Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 13 of 16 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16
#12267487 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
Colorado
LOL, now you've done it!!



A wise man is frequently humbled.

CMG 300 BP

#12267519 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,654
mathman Offline
Campfire Oracle
mathman  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,654
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
Jesus. Stick to discussions about bullets killing schit that don't involve physics. The discussion of physics here proves one thing: that modern public education is worthless.

First: Einstein. The energy of an object is its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. It need have no velocity to have energy. If you think it must be so, explain a fission weapon.

Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.

Third: force applied is the definition of work, and is not defined by energy, but by mass and velocity.


The energy from e=mc^2 is what's available if the mass were converted into energy, a la a fission weapon. That's not the energy in play when a bullet meets a deer, atoms aren't being split in the hunting woods.

Force applied is not the definition of work. If you push very hard against the wall and nothing moves, a large force was applied but no work was done. Force applied over a distance is work, and it is the same thing as energy. It is momentum that is defined by mass and velocity.

#12267871 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: mathman]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
Colorado
Originally Posted by mathman
...... atoms aren't being split in the hunting woods.


No they're not. But who cares, they're being split right here on this forum!!!!



A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12267963 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,133
southtexas Online content
Campfire Tracker
southtexas  Online Content
Campfire Tracker

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,133
Texas
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
Jesus. Stick to discussions about bullets killing schit that don't involve physics. The discussion of physics here proves one thing: that modern public education is worthless.

First: Einstein. The energy of an object is its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. It need have no velocity to have energy. If you think it must be so, explain a fission weapon.

Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.

Third: force applied is the definition of work, and is not defined by energy, but by mass and velocity.


Wow. We just jumped from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics!
crazy

#12267965 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: southtexas]  
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,654
mathman Offline
Campfire Oracle
mathman  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,654
More like Special Relativity if I remember right.

Alpha

#12267983 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: mathman]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,973
HuntnShoot Offline
Campfire Ranger
HuntnShoot  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,973
15 min from elk, MT
If you push on a wall, you have exerted a force, and the wall will move. You may not be able to measure the movement, but the force can be measured.

Yes, when a fission reaction occurs, energy is released, from matter converted to energy. I listed that under Einstein because people keep bringing Einsteinian physics into this thing, and horribly so. Misapplication of physics equations solves nothing. That was my point.


I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
#12267998 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,654
mathman Offline
Campfire Oracle
mathman  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 27,654
Still, force applied is not the definition of work. If it were, then a single mount of force applied would result in the same amount of work even if it were over different displacements.

Lifting a weight over your head takes work. Holding it there only requires force, there is no further change in displacement and hence no work.

Last edited by mathman; 09/13/17.
#12268285 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: DLALLDER]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
Colorado
If you piss in the wind, bang your head against a wall, or engage in dialog with coyote hunter, is any work accomplished?



A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12268305 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Mule Deer]  
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 19,406
CrimsonTide Online content
Campfire Kahuna
CrimsonTide  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 19,406
Kentucky
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
One of the best hunters I've ever known was a guy who bought a RCBS press and two sets of dies while he was still in high school in the 1950's. The dies were for the .250 Savage and .30-06, because the two centerfire rifles he owned were a .250-3000 Savage 99 and a "sporterized" South American Mauser in .30-06. Both had their original open sights.

He bought the cheapest 100-grain .25-caliber and 180-grain caliber bullets he could find in local sporting goods stores, and used the "middle" load of IMR4320 in his Speer manual. He was married to a woman who was an enrolled member of the Montana reservation they lived on, so could hunt big game on the rez under the same regs as tribal members. He also hunted coyotes, foxes and whatever other furbearers he could every winter, and every fall drove 600 miles across Montana to hunt elk near the Idaho panhandle, where he killed a bunch of 'em, usually with the .30-06 but sometimes with the .250. I hunted with him quite a bit, both in eastern and western Montana. Witnessed him killing deer at 150-200 yards, often running, and he always got an elk back when elk weren't nearly as abundant as they are today--and often several, because this was back when many hunters shot enough elk for everybody in camp, if they had a chance. He didn't really care much about trophy antlers but killed some big-antlered deer and elk anyway, because he loved to hunt, so hunted hard.

