Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 05-24-2010, 11:30 PM
clakjp clakjp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AxeMan View Post
The fmj will likely zip through the animal and not release all of its energy to the permanent wound channel. The soft point bullet will expand and slow to a stop in the animal releasing all of it's energy in the animal. The more radial release of energy will create a much bigger permanent wound channel doing way more damage. Some of the damage in the permanent wound channel will be from the radial shockwave and not from actual bullet contact by itself.
It is a combination of of bullet and shockwave damage in the permanent wound channel that is facilitated by the total enegy release of the bullet.
Can I get away with this one, 209?
well put axe.
  #122  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:12 AM
whitetail Junkie's Avatar
whitetail Junkie whitetail Junkie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: AB
Posts: 6,637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arn?Narn. View Post
A neck twist. brain shake, CNS ... same as a boxer on the chin.
So when a bullet hits a bucks antler, what causes The neck twist or brainshake??? Is it the "Hole" in the deer's antler? Unlike a Bullet,why wont an arrow have the same affect on a buck hit in the antler's?
__________________
  #123  
Old 05-25-2010, 01:18 AM
switchsl switchsl is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: edmonton
Posts: 338
Default

After reading for the last long while, not wikipedia... but references cited for all the different articles I could find from fbi study, blast pressure injury, to wwii trauma surgens, Its pretty clear that hydrostatic shock and remote injury is a very real thing. Now, I cant shoot a pig in the leg while I watch an eeg to prove this myself, but I will take the lab rats word for it. The specific type of injury was vague, only stating reduced eeg, neural damage in certain regions of the brain and spinal cord in general. It also listed the major organs as a target but again with no specific detail as to the exact effects. There were related formulas generalizing drag coefficients with depth of penetration and overall energy opposed to transfer to tissues. To coincide with this, the different shape and dispersal of energy based on projectile design, mass, and velocity. Evidence of the routes taken from various impact points to remote wound locations referenced aswell. I wont bother listing the 30 or so web pages and probably 50 articles I skimmed through, If it interests a person thats their perogative to find it on their own. Interesting read, I have made up my own mind and can say I learned something new about how a bullet works, beyond punching a hole and hitting like a frieght train. Many people here with right and wrong ideas... some in the same breath. Im not saying Im better, or smarter, just that overall I appreciate all of it because you cant prove one without the other, thats what discusion and debate is about. It made me think for myself, and education is a great thing.

Last edited by switchsl; 05-25-2010 at 01:28 AM.
  #124  
Old 05-25-2010, 06:31 AM
duffy4 duffy4 is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Rocky Mountain House
Posts: 5,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by switchsl View Post
After reading for the last long while, not wikipedia... but references cited for all the different articles I could find from fbi study, blast pressure injury, to wwii trauma surgens, Its pretty clear that hydrostatic shock and remote injury is a very real thing. Now, I cant shoot a pig in the leg while I watch an eeg to prove this myself, but I will take the lab rats word for it. The specific type of injury was vague, only stating reduced eeg, neural damage in certain regions of the brain and spinal cord in general. It also listed the major organs as a target but again with no specific detail as to the exact effects. There were related formulas generalizing drag coefficients with depth of penetration and overall energy opposed to transfer to tissues. To coincide with this, the different shape and dispersal of energy based on projectile design, mass, and velocity. Evidence of the routes taken from various impact points to remote wound locations referenced aswell. I wont bother listing the 30 or so web pages and probably 50 articles I skimmed through, If it interests a person thats their perogative to find it on their own. Interesting read, I have made up my own mind and can say I learned something new about how a bullet works, beyond punching a hole and hitting like a frieght train. Many people here with right and wrong ideas... some in the same breath. Im not saying Im better, or smarter, just that overall I appreciate all of it because you cant prove one without the other, thats what discusion and debate is about. It made me think for myself, and education is a great thing.
Well said and a good note to end on.
__________________
Robin,

Archery Sept. 1 - Oct. 31 Muzzleloader and Crossbow Oct. 1 - Oct. 31 Rifle Nov. 25 - Nov. 30


...And HIS kingdom shall have no end...
  #125  
Old 05-25-2010, 10:19 AM
Cowtown guy's Avatar
Cowtown guy Cowtown guy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clakjp View Post
Cowtown Yes your 7 has way more energy but if you have a fmj all of the energy ib=n that bullet punch a small perfect hole in and out with no energy TRANSFER.As for the expanding bullet (lead style) expaned and transfer a lot of energy from the bullet to the animal also causing a great wound cavity.
The FMJ has energy that should be transferred to the animal when the bullet hits it. The energy is still pounding into that animal. The shockwave that guys are talking about here should still be evident and doing damages.

