Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Tue Apr 23 05:45:03 2002
According to Daniel Powell, on Mon, 22 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> Not that it matters, but my .223 is a Ruger and is also known as the
> mini-14. I don't know if that complicates the discussion or clears
> things up.

That has nothing to do with it :) 5.56x45 mm is known as .223 Remington
after the manufacturer of the original _ammunition_ in this caliber; Ruger
just scaled down the US military's M14 rifle (which normally fires 7.62x51
mm) to accept 5.56x45 mm rounds and called it the Mini-14.


According to Danyeal De La Luna, on Tue, 23 Apr 2002 the word on the street
was...

> actually...the .223 and the 5.56 are two totally different rounds. The
> m-16 was just changed to 5.56 when they realized that the .223 wasn't
> stopping the bad guys.

.223 is the commercial name for the caliber used in the military as 5.56 mm.
It was developed in the late 1950s, based on a commercial .222 round, for
the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle; the US Air Force bought the AR-15 for its base
security personnel, and numbers were also shipped to South Vietnam, where
they were well-received by ARVN and US Special Forces. It was adopted by the
US Army (for its Airmobile units), calling it the M16 and making a bunch of
changes, especially to the ammunition (most of them for the worse).
Tinkering with the design, largely due to these ammunition faults, produced
the M16A1 in the mid-'60s. The rounds fired by these weapons are the M193
ball and M196 tracer, in 5.56x45 mm caliber (which means the barrel diameter
is 5.56 mm, and the length of an empty cartridge case is 45 mm).

Fast-forward about 15 years, to the late 1970s, and NATO is evaluating which
caliber should be adopted next as the standard small arms round -- the
current 7.62x51 mm not being thought suitable anymore. The winner of this
competition is the SS109 round produced by FN Herstal, which is also a
5.56x45 mm round, but of different performance to the M193. After NATO
standardization, the US calls the SS109, the M855 ball, and the tracer
variant M856. Although the M193 and M855 rounds have the same external
dimensions (the only real external difference being the color of the bullet
tips), their different performance means the M16 needs to be re-designed
again, and becomes the M16A2 that can use both types. Aside from ergonomic
changes, the main difference is the barrel, which has different rifling from
that used in the M16/M16A1 (IIRC the A2 has one twist in 30 cm, while the A1
has one twist in 17.5 cm), in order to make the most of the new round but
still be able to fire the old one effectively.

Finally, the reason these rounds are called .223 by sports shooters is
because the average American seems to have a phobia about the Metric system.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Tue Apr 23 07:35:01 2002
>From: Gurth <Gurth@******.nl>
<Snip>
>(which means the barrel diameter
>is 5.56 mm, and the length of an empty cartridge case is 45 mm).

Or more correctly the barrel's minor internal diameter is 5.56mm (which is
why I used the bullet's effective diameter.
Things (particularly diameters) get confusing when there's a screw thread
involved, often the most useful dimension you can give is the effective
diameter and as rifling is basically a screw thread...
Sorry to be picky.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Danyeal De La Luna)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Tue Apr 23 09:55:00 2002
On 4/23/02 4:40 AM, "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> .223 is the commercial name for the caliber used in the military as 5.56 mm.
> It was developed in the late 1950s, based on a commercial .222 round, for
> the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle; the US Air Force bought the AR-15 for its base
> security personnel, and numbers were also shipped to South Vietnam, where
> they were well-received by ARVN and US Special Forces. It was adopted by the
> US Army (for its Airmobile units), calling it the M16 and making a bunch of
<arbitrary snip>

Uh..Gurth? Your knowledge about this scares me. Do you live in a compound in
Montana? Hehehe


Lunatec
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Tue Apr 23 10:15:01 2002
> Finally, the reason these rounds are called .223 by sports shooters is
> because the average American seems to have a phobia about the Metric
> system.

