PDA

View Full Version : Are bullets exempt?



MiddleAgesMan
12-25-2011, 06:11 AM
I've read many times that falling objects will reach a terminal velocity of around 110-120 mph but are bullets exempt from this particular law of physics? ;)

Seems to me a falling bullet traveling at 115 mph would not be lethal but news accounts of guns fired into the air causing deaths suggest otherwise.

Or, do these sorts of accidents occur only when the trajectory is something less than vertical?

BTW--Merry Christmas to all and to all a Good Morning. :)

Peerie Maa
12-25-2011, 07:26 AM
Bullets are now designed to minimise losses in flight, but they will have a terminal velocity. just extremely fast. It occurs when drag equals the acceleration due to gravity. A modern bullet has very low drag.

Chris Coose
12-25-2011, 07:42 AM
The classic physics experiment is to drop a bullet at the same time another is fired from a gun in a horizontal position.
The bullets hit the ground at the same time.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 07:46 AM
you're leaving out rotational velocity...as high as 3500 revolutions per second... and that slows at a different (much slower) rate than forward velocity

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-25-2011, 07:49 AM
Bullets are now designed to minimise losses in flight, but they will have a terminal velocity. just extremely fast.....

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_50_bullets_fired_up_vo.html << worth reading - especially the point on most stable flight attitude.

Suspect you'd get different results for different bullets - I'd expect .22LR to have a lower terminal velocity than some of the heavier game bullets.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 07:57 AM
if the muzzle loading accident cited elsewhere in the bilge... I don't know if a round ball was used or one of the modern bullets (I always use round balls... it's either a primitive weapon or not... I hate cheaters).

It's my personal and biased thought that it was a modern bullet, based of the guy being a dufus and not likely to be a serious muzzloading hunter... just another tourist

botebum
12-25-2011, 08:02 AM
Let's just say that a bullet's terminal velocity is the same as an office chair at around 120 mph. You don't think both are probably gonna' kill ya'? The chair will break your neck. The bullet will penetrate the top of your skull and scramble your eggs.
You don't hear about that many office chairs killing people because there aren't that many flying around. Bullets, on the other hand ... well that's kinda' what they do.

Doug

MiddleAgesMan
12-25-2011, 08:13 AM
But Dougie, would a falling BB be just as lethal as a bullet? I don't think so. The chair is several hundred times heavier than a bullet and thousands times heavier than a BB.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 08:18 AM
we're still speaking of near vertical falling objects... in the case of the bullet, it has to come to a stop to begin it's return to earth... if fired at an angle, it does not

MiddleAgesMan
12-25-2011, 08:20 AM
Prezactly. Since it has to come to a stop at the top all the energy from the powder is gone and all that's left is gravity. It just doesn't seem possible such a falling bullet would be lethal.

Ron Williamson
12-25-2011, 08:22 AM
Does it not depend on the bullet's mass,not unlike the deadly office chair?
R

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 08:23 AM
now that I've talked my way to this point it occurs the 'mistake' is made with the terminal velocity thinking... that supposes zero velocity at the start... unless the bullet stops before falling back, we are not doing this right at all... any forward velocity will be added to the falling velocity unless that bullet has a VERY long way to fall... not likely

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 08:25 AM
Prezactly. Since it has to come to a stop at the top all the energy from the powder is gone and all that's left is gravity. It just doesn't seem possible such a falling bullet would be lethal.
if it were verticle then the girl would be next to the guy who fired it... it was quite a way off and that requires the bullet to be fired at an angle

MiddleAgesMan
12-25-2011, 08:25 AM
Does it not depend on the bullet's mass,not unlike the deadly office chair?
R

Yes, of course. I should have used a fixed example, say a 22 long rifle. That could do more damage than a 22 short but not by much, IMO.

genglandoh
12-25-2011, 08:27 AM
Some factors to consider
1. Object with different weights fall at the same rate.
a. Galileo proved that objects of different weights will hit the ground at the same time.
b. Galileo experiment was a short drop and drag did not enter into his experiment and the object did not reach terminal velocity.
2. Terminal Velocity of objects are the velocity when drag forces equals gravitational forces.
a. The shape and weight will affect the point where this happens.
So different object will have different terminal velocities.
b. A 30 caliber bullet will reach a terminal velocity of 300 Ft/Sec.(204 MPH)
A 50 caliber bullet will reach a terminal velocity of 500 Ft/Sec. (340 MPH)
c. A bullet travelling at 200 Ft/Sec (136 MPH) will penetrate the skull

So yes a bullet falling from the sky can kill you.

