scrambled_legs

Thinker... your Bang on... sorry. I mean gun powder is used because of its slow release of energy. It allows the somewhat fragile lead to start accelerating rather than be deformed in a massive explosion. Gasoline is actually more potent than gun powder. Same ideas surrounding combustion engines. If you get the wrong octane gas it wrecks your engine because the cylinder components will be damaged to the explosion rather than slow release of energy. It really is a slow release in terms of explosives

true... but as soon as the slug is removed there is nothing for the casing mass to push against. The brass or lead will probably shoot 15'-25' (as I had said in my original post) depending on which one is pushed up against something with more mass. But neither are really dangerous unless the casing actually explodes before the slug releases.

hahhahahha.... beans and wiens

Who said get a chopper??? Simpson rode out on a ass after he made it back to camp. No chopper ride even then!!! I think they had to convince the locals to even provide them with this transportation if I remember right. Rodchester is bang on

As soon as the slug is removed the energy is expelled through the opening. Sure there'll be a lot of pressure applied to the inside of the casing but what can resist more pressure? Brass which would have to rip apart or lead which has to be pushed out of a pressure fit. I'm not saying that the brass won't have more force acting against it. Nor am I saying that it's not the densities of the brass vs. lead. Simply that once that force builds it wants to find the easiest escape. It would take a lot less force to push the lead out of the pressure fit than rip the brass apart. Once the slug is out, its like lighting gun powder on fire on top of a log. It simply burns up in milli-seconds. The increase in expansion caused by the powder will still cause a force against the brass but the force will mostly escape out the hole and the remaining force won't be enough to do anything. Shoulda stayed awake to learn the other laws Thinker.

The reason a gun has to have such thick metal surrounding the casing is because the barrel provides no immediate scape for the energy. Bullets are actually designed so the casing can take the pressure required to release the slug. This is in case of accidental detonation. Just as a gun is designed to take the added pressure resulting from the bullet blocking the release of energy until it leaves the barrel. Obviously this safety factor isn't always there and the casing will explode in some cases. So I guess if you want to teach your kids a lesson let them play with soup instead... as was suggested

hahahhaa... wow I'm getting compared with Issac Newton?? I don't even remember what he was famed for... guess I just took myself out of the running. I'm just relating what my firearms instructor told me. I see how you would consider a casing to travel just as fast as the slug or blow apart. But as soon as the slug leaves the casing the energy disapates through the remaining opening. The casing obviously exploded in this case so the slug must have had some sort of extra pressure holding it in place when it blew.

True, true... I guess a .22 shell would be different. The instructor actually had this argument with another instructor one time while camping. Finally he threw the shells into the fire and sat back down to continue roasting his marshmallow. True to his word the shells simply popped the lead out much to the dismay of his friend who was hiding behind a thick stump cursing him.

???? must been a wacky shell. Most shells have the slug (made of soft lead) simply creased with the casing. It takes very little force to remove the slug from the casing and a whole lot of force to rip apart a brass casing. I know from experience as I used to pull the slug out with pliers in order to get at the powder for my home made bombs. M-80's didn't do it for me and the gunsmith didn't want to sell a bag of powder to a 13 year old kid for some reason.

hahahha... what a load of crap!!!

Ahhhh... Billygoat... you finally see my side. " maybe he just had a bad case of gas... " I think you might be on to something. You know when I watched "Gigli" I had to take the biggest dump, really didn't like the show. I guess it must have been the log in between my cheeks that caused the awful taste in my mouth.

Harrrr... she never blew???

