Twist rate vs killing power.

[big honkin jeep]

The earth does not spin faster at the equator than it does at the polls. Faster twist rates do more damage because the bullets act like saws after they open.:cool:

Nope they act like bullets. With the hydrostatic shock wound channel being so much larger than the expanded bullet diameter I am convinced any "sawing" effect is relegated to chewing up tissue that has already been reduced to purple mush by the bullet doing its job.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The earth does not spin faster at the equator than it does at the polls.

I'm not sure what it has to do with the subject at hand, but that claim depends on how you're using the word "faster". A person standing on the equator is certainly traveling around the Earth's axis at a much higher velocity than he/she would be while standing at/near one of the poles.


Faster twist rates do more damage because the bullets act like saws after they open.:cool:

Uhm....no.

[thomae]

I was ignoring most of this thread, but it looks like it is just starting to get interesting.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif

[stangfish]

Wuzyoung,



The earth does not spin faster at the equator than it does at the polls.
This was a response to this


There is a thing called angular velocity, which could explain what is going on. In simple terms it explains why the Earth spins faster at the Equator and slower at the North and South Poles.

How do you know that an expanded bullet doesn't act like a saw. I don't believe in hydraulic shock, or Santa or tooth fairies....

As far as spinnng speed I think everywhere on the planet earth is rotatating at 1 revolution per day. Now surface speed is is another story.

[Geo_Erudite]

As far as spinnng speed I think everywhere on the planet earth is rotatating at 1 revolution per day. Now surface speed is is another story.

I may have incorrectly stated angular velocity, when I should have stated linear velocity. In the end though, the earths circumference at the equator is 24,902 miles, while the circumference of the earth at the poles is 0 miles. It takes 24 hours for the earth to rotate at either point.

Euator: 24902/24= 1,038 mph

Pole: (24902*[cos(90)])/24= 0 mph

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Wuzyoung,

This was a response to this

How do you know that an expanded bullet doesn't act like a saw.

Because we know what the approximate rate of rotation is for bullets, and thanks to things like high-speed photography and other nifty technologies we have a pretty good understanding of the behavior of bullets when they travel through the target...and neither things suggest any saw-like effects on tissue.


I don't believe in hydraulic shock, or Santa or tooth fairies....

There's a fair amount of physical evidence and peer-reviewed research that support the theory of hydrostatic shock. Not so much for Santa or the tooth fairies.


As far as spinnng speed I think everywhere on the planet earth is rotatating at 1 revolution per day. Now surface speed is is another story.

Which is why I said it depends on how you're using the word "speed". Had you included in your previous post a quote of what it was you were responding to then that question would have been answered.

[stangfish]

Waz, I am a troll in this thread. I personaly don't believe most of what I have written on this post. I am sorry for taking you down this path, I am in the hospital on Morphine and have nothing better to do.

[stangfish]

I may have incorrectly stated angular velocity, when I should have stated linear velocity. In the end though, the earths circumference at the equator is 24,902 miles, while the circumference of the earth at the poles is 0 miles. It takes 24 hours for the earth to rotate at either point.

Euator: 24902/24= 1,038 mph

Pole: (24902/[cos(90)]/24= 0 mph

you are correct and I think we all knew what you ment. I just needed a reason to troll.

However, I do believe that the pole ocsilates somewhat so I am not sure Zero is the correct answer either. At least not for the magnetic pole.

[thomae]

There's a fair amount of physical evidence and peer-reviewed research that support the theory of hydrostatic shock. Not so much for Santa or the tooth fairies.

WHAT!?!?
Have you ever seen the face of a child light up on Christmas morning? In my book, that's plenty of proof that Santa exists. You might not be able to fingerprint him, but he exists, nonetheless. Where does he live? You never know...it might be right in your own heart. If you truly don't believe that Santa exists, I feel sorry for you.
[/rant off]
:focus:

PS:
1. The magnetic poles move around...that's why magnetic variation changes on maps from time to time.
2. The physical poles move as well because the earth doesn't spin perfectly, it wobbles just a bit. The technical term is "nutation" and when you are attempting to do precise celestial navigation (a three-star fix) it has to be taken into account in order to obtain an accurate position.
3. None of that will affect your shooting ability in any measurable fashion.

[stangfish]

Thanks for the input Thomae, Now about that sawtooth killing action of the bullet chewing up the pulverized bloodshot meat.....

[thomae]

Thanks for the input Thomae, Now about that sawtooth killing action of the bullet chewing up the pulverized bloodshot meat.....Hey Fish, you made me laugh out loud! ☺

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

WHAT!?!?
Have you ever seen the face of a child light up on Christmas morning? In my book, that's plenty of proof that Santa exists. You might not be able to fingerprint him, but he exists, nonetheless. Where does he live? You never know...it might be right in your own heart. If you truly don't believe that Santa exists, I feel sorry for you.
[/rant off]

I made no claims regarding belief (or lack thereof). That was stangfish. Your pity is misplaced here. I referred only to "physical evidence" and "peer-reviewed research".


:focus:

PS:
1. The magnetic poles move around...that's why magnetic variation changes on maps from time to time.
2. The physical poles move as well because the earth doesn't spin perfectly, it wobbles just a bit. The technical term is "nutation" and when you are attempting to do precise celestial navigation (a three-star fix) it has to be taken into account in order to obtain an accurate position.

True. However the Earth's nutation involves the movement of its axis relative to an external frame of reference (like the plane of the ecliptic, for instance). The two points at which the axis exits the Earth's surface is essentially fixed (or at least close enough for purposes of this discussion, though technically the Earth is not perfectly symmetrical, which means that *some* wobble in the actual axis relative to body of the planet itself occurs as well).


3. None of that will affect your shooting ability in any measurable fashion.

True...and of course, the most important point. :thumb: