[AT] RE: O.T.--shootin' skunks

[Andy Glines]

I saw that episode of Mythbusters also and found it to be very eductaional.  
Having started shooting at 10 and owning my own shotgun at 12 I very clearly 
remember the rules set out by my Dad.  I was never to point a gun at 
something I didn't intend to shoot, I was never to shoot unless I knew 
exactly what I was aiming at (had to be a target not random shooting in the 
air), and I was to know exactly what was behind what I was shooting at.  I 
also very clearly remember the consequences that would come my way if I were 
to break those rules.  I wrote about my experience with gun safety to point 
out that this is a question that i have never needed an answer to.  All that 
said this thread has sparked a bit of curiosity.  The Mythbusters folks 
concluded that the falling bullet lost a lot of its "ooompf" because it 
started to tumble as it fell.  Now I wonder if anyone has performed this 
test using a round ball projectile?  The spherical bullet should not 
experience the tumbling problem that its conical cousin had.
>Subject: RE: [AT] O.T.--shootin' skunks (357 vrs 38)
>To: at at lists.antique-tractor.com
>Message-ID: <BAY101-F10178350506C8DFA8D79FDFF390 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>   Hi Larry,  Actually I saw an episode of the  "Mythbusters" on the
>discovery channel that dealt with the terminal velocity of falling bullets,
>it was both humorous and educational. I really enjoy that show, I learn
>something when I watch it, I hope youg people do too, it's got to be better
>than what passes for  reality TV such as people eating worms, getting
>tatoos,etc.
>   Just my opinion .... Mike