JAPR, the .270 is just a .30-'06 cartridge necked down from .30 inches diameter to .27 (actually .277, I think) with the bullet shedding about 1/3 of its weight (so it shoots flatter). As such, it actually kicks a fair bit less than a .30-'06, which is a long-time standard and one of the most popular calibers ever. Unlike the original poster, I would not call this a "very big gun." It's standard fare for deer hunting.

I might not have said anything, but the whole point of the original post and video was to dispel myths. No need to create new ones.

Humanity to Evolution:

"Screw you. I made this really cute kitty. What are you going to do about it?"

Well, since it's been so long, I decided to look into it more closely.

Here's a great page with wound ballistics data (and pictures):
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

In essence, all bullets "tumble" or yaw once they hit flesh. The 5.56mm tumbles more quickly, increasing the chance it will fully turn inside the body rather than after exiting. Nice. Perhaps more significantly, it's designed to fragment. Therefore, under ideal conditions, the 5.56mm will transfer a higher percentage of it's energy to the target before exiting, if it exits.

So when using full-metal jacketed military round, the tumbling (and fragmenting) factor is a significant consideration. Using hollow-point rounds, tumbling is a non-issue.

I stand corrected.

Oh, here's a recent new story on the military's current dislike of the 5.56mm, precisely because it is not lethal enough.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/07/cbsnews_investigates/main1692346.shtml

There are obviously situations where having a more powerful first shot is more important than having more shots, especially when supply lines are not as much of a concern. The modern prevalence of mechanized infantry might make the weight consideration less of an issue. Close-in, urban environment also make lower-velocity, large calibers like the AK-47's 7.62x39mm more appealing because of its greater "stopping power" and ability to punch through shielding.

MarineGunrock, I remember hearing about the "tumbling bullet" wound from a 5.56mm but have read numerous articles since then refuting that logic. It's apparently an "urban" legend that refuses to die.

As best as I can recall, the only reason for switching calibers was weight. A soldier could carry seventy 30-06, ninety 7.62mm (essentially a shortened .30 cal), or a whopping 210 5.56mm at a given weight. The potential reduction in the weight of the rifle was also a factor (bigger calibers require heavier rifles). There was initially great resistance to this caliber switch, precisely because it produced a much less significant wound. Yes, the velocity was slightly higher, but the 50-grain bullet is hard pressed to produce a wound channel anywhere near the size of a bullet weighing 150-grains and almost twice the cross-sectional area. The disparity increases rapidly when you factor in how much more quickly the lighter caliber loses energy over distance.

Lower lethality, however, was considered a worthwhile trade-off, especially since wounding the enemy is tactically almost as good as killing him and the extra 120 bullets made such wounds significantly more likely. There were also small concerns about the diminished range of the 5.56mm, but that's why we have snipers that carry larger calibers. As far as I am aware, most states do not allow 5.56mm for deer hunting because it is significantly more likely to produce a non-lethal wound. It's been a while (a decade or more) since I've looked into this, but I recall seeing that ballistic tests in every kind of medium showed the 5.56mm to be far less deadly than the 7.62mm, and that's without giving any consideration to how much more quickly the lighter 5.56mm loses energy to range and/or shielding, let alone loss of accuracy to crosswinds or intervening light cover.

History has proven the move to 5.56mm to be the right one but it was definitely a trade-off.

Interestingly, the Soviets made a similar decision about calibers but stuck with a heavier round. They shaved off weight, but not as much, by going with a 7.62x39mm as compared to a 7.62x51mm NATO round with a 110-gr(?) vs. 150-gr round. Their heavier round could punch through shielding a little better than the 50-gr 5.56mm, but they gave up a lot of velocity and the flatter trajectory and accuracy that comes with it. And they still couldn't carry as many rounds as soldiers equipped with the 5.56. I don't know who made the right choice, but I do know that in both case, weight (and hence more ammo) was the determinative factor that outweighed the loss of lethality.

Interesting discussion.

Just one clarification - embyros from fertility clinics are not "destined to be destroyed." There are already groups of infertile couples ready to adopt any "unwanted" embryos.

Again, good discussion (most of it), but I thought I'd clarify that one point.

Middle East or Central Asia, we're still talking Muslim lands. Cohen is intentional about this.

Regarding his Ali G character, Cohen said in an interview that he used a Muslim character because most people are very reluctant to insult Muslims. He never said why he thinks people are overly sensitive toward Muslims, but he exploits that fact to push people further than he might otherwise get away with.

His Ali G character and now Borat are good evidence that he is right -- people are less likely to question the authenticity of a Muslim. I believe that's a big part of his point. If you agree with him, I think he wants you to ask "Why?" Personally, I think this is his strategy for attacking the foundations of Anti-Semitism, but that's just my opinion.

2 pine boards together should break easily, at least if the grains are aligned as Spoon_Gouge notes. The other trick is to bake the boards beforehand to remove as much water as possible. Just weight the boards down with bricks or rocks so the boards don't warp while baking the water off.