He never hunted outside Montana, where he was born, and was also the only handloader I've ever known who actually did it to save money. When he died, he was still using the same rifles, press and dies he'd purchased in high school, the press mounted on a 2x12 screwed down across the back of his livingroom closet. I don't believe he ever shot a group in his life other than when sighting-in his rifles the first time. After that they always shot right to the same place with the same charge of IMR4320 and the cheapest bullets he could buy.


Thank you for taking the time to type that up. I really enjoyed reading it. When you said used the "Middle" load of 4320, I got a chuckle, because I remember back to loading my first handloads and picking the middle load out of the old Speer #9 manual. I suspect there were several folks who did that, for a long while. On a semi-related note, I always appreciated Nosler for putting an asterisk beside the most accurate load they came up with for each powder in a given cartridge. More often than not, I have had good accuracy with whichever load they marked with that asterisk.


"The number one problem with America is, a whole lot of people need shot, and nobody is shooting them."
-Master Chief Hershel Davis

#12268447 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,513
Coyote_Hunter Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Coyote_Hunter  Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,513
6491 Feet Above Sea Level
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
Jesus. Stick to discussions about bullets killing schit that don't involve physics. The discussion of physics here proves one thing: that modern public education is worthless.

First: Einstein. The energy of an object is its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. It need have no velocity to have energy. If you think it must be so, explain a fission weapon.

Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.

Third: force applied is the definition of work, and is not defined by energy, but by mass and velocity.


You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

First, the kinetic energy of an object is NOT it’s mass multiplied but the speed of light squared. It is 1/2 the mass multiplied by its velocity squared (E = 1/2*m*v*v). Contrary to your claim, an object MUST have velocity to have kinetic energy, which is the type of energy being discussed.




Second, objects with measurable mass CAN approach the speed of light. I posted the following earlier but you apparently didn’t read it.
Quote
Scientific experiments have succeeded in accelerating massful particles to speeds very close to light-speed in a perfect vacuum and much faster than light travels in air, where it is about 90km/s slower, or water, where it is about 25% slower.

For example, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) has accelerated protons, which have mass, to 299,792,447 meters per second. That is 99.9999991% or just 11 meters per second shy of the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. 

Those speeds were actually rather slow compared to those achieved by the LEP (Large Electron-Positron Collider). The LEP has accelerated electrons and positrons, both of which have mass, to 299,792,457.9964 meters per second. That is 99.9999999988% or just 0.0036 meters per second slower than the theoretical speed of light in a perfect vacuum. 

Granted, 99.9999999988% is not the same as 100%, but frankly, I don't care. For our purposes here it is close enough and then some.


Moreover, because velocity measurements are relative to a particular point of view, there are galaxies in our universe which are speeding away from our galaxy at greater than the speed of light.





Third, force is NOT the definition of work. Force is not work and does not do work unless an object is accelerated in some direction. The formula for work is Work=Force*Displacement*cosine(theta) where the angle theta is the angle between the direction of the force and the direction of displacement. That said, when work is done, energy is transferred from one object to another or changed from one form to another.




Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 09/13/17. Reason: spellnig

Coyote Hunter - NRA Endowment Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
Bravo

#12268791 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,513
Coyote_Hunter Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Coyote_Hunter  Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,513
6491 Feet Above Sea Level
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
...
Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.
...


One other thing regarding your statement above. Photons have a theoretical mass of zero when at rest. When moving they have mass. And they are ALWAYS moving.

You say objects with mass cannot approach the speed of light. Please explain at what speed photons travel. The speed of....sound?

You really are clueless when it comes to physics.


Coyote Hunter - NRA Endowment Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
#12268885 - 09/13/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: DLALLDER]  
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,900
Dillonbuck Online content
Campfire Guide
Dillonbuck  Online Content
Campfire Guide

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,900
Pa
This is the first thread that has fallen so high that my dumb a-s can't begin to understand it.


Clinging to our guns and God.....Yeah an Obama quote, but it fits.

Dogs and kids, they are worth the cost.
But,
sometimes you gotta do the math.
#12269352 - 09/14/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: smokepole]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,513
Coyote_Hunter Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Coyote_Hunter  Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,513
6491 Feet Above Sea Level
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
You know that which is why you wouldn't use a 60g Partition at 1800fps but would choose a heavier bullet at that velocity instead. Mass matters. Velocity matters. Energy matters.


1) On the 60-grain bullet the reasons I wouldn't choose it are twofold. First, it would be a .223 bullet which is illegal for big game in my state. Which is also your state by the way. Second, it wouldn't make a big enough hole in my opinion. I realize that others may not share that opinion, but I don't believe it's my place to go on and on about how and why others choose the bullets they shoot. That's none of my business and just plain stupid.

