

Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page. You can purchase anything, not just the linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is placed, I get credit for your purchase.  For those that can’t get the ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year.
The Old Bison Blog on CD 
Over five years of work and nearly two million words of pure brilliance. Here is the link to order:                        
Also as a free e-book, but not cleaned up or organized, at Lulu
 my bio & biblio
My books on PDF ( ALL free!!  If you like it, most are available for sale in paper versions )  available at
By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there.


  1. "Yes, resource draw-down deniers “any decade now, .22 rimfire will become cheap and plentiful again”.

    It's been a while since I've done my pellet guns for survival guest article James, but the main reason at the time was the increasingly difficult to get, not to mention now much more costly rimfire ammo. And from what I'm hearing lately, the situation is not getting any better? I got the Shanghai B1 air rifle, and planned on getting the B3 model, but I might just hold out and spend a little more, and get something like this in the .22 cal:

    Said to be the best deal around for well under $200.00. Turkish made, real walnut stock, and actual German steel. I plan on having a good air rifle like this, and will use it as long as the infrastructure supports my ability to maintain it, but ultimately I feel that low tech archery is the best option in the long run.

    The backyard bowyer by Nicholas Tomihama, is an excellent publication on this subject. Everything mentioned in this book, from bows and arrows, to fletchings and strings, can be made from easily accessible, and commonly found low cost materials. Nothing has to be purchased from an archery shop, which as some of you may already be aware, are very expensive these days.

    1. As per you, Backyard Bowyer already was on the Wish List. Just added the B1. Ya know, that might be an article. Bows being less unevenly matched without an arms industry back east, this time around.

    2. I have the B1 already James, and it's a cool little gun for the price, but it's only rated around 450fps, and lacks the power for small game. The B3 is only a few dollars more and is around 650fps, and parts appear to be more available for the B3 (See Archer airguns). If you can afford a little extra James, maybe consider something like the Crosman Fury Nitro Piston .22 cal. I think it's only $100 and the gas pistons are said to be a marked improvement over the Spring guns. You can also leave them cocked for several hours. The Hatsun on the other hand comes with open sights as well. The Crosman does not, so you're stuck using a scope whether you want to or not. The Hatsun is now available with a Nitro Piston, but it's only available in .177 cal (Too small in my opinion) or .25 cal (Not readily available as are the .22).

      In the end, I always come back to low tech archery as being the only long term sustainable weapons system.

    3. What about the old Crossman you pump a bunch of times ( I think about $35 )? BB's are cheaper, and I WANT a scope. How does that compare to the B1? You're right, 450 is double crap. I'd spring for $20 more if needed, but if the Wally World Crossman is better...

    4. I'm assuming that you're talking about the Crosman 760 pumpmaster James? I gleaned this from the Amazon site: "Shoots up to 645 FPS (alloy)/615 FPS (lead". That's closer to the B3 in velocity, but remember that the B3 shoots the heavier. 22 cal pellets.

      And per the reviews James: " Second the barrel is not rifled. While it is made of steel, without rifling BB's and pellets very easily wander off course, with this said accuracy is not this guns strong suit".

      The problem with BB's James, is that they're very light and have poor energy transfer since they don't expand on impact, and are not real accurate at any kind of range. Probably only good for close up head and neck shots, as any kind of velocity behind them will just punch a tiny hole in whatever you shoot at.

      Had a bad experience shooting a crow one time with my brothers Benjamin .177 cal using pellets. Six shots later it finally died. I'll never do that again. A little research explained why. These guns only provide 800fps with a .177 cal pellet. Most spring guns or nitro pistons provide the same velocity, but with the heavier. 22 cal pellets.

      So I guess if you want to go with cheaper ammo, I would say that you should go with a high velocity airgun in .177 that will provide enough energy to give adequate expansion using pellets. Otherwise go with a lower velocity gun, but with a larger pellet size, and the larger mass/energy transfer will make up for the lower feet per sec. I have read that the latter option is best:

      You might take a gamble with that low priced gun James and try some of the heavy duty .177 pellets. They're basically jumbo pellets that weigh as much as the average .22 cal pellets. For plinking just use regular pellets. Use these for hunting. But after reading about the lack of rifling I can't recommend this gun, and would probably gamble with the B3 in .22 cal over the pumpmaster.

    5. I much appreciate the expertise. All this s new to me. No wonder I never hit shit in my airgun days. B3 seems to be the choice.

  2. The B3 is a cheapie James, no doubt. But in this case, I think that it will be superior to that Crosman. If you could afford better, such as the Hatsan 95, I'd go with that. Otherwise the B3 is probably the best value line airgun out there. All steel and wood, no plastic. But also no safety. Just be sure and hold that cocking lever with one hand while feeding the pellet with the other. Some folks have reported the lever snapping shut on their fingers, and you don't want that!


    1. I just want one for insurance, not serious use. Thanks.