Why of course we do, if we're the biggest and the best (totally joking
here guys don't try to hunt me down) and have to be the world's police
why doesn't the world adapt to our standard measurement system??

*grabs a herring* any trees to chop?
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Tue Apr 23 11:05:01 2002
>why doesn't the world adapt to our standard measurement system??

LOL, Another example of USA-ccentricity...
What is that standard measuring system known as in the states? it's
"English" isn't it?

Of course metric should never have prolifferated anyway, after all, we won!
(and we didn't need the americans to come and bail us out... we relied on
the germans to do it instead!)


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Tue Apr 23 12:35:01 2002
> LOL, Another example of USA-ccentricity...
> What is that standard measuring system known as in the states? it's
> "English" isn't it?

Umm.....nope....it's called Standard! hehe
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Tue Apr 23 14:10:05 2002
According to Lone Eagle, on Tue, 23 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> Or more correctly the barrel's minor internal diameter is 5.56mm

With weapon calibers, it's even more complicated than that... In some parts
of the world, it's measured between the grooves, but in others, between the
lands (I think that's the English term for the areas between the grooves,
anyway). This is why the G11 caseless rifle was a 4.73x33 mm weapon in the
German trials, but a 4.92x33 mm one in the American ones, for example,
even though no changes were made to the barrel between the German and
American test models.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Tue Apr 23 14:10:14 2002
According to Lone Eagle, on Tue, 23 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> What is that standard measuring system known as in the states? it's
> "English" isn't it?
>
> Of course metric should never have prolifferated anyway, after all, we
> won!

Time for another history lesson, I suppose... Back in the late 18th
century, around the time the French created the Metric system, the English
standardized their own measures -- setting fixed sizes for yards, pounds,
etc. -- and then quickly shipped them to the newly-independent US because
there was a strong consideration over there to adopt the Metric system. How
much easier it would have been for everyone two centuries later if the US
had shown common sense for once... ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Tue Apr 23 14:10:20 2002
According to Danyeal De La Luna, on Tue, 23 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> Uh..Gurth? Your knowledge about this scares me. Do you live in a compound
> in Montana? Hehehe

Nah, I just don't have anything better to do with my time than getting more
theoretical knowledge than practical experience :)

(Oh, and I wouldn't want to live in Montana if someone paid me, after the one
night I spent there a few years ago ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 03:40:00 2002
>From: Gurth <Gurth@******.nl>
>Time for another history lesson, I suppose... Back in the late 18th
>century, around the time the French created the Metric system, the >English
>standardized their own measures -- setting fixed sizes for yards, >pounds,
>etc. -- and then quickly shipped them to the newly-independent US >because
>there was a strong consideration over there to adopt the Metric >system.
>How
>much easier it would have been for everyone two centuries later if the >US
>had shown common sense for once... ;)

But the Yanks did show common sense, it was the majority of europe that
didn't. Where's the sense in a measuring system that is totally arbitrary,
bearing no relation to anything even vaguely sensible? I mean, my foot is
one foot long, that just makes sense....
;-)


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 05:20:08 2002
According to Lone Eagle, on Wed, 24 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> But the Yanks did show common sense, it was the majority of europe that
> didn't. Where's the sense in a measuring system that is totally
> arbitrary, bearing no relation to anything even vaguely sensible? I mean,
> my foot is one foot long, that just makes sense....
> ;-)

I guess this is a good time to quote something Wordman once said on this
list: because all measurement systems are arbitrary anyway, you could at
least use one that's internally consistent...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 10:40:01 2002
From: "Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com>
> But the Yanks did show common sense, it was the majority of europe that
> didn't. Where's the sense in a measuring system that is totally arbitrary,
> bearing no relation to anything even vaguely sensible? I mean, my foot is
> one foot long, that just makes sense....

And how long is your "inch"? How much does you stones weigh? And where can I
find a pound?

