Check
your math:
.311 * 250
inches = 77.75<SPAN
class=891511923-03082001> INCHES, = 2.15
yards.
<SPAN
class=891511923-03082001>That is for the projectile alone. The cartridge
is larger than that, plus a sizable gap between them could conceivably get you
to 9.
Brian Norrell <FONT face=Arial
size=2>Manager, MPI Development <FONT color=#ff0000 face=Arial
size=2>QuadraMed 511 E John Carpenter Frwy,
Su 500 Irving, TX 75062 <FONT
face=Arial size=2>(972) 831-6600
<FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----From: Jacques Kilchoer
[mailto:Jacques.Kilchoer_at_quest.com]Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 4:55
PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:
completely off-topic question...
> -----Original Message----- >
href="mailto:MGogala_at_oxhp.com">mailto:MGogala_at_oxhp.com] <FONT
size=2>> > AFAIK, the phrase "the whole 9 yards"
precedes WWII and comes > from WWI. <FONT
size=2>> Allegedly, it was > the size of the ammo
belt for the maxim machine gun. The > whole 9 yards
meant > "to fire it all".
With all due respect, Mr. Gogala, that seems a little doubtful
to me.
a) This sounds very much like the "World War II aircraft
ammunition belt" explanation, which explanation has been disputed.
I found this site on the Maxim Machine Gun: <FONT
size=2><A href="http://users.erols.com/hyattg/usmcguns/max_08st.htm"
target=_blank>http://users.erols.com/hyattg/usmcguns/max_08st.htm
Which has the following information: -
Caliber 7.92mm (.311 inch), same as the German infantry rifle. <FONT
size=2>- Rounds per belt = 250. I don't know anything
about guns, but don't the above numbers mean that the ammunition belt would be
at least .311 * 250 inches long? (i.e. 77.75 feet or 26 yards)
b) If the expression dates from World War I, why would the first
mention in print date from 1966? Or do you know of an earlier reference in
print?
Received on Fri Aug 03 2001 - 18:12:40 CDT