2) On the 500 grain bullet, I wouldn't choose it because it results in more recoil than I want to deal with. Again, if someone else chooses to shoot one, more power to him, it's not my business to tell him how or why he chooses his bullet. Maybe he just likes the sound of "500 grain bullet." It's none of my concern.

3) Lastly, I don't shoot very many Nosler bullets so their data (the basis of your argument) are 100% irrelevant to my bullet choices.


You avoid answering the question by hiding behind specious arguments. But duck and dodge all you want – you and I and everyone else knows why you would choose a bullet heavier than 60g .22 -- because heavier bullets at 1800fps have the potential for greater destruction. And that potential is because they carry more energy.

1) You’ve hunted Alaska. Alaska has no minimum cartridge for elk – a 60g Partition would be legal there. As it would be in Idaho, Montana and possibly other places as well. Colorado could eliminate minimum restrictions but even then I doubt you would choose a .22 caliber 60g Partition at 1800fps for elk.

You say a 60g Partition “wouldn’t make a big enough hole”. Just how big a hole do you need? Hunters kill a lot of elk with hardcast bullets that expand very little – to less than the 60g Partition would be expected to expand – and impact at velocities under 1800fps. Yet they get the job done.

2) OK, you don’t like the recoil of a 500g bullet at 1800fps. Neither do I, but at 1500fps they aren’t bad. In any case, whether 1500fps or 1800fps, a 500g would be an easy choice over a .22 60g at 1800fps. So tell us – just what caliber and weight would you choose for elk if limited to 1800fps impact velocity?

3) You say you don't shoot “many” Nosler bullets so their data is irrelevant to you. Another duck and dodge but not a very good one.












Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 09/14/17. Reason: typo

Coyote Hunter - NRA Endowment Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
#12269421 - 09/14/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Coyote_Hunter]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
Colorado
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter

You avoid answering the question by hiding behind specious arguments.



LOL, I've avoided nothing you dumbass. Not once have you asked me how I choose the bullets I shoot or what's important to me in making that decision. I've had no chance to avoid the question you never asked. Just as with your entire post above, you never ask the question, you just proceed to tell me what's important (to me!!) and then accuse me of "not answering the question" which is hilarious.

And I've told you you're wrong because you are.

If you want to ask the question I'll answer. Einstein.





A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12269431 - 09/14/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: smokepole]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,513
Coyote_Hunter Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Coyote_Hunter  Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,513
6491 Feet Above Sea Level
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter

You avoid answering the question by hiding behind specious arguments.



LOL, I've avoided nothing you dumbass. Not once have you asked me how I choose the bullets I shoot or what's important to me in making that decision. I've had no chance to avoid the question you never asked.

All you've done is tell me how I choose my bullets and what's important to me. And I've told you you're wrong because you are.

If you want to ask the question I'll answer. Einstein.




OK, so what bullets and weights do you choose to use when hunting elk? And why do yyou choose them?


Coyote Hunter - NRA Endowment Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
#12269436 - 09/14/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: DLALLDER]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
Colorado
I'll answer the question for big game in general when I get a few minutes later today.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12269626 - 09/14/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: DLALLDER]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,454
Formidilosus Offline
Campfire Ranger
Formidilosus  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,454
Not sure what the fascination with shooting an elk with a .224 bullet is...I'll happily shoot an elk with a .224 60gr Partition. And if it was between that or a 500gr Partition, and my life depended on killing an elk, I would rather have the 60gr Partition.

#12269645 - 09/14/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Formidilosus]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
Colorado
I only brought it up to show that CH was wrong about why I wouldn't choose one. it's not an option here.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12269711 - 09/14/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Formidilosus]  
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,088
scenarshooter Offline
Campfire Guide
scenarshooter  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,088
Montana......NE Corner..
Originally Posted by Formidilosus
Not sure what the fascination with shooting an elk with a .224 bullet is...I'll happily shoot an elk with a .224 60gr Partition. And if it was between that or a 500gr Partition, and my life depended on killing an elk, I would rather have the 60gr Partition.




I've done it....more than once.

Not a big deal if you know how to shoot.


Luck....is the residue of design...
[Linked Image]
#12269738 - 09/14/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Coyote_Hunter]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,973
HuntnShoot Offline
Campfire Ranger
HuntnShoot  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,973
15 min from elk, MT
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
...
Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.
...