Lars
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Danyeal De La Luna)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 11:05:01 2002
On 4/24/02 4:16 AM, "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> According to Lone Eagle, on Wed, 24 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...
>
>> But the Yanks did show common sense, it was the majority of europe that
>> didn't. Where's the sense in a measuring system that is totally
>> arbitrary, bearing no relation to anything even vaguely sensible? I mean,
>> my foot is one foot long, that just makes sense....
>> ;-)
>
> I guess this is a good time to quote something Wordman once said on this
> list: because all measurement systems are arbitrary anyway, you could at
> least use one that's internally consistent...


I say, let's go to the Klingon system. Yu shoot from 2 kalacams, that raises
your TN to 3...reroll 6's
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Danyeal De La Luna)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 11:05:04 2002
On 4/24/02 9:35 AM, "Lars Wagner Hansen" <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk> wrote:

> From: "Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com>
>> But the Yanks did show common sense, it was the majority of europe that
>> didn't. Where's the sense in a measuring system that is totally arbitrary,
>> bearing no relation to anything even vaguely sensible? I mean, my foot is
>> one foot long, that just makes sense....
>
> And how long is your "inch"? How much does you stones weigh? And where can
I
> find a pound?
>
> Lars
>
>
So...who decided what a meter was...or a litre. Aren't those arbitrary too?
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 11:20:02 2002
>From: "Lars Wagner Hansen" <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk>
>And how long is your "inch"? How much does you stones weigh? And where
>can
>I
>find a pound?

My inch is the length of the second joint of my little finger and one
quarter the width of my hand, my yard is the distance from the end of my
nose to the tips of my outstretched fingers minus 1 inch, my fathom is my
maximum reach minus two inches and is coincidentally equal to my height
minus two inches. My gallon is the amount of beer I can drink and still
remember the walk home. My cubit is the length of my forearm from elbow to
fingertips.
You see? it's all logical!
;-)

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 12:30:01 2002
From: "Danyeal De La Luna" <ahz@*****.com>
> On 4/24/02 9:35 AM, "Lars Wagner Hansen" <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk>
wrote:
>
> > From: "Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com>
> >> But the Yanks did show common sense, it was the majority of europe that
> >> didn't. Where's the sense in a measuring system that is totally
arbitrary,
> >> bearing no relation to anything even vaguely sensible? I mean, my foot
is
> >> one foot long, that just makes sense....
> >
> > And how long is your "inch"? How much does you stones weigh? And where
can I
> > find a pound?
> >
> So...who decided what a meter was...or a litre. Aren't those arbitrary
too?

I wasn't complaining about the arbitratity of the measurements. In certain
ways the old measurements are easy to remember, and are still used. When you
buy planks or poles of wood, we still talk about a 4x4, which is 10 cm x 10
cm, the 4 is of couse thumbs, which translates to inches (=2,54 cm).

So in Danish "inch" make sense, since the translation is thumb. But in
English what does an "inch" mean (apart from being a measurement)?

Feet and hands as measurements also makes sense, but pounds, gallons, pints
and a lot of other measurements are just plain weird.

Lars
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Justin Bell)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 12:40:01 2002
At 06:26 PM 4/24/2002 +0200, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:
>From: "Danyeal De La Luna" <ahz@*****.com>
> > On 4/24/02 9:35 AM, "Lars Wagner Hansen"
<l-hansen@*****.tele.dk> wrote:
> >
> > > From: "Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com>
> > >> But the Yanks did show common sense, it was the majority of europe that
> > >> didn't. Where's the sense in a measuring system that is totally
>arbitrary,
> > >> bearing no relation to anything even vaguely sensible? I mean, my foot
>is
> > >> one foot long, that just makes sense....
> > >
> > > And how long is your "inch"? How much does you stones weigh? And
where
>can I
> > > find a pound?
> > >
> > So...who decided what a meter was...or a litre. Aren't those arbitrary
>too?

