I often wonder what would happen, explosion-wise, were Josh Norton and my oldest brother Chet to meet, since they've both got that fiery, quick-witted, grouchy, excellent-historical-grasp thing going on. So I figured, hey why not, and sent my brother to today's post about ammunition (which you should read anyhow). He responded to me only and had this to say:
Where do you get this stuff?
A few quick points: If you have a bullet that goes off course when it hits a leaf, you're probably not going to hit many people. An old chestnut of the diehard left is that the M16 violates the Geneva Convention because the bullet supposedly tumbles. This is just the remnant of that argument.
The article states that the Thomp$on submachine gun was designed for use against the Filipinos, but that war ended about 1904 and the Thomp$on SMG wasn't invented until around 1923.
The real design challenge in ammunition is mastering a paradox. You want the bullet to be as stable as possible in flight, but as unstable as possible once it hits the target. A highly stable bullet will just put a hole in the target. An unstable one will create a mini explosion. Usually smaller and quicker is better and provides more energy than larger and slower (remember from physics KE= 1/2 mv*2, a twofold increase in speed leads to a fourfold increase in energy).
Haven't thought about this for years.
Now get back to your fambily.
Fun! I love knowing mulitple sides of arguments, in the case that I get to confront and torture someone even wafflier than myself. And I just love having access to brilliant brains! Indeed, Reader, whether you are a corporeal or digital friend, this is a big part of why I've lured you into my fold. I want to suck your brain! Now it comes out. Run away if you must.
Last note: I love that he assumes I know physics equations, whereas I've never taken a physics class in my life (chose cheerleading for sixth period instead, in the interests of well-roundedess for the old college application).