The FMJ just doesn't have the frontal mass and sharp edges that cuts, ruptures and tears as much tissue as a standard legal round. That is why the FMJ is not legal.

I believe the wound cavity to be temporary and while it may cause some bruising, I just can't see it being that devastating.

Going back to my question about the 2 rifles I use. The 7 rem has almost 1100 ft/lbs more energy unless I did my calculations wrong. Why do I get more bang flops with the little gun with comparable shot placement and the same bullet type, if there is that much more energy that can cause this shockwave?
  #126  
Old 05-25-2010, 10:54 AM
clakjp clakjp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowtown guy View Post
The FMJ has energy that should be transferred to the animal when the bullet hits it. The energy is still pounding into that animal. The shockwave that guys are talking about here should still be evident and doing damages.

The FMJ just doesn't have the frontal mass and sharp edges that cuts, ruptures and tears as much tissue as a standard legal round. That is why the FMJ is not legal.

I believe the wound cavity to be temporary and while it may cause some bruising, I just can't see it being that devastating.

Going back to my question about the 2 rifles I use. The 7 rem has almost 1100 ft/lbs more energy unless I did my calculations wrong. Why do I get more bang flops with the little gun with comparable shot placement and the same bullet type, if there is that much more energy that can cause this shockwave?
What bullets do you use in both? Also what range are your shots taken?
  #127  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:11 AM
switchsl switchsl is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: edmonton
Posts: 338
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowtown guy View Post
I shoot a .257 Roberts and a 7MM Rem mag. The 7 is pushing 140 grain pills at 3200 fps. The 1/4 bore is pushing 100 grain pills at 3000ish fps. The 7 obviously has way more energy and in theory a bigger shock wave. Why is it that almost all of the deer I shoot with the bigger gun go farther than the little gun?
I dont want anybody to take this as gospel truth, but from what I understand now I can give you a reasonable hypothesis. The shockwave theory, and its remote wounding capability is evident and proven. The ability to cause damage with every projectile in every situation is not possible. Using the same bullet design as you stated, but with two obvious differences of caliber and therefore energy at the target this is what I think happens. As stated in the studies I read, the factor that determines predominantly the ability to create a hydraulic shock wave is the deformation of the bullet, and therefore transfer of the stored kinetic energy to the target. The energy released has to be released In a magnitude such that its peak pressure wave is high enough to cause remote wounding. Make sense? Like pulling a string, slowly it stands up better than if you shock load it. The transfer depends on frontal area of the projectile, and its related drag coefficient throughout its expansion and deceleration, which is nearly impossible to predict. It can be summarized by dividing kinetic energy by depth of penetration. So, the smaller bullet, in its design is better suited in the size of game to release its energy in a way to create a higher peak pressure wave. Bullets that fragment on the surface, as in the original post of stopping at a vest do not apply because the transfer does not happen internally. The shock wave does not travel efficiently through the solid mass of tissues, but rather through the large liquid filled veins and arteries. As I said before many good and bad ideas in the same breath. The human body is a great shock absorber, but at the same time, has weak points where it is not. I hope this shed some light on the question you asked.

Last edited by switchsl; 05-25-2010 at 11:18 AM.
  #128  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:22 AM
aulrich's Avatar
aulrich aulrich is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,111
Default

I would say bullet construction is the difference. The tougher 7mm bullet retained its energy better. As an example for years I hunted with 338 win mag and 200 grain bt's nothing made it past 30 yards most were bang flops (deer). One year I get an elk tag and switch over to 225 partitions. Before the elk season I shoot a deer at 30 yards through the lungs and the thing runs the better part of 300 yards. The bullet punched through and hardly noticed that it hit something.

The BT being "softer" expands more and in deer size game produces lager wounds. The transfer of energy did play a role in killing stuff faster but only to the point where the transfer of energy deformed and fragmented the bullet, and that process causes holes which cause a fatal loss of blood.
  #129  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:23 AM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Absolutely remote wounding happens as a result of the temporary wound channel created by the "shockwave". I haven't seen anyone here dispute that. I think some are equating that remote wounding to killing power and that's rarely the case. With certain organs no doubt but for the most part, the results are temporary. I think the fact remains that energy rarely kills and a hole through something vital is required in most cases. There seems to be a lot of putting of words in mouths here rather than trying to understand what people or in the case of the OP, reports are actually saying.
  #130  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:24 AM
clakjp clakjp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by switchsl View Post
I dont want anybody to take this as gospel truth, but from what I understand now I can give you a reasonable hypothesis. The shockwave theory, and its remote wounding capability is evident and proven. The ability to cause damage with every projectile in every situation is not possible. Using the same bullet design as you stated, but with two obvious differences of caliber and therefore energy at the target this is what I think happens. As stated in the studies I read, the factor that determines predominantly the ability to create a hydraulic shock wave is the deformation of the bullet, and therefore transfer of the stored kinetic energy to the target. The energy released has to be released In a magnitude such that its peak pressure wave is high enough to cause remote wounding. Make sense? Like pulling a string, slowly it stands up better than if you shock load it. The transfer depends on frontal area of the projectile, and its related drag coefficient throughout its expansion and deceleration, which is nearly impossible to predict. It can be summarized by dividing kinetic energy by depth of penetration. So, the smaller bullet, in its design is better suited in the size of game to release its energy in a way to create a higher peak pressure wave. Bullets that fragment on the surface, as in the original post of stopping at a vest do not apply because the transfer does not happen internally. The shock wave does not travel efficiently through the solid mass of tissues, but rather through the large liquid filled veins and arteries. As I said before many good and bad ideas in the same breath. The human body is a great shock absorber, but at the same time, has weak points where it is not. I hope this shed some light on the question you asked.
we put.I am not good at explaining as good as you but that is what I think as well just in a different wording. Thanks.
  #131  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:31 AM
switchsl switchsl is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: edmonton
Posts: 338
Default

The remote wounding is rarely the cause of death, but rather a coumpounding factor. Ultimatly, the cause of death is stopping CNS function. The bleeding from a wound channel being the primary cause, the shockwave a catalyst speeding the process. Remote wounding can cause death from scientific studies I have read, example dogs and pigs shot in the thigh experienced brain and organ damage. The damage caused by this effect is still minimal compared to the trauma of the original wound from the projectile impact, even from a poorly placed shot.
  #132  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:38 AM
switchsl switchsl is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: edmonton
Posts: 338
Default

Im glad I was able to help clarify some of this discusion. As always I recomend digging into every piece of information you can find for yourself. With enough reading you will find whats consistent and whats not, and be able to weed out fact from fiction and avoid sensless frustration. Some said before experience is key, this is true, but the text books are aswell, as they are written word of experience.
  #133  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:40 AM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by switchsl View Post
The remote wounding is rarely the cause of death, but rather a coumpounding factor. Ultimatly, the cause of death is stopping CNS function. The bleeding from a wound channel being the primary cause, the shockwave a catalyst speeding the process. Remote wounding can cause death from scientific studies I have read, example dogs and pigs shot in the thigh experienced brain and organ damage. The damage caused by this effect is still minimal compared to the trauma of the original wound from the projectile impact, even from a poorly placed shot.
It's possible there may have been temporary damage to the brain and other organs from a thigh shot but I doubt that damage was lethal and I doubt it was permanent. Damage does not mean a mortal wound. I'm sure when a deer gets shot in the antlers there is brain damage in the form of concusion but it's hardlt fatal nor is it permanent. I think you've got all the facts switchsl but I'm not sure you mtotally understand their ramifications. Rarely, does the "shockwave" contribute to death. It may contribute to an animal falling down or even causing temporary organ damage but energy doesn't kill and only occasionally does it aid in a kill.
  #134  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:42 AM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by switchsl View Post
Im glad I was able to help clarify some of this discusion. As always I recomend digging into every piece of information you can find for yourself. With enough reading you will find whats consistent and whats not, and be able to weed out fact from fiction and avoid sensless frustration. Some said before experience is key, this is true, but the text books are aswell, as they are written word of experience.
Switchls, while you are setting yourself up as the authority here, I honestly don't think you've reached the correct conclusion from the research you've done. While gathering the evidence is only one step...you need to interpret it properly. I don't think you fully grasp what you've researched and what the damage caused by "energy" really entails.
  #135  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:48 AM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clakjp View Post
Dale I feel that (ET) is the main cause for animals organs to shut down.Not just causing a big hole and bleeding.Just like Tyler said about the buck that got shot in the horn.All the (ET) from the bullet to the brain killing that animal.I dont know all but I dont by in to what others state on here.There is lots of reading that stated both are rite and both are wrong.So Dale what is your thought???
Justin, I have given my opinion. C my posts.
  #136  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:54 AM
clakjp clakjp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 183
Default

Why is it that no can be right on this forum other than a few people????? Even if you are wrong you are right.Sorry sheep but I think you are wrong.
  #137  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:55 AM
clakjp clakjp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
Justin, I have given my opinion. C my posts.
Sorry Dale I missed that.I have been sick and my eyes have played a few tricks on me.
  #138  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:01 PM
switchsl switchsl is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: edmonton
Posts: 338
Default

I tried my best sheep, and as I read from all the studies damage to the brain and internal organs did occur. I didnt claim nor do I want to be an authority, Im not a balistician nor a surgeon or scientist. The main regions of the brain that are influenced are the hippocampus and the hypothalamus. Although the previous controls mostly memory and spacial orentation, the hypothalamus is one of the most active and important parts of a mamals brain. Its part of your limbic system, concerned primarily with homeostasis and your autonomic nervous system. It also directly relates to the pituitary gland, and with these things not functioning, death is eminent especially after the surge of adrenaline associated with post trauma like a gunshot wound.
I know I dont understand all of these things, its a complex subject with many variables. Im only trying to share what I do. If there is something I have interpreted incorectly in your opinion, I am always willing to listen and discuss. Im on the topic now, and would like to learn untill my patients or capability to do so is exhausted. Dont take this offensivley, I just want explanation for what I dont grasp.
  #139  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:08 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clakjp View Post
Dale I feel that (ET) is the main cause for animals organs to shut down.Not just causing a big hole and bleeding.Just like Tyler said about the buck that got shot in the horn.All the (ET) from the bullet to the brain killing that animal.I dont know all but I dont by in to what others state on here.There is lots of reading that stated both are rite and both are wrong.So Dale what is your thought???
Man Justin, I see a name change hasn't made you read any better. Ty said deer get knocked out, not killed from a shot in the antler. I've seen three sheep and two deer get shot in the horns/antlers and while two did get knocked out completely, the result of concusion I'm sure. I can assure that neither shot was fatal. I've never seen nor heard of any animal dying from an antler shot.
  #140  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:16 PM
clakjp clakjp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
Man Justin, I see a name change hasn't made you read any better. Ty said deer get knocked out, not killed from a shot in the antler. I've seen three sheep and two deer get shot in the horns/antlers and while two did get knocked out completely, the result of concusion I'm sure. I can assure that neither shot was fatal. I've never seen nor heard of any animal dying from an antler shot.
I never stated that they died. Sounds like you need to go to the range and practice as you cant shoot to well if you have seen that many.

I read fine TJ. I also read alot of your stuff and some is real good.But I still think you are wrong.Just like on a few other topics.
  #141  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:26 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clakjp View Post
I never stated that they died. Sounds like you need to go to the range and practice as you cant shoot to well if you have seen that many.

I read fine TJ. I also read alot of your stuff and some is real good.But I still think you are wrong.Just like on a few other topics.
LOL...I said seen Justin...not shot...again your reading skills astound me.
  #142  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:38 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by switchsl View Post
I tried my best sheep, and as I read from all the studies damage to the brain and internal organs did occur. I didnt claim nor do I want to be an authority, Im not a balistician nor a surgeon or scientist. The main regions of the brain that are influenced are the hippocampus and the hypothalamus. Although the previous controls mostly memory and spacial orentation, the hypothalamus is one of the most active and important parts of a mamals brain. Its part of your limbic system, concerned primarily with homeostasis and your autonomic nervous system. It also directly relates to the pituitary gland, and with these things not functioning, death is eminent especially after the surge of adrenaline associated with post trauma like a gunshot wound.
I know I dont understand all of these things, its a complex subject with many variables. Im only trying to share what I do. If there is something I have interpreted incorectly in your opinion, I am always willing to listen and discuss. Im on the topic now, and would like to learn untill my patients or capability to do so is exhausted. Dont take this offensivley, I just want explanation for what I dont grasp.