The International System has base units from which all others in the system
are derived. The standards for the base units, except for the kilogram, are
defined by unchanging and reproducible physical occurences. For example,
the meter is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in
1/299,792,458 of a second. The standard for the kilogram is a
platinum-iridium cylinder kept at the International Bureau of Weights and
Standards in Sèvres, France.

--
Justin Bell
justin@******.net
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 13:00:02 2002
But in English what does an "inch" mean (apart from being a
masurement)?

Feet and hands as measurements also makes sense, but pounds, gallons,
> pints and a lot of other measurements are just plain weird.
>
> Lars

They are part of the landscape. Most people accept them and get on with
using them to make money.

--Anders
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 13:15:01 2002
According to Danyeal De La Luna, on Wed, 24 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> So...who decided what a meter was...or a litre. Aren't those arbitrary
> too?

The length of a meter was originally defined as 1/10,000th of the distance
between the north pole and the equator, and to determine that, as large a stretch
of France as possible was measured back in the 18th century. These days it's
defined (IIRC) as the distance light moves through vacuum in a certain fraction
of a second.

Everything else in the Metric system is based on the length of a meter: a liter
is a cubic decimeter, for example, and a kilogram is the weight of a liter of
water. Only one measure actually needed to be arbitrarily set to get all the
others.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rev. Mike Martin)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 13:20:03 2002
Anders Swenson wrote:
>
> But in English what does an "inch" mean (apart from being a
> masurement)?

It means one twelfth of a foot... ;)

What was the thing I heard years ago about using the metric system to
calculate a moon shot? I think you'd MISS the moon using metrics...
using the "american" measurements you'd miss the mark by a few feet, and
using an older measurement gleaned from the Egyptians you'd miss by
something like a millimeter... (that was a JOKE son...)

Mike
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Danyeal De La Luna)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 15:00:00 2002
On 4/24/02 11:26 AM, "Lars Wagner Hansen" <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk> wrote:

>
> I wasn't complaining about the arbitratity of the measurements. In certain
> ways the old measurements are easy to remember, and are still used. When you
> buy planks or poles of wood, we still talk about a 4x4, which is 10 cm x 10
> cm, the 4 is of couse thumbs, which translates to inches (=2,54 cm).
>
> So in Danish "inch" make sense, since the translation is thumb. But in
> English what does an "inch" mean (apart from being a measurement)?
>
> Feet and hands as measurements also makes sense, but pounds, gallons, pints
> and a lot of other measurements are just plain weird.
>
> Lars
>
>
The only problem with that is that a 4 x 4 is no longer even that..it's
3.5" x 3.5" and a 2 x 4 is actually 1.75 x 3.5 but that is not math
or measurements...it's economics!
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Danyeal De La Luna)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 15:05:01 2002
On 4/24/02 12:12 PM, "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> According to Danyeal De La Luna, on Wed, 24 Apr 2002 the word on the street
> was...
>
>> So...who decided what a meter was...or a litre. Aren't those arbitrary
>> too?
>
> The length of a meter was originally defined as 1/10,000th of the distance
> between the north pole and the equator, and to determine that, as large a
> stretch
> of France as possible was measured back in the 18th century.


Ah...let's blame it all on the French!!
Message no. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Danyeal De La Luna)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 15:05:05 2002
On 4/24/02 12:20 PM, "Rev. Mike Martin" <mmartin139@*******.net> wrote:

> Anders Swenson wrote:
>>
>> But in English what does an "inch" mean (apart from being a
>> masurement)?
>
> It means one twelfth of a foot... ;)
>
> What was the thing I heard years ago about using the metric system to
> calculate a moon shot? I think you'd MISS the moon using metrics...
> using the "american" measurements you'd miss the mark by a few feet, and
> using an older measurement gleaned from the Egyptians you'd miss by
> something like a millimeter... (that was a JOKE son...)
>
> Mike
>
It's France's fault
Message no. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 15:15:01 2002
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:12:35 +0200
Gurth <Gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Danyeal De La Luna, on Wed, 24 Apr 2002 the word on the
> street was...
>
> > So...who decided what a meter was...or a litre. Aren't those
> arbitrary
> > too?
>
> These days it's defined (IIRC) as the distance light moves through
vacuum in a certain fraction of a second.
>
> Everything else in the Metric system is based on the length of a
> meter: a liter
> is a cubic decimeter, for example, and a kilogram is the weight of a
> liter of
> water. Only one measure actually needed to be arbitrarily set to get
> all the
> others.
>
> --
> Gurth@******.nl -
I think it's a multile of a certain wavelength of light. Otherwise, the
definition of CGS (Centimeter, gram, second)becomes recursive.

--Anders
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 15:15:03 2002
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:20:02 -0500
"Rev. Mike Martin" <mmartin139@*******.net> wrote:
> Anders Swenson wrote:
> >
> > But in English what does an "inch" mean (apart from being a
> > masurement)?
>
> It means one twelfth of a foot... ;)
>
> What was the thing I heard years ago about using the metric system
> to
> calculate a moon shot? I think you'd MISS the moon using metrics...
> using the "american" measurements you'd miss the mark by a few feet,
> and
> using an older measurement gleaned from the Egyptians you'd miss by
> something like a millimeter... (that was a JOKE son...)
>
> Mike

Not a joke, that's suppossedly how we missed Mars a few years ago.
--Anders
Message no. 26
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rev. Mike Martin)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 15:45:01 2002
Anders Swenson wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> > using an older measurement gleaned from the Egyptians you'd miss by
> > something like a millimeter... (that was a JOKE son...)
> >
> > Mike
>
> Not a joke, that's suppossedly how we missed Mars a few years ago.
> --Anders

I meant "miss by a millimeter" was a joke.. millimeter.. as a
measurement... it... oh nevermind ;)

Mike
Message no. 27
From: shadowrn@*********.com (malcolm)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 16:10:01 2002
> >From: "Lars Wagner Hansen" <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk>
> >And how long is your "inch"? How much does you stones weigh? And where
>can
> >I
> >find a pound?
>
> My inch is the length of the second joint of my little finger and one
> quarter the width of my hand, my yard is the distance from the end of my
> nose to the tips of my outstretched fingers minus 1 inch, my fathom is my
> maximum reach minus two inches and is coincidentally equal to my height
> minus two inches. My gallon is the amount of beer I can drink and still
> remember the walk home. My cubit is the length of my forearm from elbow to
> fingertips.
> You see? it's all logical!

Sure it is , they lock people up for saying less .What about people that
can drink more ? do they have bigger gallons ?
do tall people or people with long feet , bigger hands , longer arms get
them reduced to size ?
kanniemeernie korperaal
" coffee money , help keep my eyes open , see that no-one messes with your
stuff "
ja2
Message no. 28
From: shadowrn@*********.com (malcolm)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 16:10:04 2002
> From: "Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com>
> > But the Yanks did show common sense, it was the majority of europe that
> > didn't. Where's the sense in a measuring system that is totally
arbitrary,
> > bearing no relation to anything even vaguely sensible? I mean, my foot
is
> > one foot long, that just makes sense....
>
> And how long is your "inch"? How much does you stones weigh? And where can
I
> find a pound?


so what size shoe do you wear ? size 8 ,10 ,13 or are you a thorpe clone
with size 17 feet , 1/12th of those whoppers is meant to be the same as my
feet
and so exactly whose foot/hand have you cut off to use to standardise your
1/12th of ?