The true reason why you are still alive is actually based on physics. I was told by my firearms instructor that throwing live ammo into a fire is virtually harmless. The way the bullet becomes deadly in a firearm is due to the forced expansion through the barrel. There is an enormous amount of pressure built up by a huge expansion through the ignition of the gun powder. If there is no force restricting this expansion it actually won't generate the speed required to fire the slug but will simply pop it out of the casing travelling maybe 10-25'. A gun focuses that energy into expelling the slug in a certain direction and the longer the barrel the faster the slug will travel. Hence the difference in penetration between a rifle and a handgun with the same type of ammo. Try shooting a .22 handgun and a .22 rifle... you'll see the physics in action. So in response to your fears of having kids... have them. Let them play with ammo... let them get freaked out and see their life pass before them... it worked for us didn't it? Just don't tell them what I just told you. Let them believe there is consequences to stupidity and that they just about found that out first hand. And no... I don't have kids.

Much wisdom I see in Rodchester and Dmuja!! He is trying to take the moral high ground. If he wasn't he wouldn't have brought it up at all. That wasn't an opinion related to the movie but simply related to the sport. That's like Ebert and Roeper saying... well immediately after seeing these black boys shooting each other in harlem you could imagine what ran through my mind. Me a white boy in a neighborhood that bakes cakes for each other. I could have easily critisized the film on these merits but instead I won't stand on the higher moral ground. You can't critisize the event that the movies wrapped around but have to critisize the movie itself. Critisizing english people that climb is the same as critisizing gangsters that shoot each other. Your not dealing with the movie simply the circumstantial evidence surrounding the plot. He may have a point that the film is more documentary based. But after spewing crap about english climbers at the beginning of his review, he has completely lost all merit to critisize the film on any other level!

Much fear I sensed in Simon

Is she a sex industry worker like yourself?

Dudes... if we can't come up with a clear answer while considering all the points of the story in the comfort of our living rooms... no wrong was done. He was wrecked!! I don't remember the specifics but I know that it was epic and he was wasted!!! Not to mention the emotional turmoil going through his head. He felt that there was no way that Simpson coulda lived. Who wants to see a dead friend???? I'd like to hear the climbing "establishments" take. According to our most popular movie review: the rational thing was to leave him as soon as he fell!!!

Hindsight is 20/20!!! I think either decision in the moment would've been acceptable. Obviously in this situation it worked out for the better and we can say with confidence... yes

Amen Brother!!! There's this mainstream film coming out called "Along Came Polly" with Ben Stiller. Ben is totally hung up over protecting himself from all harm. Far more than Mudede himself. He runs into this girl who starts to open him up. He starts to experience the world for what it really is. I mean he was spending his entire life trying to live long and in doing so, wasn't living at all! Now Mudede isn't going to bring up politics, class or race in this review because he can relate to it. I mean he's probably living a pretty risky life compared to Ben in the beginning. I understand the reason for him not relating to climbing in the first place, but he could have simply stated this and then gone on to write an unbiased review. I feel that dmju hit it on the nose when he said: I guess thats what I was trying to say. He never let go of the issue. He never stepped off of that so called Higher Moral Ground. He should've related even more towards the film than someone not exposed to survival situations. He obviously feels that he has had a personal struggle with survival in a very real sense. How can he not start to feel a real urge to help Simpson though risking his own life. Isn't this exactly what he was relating to in his own experiences??? I'm scared of the MoFO too!!! Would he have brought up the same points in reference to Shakleton's voyage? Basically the same scenario except in sailing rather than Climbing.

What is the space telescope really used for??? Co-ordinating mirrors with the telescope has provided unique earth based shots unparalleled in quality! http://tenderloin.net/04302003/index.html

hahaaha... wouldn't sail on ye scooter even if in return ye give me vast treasure and all ye buxom beauties in Taiwan.

Hey it can't be as bad as Vancouver. Did you get any snow this year?

Which "Any offleash dog park..." town is this place located in?

No... I think you're missing mine My point is that he criticizes us for climbing then turns around and criticizes Simon for not cutting the rope sooner as the "rational" thing to do??? How can he look down on us for climbing instead of helping others yet critisize Simon for helping Joe instead of climbing to safety?????

Is there any way to compliment Charles Mudede on his fine review and his exceptional morals?