One other thing regarding your statement above. Photons have a theoretical mass of zero when at rest. When moving they have mass. And they are ALWAYS moving.

You say objects with mass cannot approach the speed of light. Please explain at what speed photons travel. The speed of....sound?

You really are clueless when it comes to physics.

I'm not going to bite. It is obvious who has read the physics here, and who understands the equations, which are all theoretical, and who has pulled things out of their ass. Keep posting what bullets at the speed of light behave like.


I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
#12270138 - 09/14/17 Re: Bullet weight?? [Re: Coyote_Hunter]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
smokepole Online content
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Online Content
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,998
Colorado
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter


OK, so what bullets and weights do you choose to use when hunting elk? And why do yyou choose them?



Since you finally asked the question, I’ll answer. My bullet choice is based on a few different characteristics with accuracy at the top of the list followed by low recoil, and as good a BC as I can get with accuracy and low recoil optimized. Shot placement is more important than bullet weight or KE (to me anyway) and those all help with shot placement. Accuracy is obvious but low recoil helps because it means I’ll shoot more and be better with the rifle and BC helps with long shots.

I start with the rifle I want to carry and shoot, not the bullet. I hunt in the mountains and most often while backpacking so I try to minimize the weight of everything I carry including the rifle, the exception being pronghorn hunting. For elk and deer my favorite rifles are a Kimber Montana and a NULA. I bought the NULA for the AK sheep hunt and it’s one of my favorite rifles because it’s very accurate. Again, shot placement is my top priority.

Light rifles are not fun to shoot in magnum chamberings or with heavy bullets so I tend to go with milder chamberings based off the .308 case. Velocity and flat trajectory are not that important with a good repeatable scope, even for long shots. The .223 is not legal for big game where I hunt so that points me to the .243, .260, and 7-08 as giving the best combination of lighter, low-recoiling bullets with good BCs. It’s more difficult to get a high BC in a .243 bullet (and .243 bullets top out at lower BCs than 260s or 7 mms) so that further narrows it down to .260 and the 7-08 for me. And that’s what my favorite two rifles are chambered in, .260 Remington and 7-08, the NULA and Montana respectively.

So once I have the rifle I want in the chambering I want I shoot a few different bullets to see which are most accurate in that particular rifle. I start with bullets I know to be accurate with good BCs which for me lately tends to be the Lapua Scenar. I’ll shoot a few different weights with a few different powders, again, to see which combination is most accurate because bullet placement is most important to me.

In my .260 I settled on the 123 grain Scenar because it’s very accurate in the rifle (the most accurate bullet I tried) and has a decent BC of .525. I worked up the load for my 7-08 before I started shooting Scenars and settled on the 120 ballistic tip because it was very accurate in the rifle (the most accurate bullet I tried) and the 120 has a reputation as a very tough bullet. I own probably 15 rifles and the 7-08 is the lone example where I settled on a Nosler bullet in case you’re wondering. The BC of the 120 BT is not optimum but as I said accuracy is my top criterion. And both the .260 and the 7-08 shoot accurately enough that I’ve killed prairie dogs out past 600 yards. If energy or bullet mass was important to me I wouldn’t have chosen either bullet or either chambering for that matter. The 7-08 is the rifle I take elk hunting when I go for elk with a centerfire which is seldom. I most often hunt elk with a muzzleloader and the bullet I chose for my muzzleloader is once again the bullet that shoots most accurately in the rifle I use, a 348 grain Powerbelt.

My other favorite rifle is a very accurate model 70 re-barreled to 6.5-06 AI with a McMillan Hunter stock. It weighs around 9 lbs. so I don’t take it on mountain hunts but I do use it for pronghorns although lately I’ve been leaning toward the .260. The model 70 shoots bugholes with the Berger 140 grain bullet (great combination of low recoil/high BC) so it’s best suited to long distance shots on the plains where it’s windy. But I like the .260 better for some reason.

There you have it.




A wise man is frequently humbled.

Page 13 of 16 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16

Moderated by  RickBin, SYSOP 

AIH 160 1
Who's Online Now
611 registered members (1894CL, 175rltw, 219DW, 257 mag, 1Longbow, 163bc, 65 invisible), 1,697 guests, and 544 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod









Copyright © 2000-2018 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.079s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 1.0659 MB (Peak: 1.3936 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-18 02:57:30 UTC