the simple benefit of the metric system is that our universal number system
is based around 10 units to get to the next highest unit (not 12) , so if
you really go old imperial ( british ) you would have guineas pounds etc for
your economy , inches yards and miles for distance , pounds (again) stone
and ounces for weight all of which have relatively small bearing on the
other and are awkward to add and subtract never mind multiply and divide
find the square or cubed root , whereas water in a 10dm cube weighs 1 kg ,
so you have a distance to weight etc , it bears strict adherance to the
numerical system , and can be used in important distance measures without
adding another complexity to what could be a very difficult equation

please explain to me how your million $ in currency works out to in pounds
guineas and shillings , now do a forex transfer to the euro at .89 , or how
about the circumferance of a 2 foot radius circle in yards , there was a
logical reason why the rest of the world moved on into the new millenia
using a logical system of measurement ( albeit based on an error ) and
no-one can , as yet ,explain to me why they really use imperial , other than
they always have

thank the french i don't think we would of pretended to get to the moon
without them (grin)

Kanniemeernie Korperaal
not so much a mathematician as a student of statistics
Message no. 29
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 16:30:01 2002
> And how long is your "inch"? How much does you stones weigh? And where
can
> I
> find a pound?
Umm....lets see....an inch is from your first to second knuckle on your
index finger if I recall correctly, and my stones weigh quite a bit, and
you can find a pound by going to your local drug dealer, getting an
ounce and then multiplying it by 16, that or you can look in the
phonebook, there's gotta be a pet shelter in your area.
Message no. 30
From: shadowrn@*********.com (George S Waksman)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 17:50:01 2002
>The only problem with that is that a 4 x 4 is no longer even that..it's
>3.5" x 3.5" and a 2 x 4 is actually 1.75 x 3.5 but that is not math
>or measurements...it's economics!

It has nothing to do with economics, it's because the measurement is
for the mill cuts. It's basically the difference between measuring
from the inside edge of the saw blade and measuring from the outside
edge of the saw blade.

-George Waksman
Message no. 31
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Wed Apr 24 20:05:05 2002
Anders Swenson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:20:02 -0500
> "Rev. Mike Martin" <mmartin139@*******.net> wrote:

> > using an older measurement gleaned from the Egyptians you'd miss by
> > something like a millimeter... (that was a JOKE son...)
> >
> > Mike
>
> Not a joke, that's suppossedly how we missed Mars a few years ago.


More precisely, one part of the team was using metrics while another was
using the English system. Both assumed they were using the same system.

Any system of measure can be completely accurate as long as a true
standard is agreed upon and everyone learns the system.

--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

If I'm eating dinner with the hero, put poison in his goblet,
then have to leave the table for any reason, I will order new
drinks for both of us instead of trying to decide whether or not
to switch with him.

Used Without Permission
Message no. 32
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Thu Apr 25 05:00:01 2002
>From: "malcolm" <mcuthbertson@***.co.za>
>so what size shoe do you wear ?

I'm a size 11/12 (english) my foot is almost exactly a foot long.

>and so exactly whose foot/hand have you cut off to use to standardise

Henry VIII of course, that's where the standards came from originally!



>please explain to me how your million $ in currency works out to in >pounds
>guineas and shillings , now do a forex transfer to the euro at .89 ,

Depends what the dollar is at against the pound at the moment, I'm not sure
but I'm guessing its at about .8 pounds Sterling so if we assume the pound
is equivalent to the pound Sterling that would put your million dollars at
eight hundred thousand pounds which is 761,904 guineas, sixteen shillings.
That converts to 898876.4 (ish) Euros so if you do a foriegn exchange
guineas to euros it leaves you with 898876.40 euros less commission.

>or how
>about the circumferance of a 2 foot radius circle in yards

2 pi R works the same no matter what units you use, you're using feet so you
just need to divide by three to convert to yards.
Your 2' diameter circle will have a circumference of approx 12'7" or 4 yards
7 inches.



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 33
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work)
Date: Thu Apr 25 06:30:01 2002
According to Anders Swenson, on Wed, 24 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> Not a joke, that's suppossedly how we missed Mars a few years ago.

That was because some of the people at NASA calculated things in meters and
others in feet, and each assumed the other used the same system they were
using...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] 5.56 mm confusion (was Re: why calibers work), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!