I think what you are failing to grasp is the degree of the injury to the brain and other internal organs. Damage does not equate to death. Most often damage is very temporary and most definitely not fatal. While you are tossing around a lot of big words, you are failing to grasp to very basic premise which is the degree of remote wounding. In most cases it's temporary and definitely not fatal. Holes can and most definitely do kill on their own...energy very very rarely can. It can cause a lot of temporary disruption to the nervous system and some remote wounding, neither of which is very often deadly.
  #143  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:57 PM
clakjp clakjp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
LOL...I said seen Justin...not shot...again your reading skills astound me.
I read again just fine.just having some fun.
  #144  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:58 PM
Peaks Peaks is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 23
Default energy transfer

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...hs.html#energy

This is a lenghty write up and has everything , penetration, wound channel and size , with testing of various bullets..It made me re-think the energy beliefs..
  #145  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:59 PM
clakjp clakjp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
I think what you are failing to grasp is the degree of the injury to the brain and other internal organs. Damage does not equate to death. Most often damage is very temporary and most definitely not fatal. While you are tossing around a lot of big words, you are failing to grasp to very basic premise which is the degree of remote wounding. In most cases it's temporary and definitely not fatal. Holes can and most definitely do kill on their own...energy very very rarely can. It can cause a lot of temporary disruption to the nervous system and some remote wounding, neither of which is very often deadly.
Fill me in to where you get all of this info you state.I have not found all of the stuff you and rich post other than in your posts.. I am being serious.
  #146  
Old 05-25-2010, 01:10 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clakjp View Post
Fill me in to where you get all of this info you state.I have not found all of the stuff you and rich post other than in your posts.. I am being serious.
Nothing wrong with the research you've done......it's just your interpretation of the facts that I'm questioning. I am being serious.
  #147  
Old 05-25-2010, 01:11 PM
Rantastic Rantastic is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 1,289
Default

lol i have come to my conclusion on this subject that it is a completely senseless topic. Seriously not one person so far has had their opinion changed and I doubt any of us stubborn know it alls ever will. There are facts and studies that prove both sides of the arguement and cannot be 100% determined by todays science and technology. This will obviously forever be one of those never ending battles that no one will ever win. Lets just all believe what helps us sleep at night and leave it at that.
__________________
  #148  
Old 05-25-2010, 01:13 PM
Pathfinder76 Pathfinder76 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 15,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clakjp View Post
Fill me in to where you get all of this info you state.I have not found all of the stuff you and rich post other than in your posts.. I am being serious.
And I'm being serious when I say you completely misrepresented me on this thread.
__________________
“I love it when clients bring Berger bullets. It means I get to kill the bear.”

-Billy Molls
  #149  
Old 05-25-2010, 01:20 PM
whitetail Junkie's Avatar
whitetail Junkie whitetail Junkie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: AB
Posts: 6,637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
I think what you are failing to grasp is the degree of the injury to the brain and other internal organs. Damage does not equate to death. Most often damage is very temporary and most definitely not fatal. While you are tossing around a lot of big words, you are failing to grasp to very basic premise which is the degree of remote wounding. In most cases it's temporary and definitely not fatal. Holes can and most definitely do kill on their own...energy very very rarely can. It can cause a lot of temporary disruption to the nervous system and some remote wounding, neither of which is very often deadly.
The greater the energy released into a deer from a bullet,creates a greater degree of shock within the deer's body.Human's die from shock and so do deer.once I witnessed a doe shot in the hind legs with a 300 win @ 250 yards.she droped instanley and was dead before she hit the ground. Now if you hit that same deer in the hinds with an arrow @ 40 yards do you think she would have dropped and died instantley from the "Hole's" in Her legs?
__________________
  #150  
Old 05-25-2010, 01:30 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie View Post
The greater the energy released into a deer from a bullet,creates a greater degree of shock within the deer's body.Human's die from shock and so do deer.once I witnessed a doe shot in the hind legs with a 300 win @ 250 yards.she droped instanley and was dead before she hit the ground. Now if you hit that same deer in the hinds with an arrow @ 40 yards do you think she would have dropped and died instantley from the "Hole's" in Her legs?
There are some major arteries in the hind legs and death from a hind leg shot is not uncommon. I somehow doubt she was instantly dead but blood loss could be massive causing very quick death. I guarantee she did not die from "Shock" before she hit the ground. If you really are interested in learning something from this thread, I'd highly recommend reading some of the very well written scientific papers. The one Peaks posted above is a good starting point. You'll see your thoughts on "shock" really bear little consideration. Shock is a word with many meanings and when caused by blood loss, then yes, I agree it could attribute to death.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.