Sources
http://physics-animations.com/Physics/English/pisa_txt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger .50 caliber bullets have a terminal velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s).[8] A bullet traveling at only 150 feet per second (46 m/s) to 170 feet per second (52 m/s) can penetrate human skin,[9] and at 200 feet per second (60 m/s) it can penetrate the skull.[10] A bullet that does not penetrate the skull may still result in an intracranial injury

Ron Williamson
12-25-2011, 08:28 AM
I agree.
.58 ball would do much more than a .22 long or short
R

MiddleAgesMan
12-25-2011, 08:28 AM
if it were verticle then the girl would be next to the guy who fired it... it was quite a way off and that requires the bullet to be fired at an angle

That's why I started this thread. I'm not talking about the Amish girl who was killed at a distance of 1 mile, perhaps 1 1/2 miles. In that instance it would appear the shooter barely raised the muzzle above the horizontal.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 08:28 AM
Does it not depend on the bullet's mass,not unlike the deadly office chair?
R

the bullet will weigh approx 1/2 oz (in the case of the muzzle loader). it might be easier to think of a 12 pound bowling ball compared to the office chair...

Paul Pless
12-25-2011, 08:30 AM
Seems to me a falling bullet traveling at 115 mph would not be lethal but news accounts of guns fired into the air causing deaths suggest otherwise.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGZYhQKs2sueQNxx15HJkXc5na8DvqE gLASJajb2YcBg-iZobc

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 08:30 AM
Yes, of course. I should have used a fixed example, say a 22 long rifle. That could do more damage than a 22 short but not by much, IMO.

40 grain for the LR and 29 grain for the short... forward vel is likely to be near the same

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 08:31 AM
That's why I started this thread. I'm not talking about the Amish girl who was killed at a distance of 1 mile, perhaps 1 1/2 miles. In that instance it would appear the shooter barely raised the muzzle above the horizontal.

near vertical then?

Paul Pless
12-25-2011, 08:34 AM
That's why I started this thread. I'm not talking about the Amish girl who was killed at a distance of 1 mile, perhaps 1 1/2 miles. In that instance it would appear the shooter barely raised the muzzle above the horizontal.I suspect close to 45 degrees of elevation.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 08:38 AM
I suspect close to 45 degrees of elevation.

I don't think it's important to the conversation but I seem to remember the otimum angle to be near 37 degrees... our physics experts can try and explain why... likely to have something to do with a parabolic flight path

Monkey Butler
12-25-2011, 09:15 AM
What aboutpennies, huh? Everybody knows that if you drop a penny off of the Empire StateBuilding it will penetrate the skull of some unfortunate bystander killing himinstantly.

Merry Christmas!

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 09:23 AM
What aboutpennies, huh? Everybody knows that if you drop a penny off of the Empire StateBuilding it will penetrate the skull of some unfortunate bystander killing himinstantly.

Merry Christmas!

not since the fake pennies... they just make the victim sick with all the zinc

John Smith
12-25-2011, 09:27 AM
The first time I saw "kING KONG" I wondered about all the bullets that missed.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 09:28 AM
The first time I saw "kING KONG" I wondered about all the bullets that missed.

collateral damage... whose admin was involved in that decision?

:)

John Smith
12-25-2011, 09:34 AM
I've also thought that today Kong might get mugged in Central Park.

PhaseLockedLoop
12-25-2011, 09:38 AM
... I'm not talking about the Amish girl who was killed at a distance of 1 mile, perhaps 1 1/2 miles. In that instance it would appear the shooter barely raised the muzzle above the horizontal.

Had to be 'way above horizontal, if it's even possible. Even with a 30-06 the bullet would drop a hell of a long way at 2500 yards.

OconeePirate
12-25-2011, 09:52 AM
As stated earlier, the arc makes all the difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_ballistics Lots of stuff there I don't fully understand. What I do know is that the speed of the bullet is not limited by its terminal velocity unless it is fired straight up. As in so straight up that it comes to a stop and falls straight back down. Any amount of arc on shot allows the bullet to retain its muzzle velocity minus that which it lost due to wind resistance.

You have to look at the bullet's velocity along its parabola separately from the bullet's acceleration towards earth.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 09:52 AM
Had to be 'way above horizontal, if it's even possible. Even with a 30-06 the bullet would drop a hell of a long way at 2500 yards.

more than 4 miles extreme range

PhaseLockedLoop
12-25-2011, 10:54 AM
more than 4 miles extreme range

With a boat-tail bullet, in real thin air, maybe. Hold at about 35 degrees.

I don't know much about muzzle-loaders. Is there one that could shoot a mile and a half?

David Tabor (sailordave)
12-25-2011, 11:49 AM
I don't think it's important to the conversation but I seem to remember the otimum angle to be near 37 degrees... our physics experts can try and explain why... likely to have something to do with a parabolic flight path



45 Degrees will give you max distance for a given force applied. Of course this is in a vacuum where you discount the effects of atmospheric drag.

And a BB dropped from the Empire State bldg probably wouldn't kill someone; it has such low mass that the drag it encounters as it falls would keep it's terminal velocity low. (I suspect at least; not willing to test this out!)

Paul Pless
12-25-2011, 12:15 PM
I don't know much about muzzle-loaders. Is there one that could shoot a mile and a half?

A 12 pounder muzzle loading Whitworth had a range of over 3,500 yards with 2.5 pounds of powder and 5 degrees of elevation. :d

Not as purely pretty as a bronze Napoleon though. . .

http://schwartz.eng.auburn.edu/ACW/arty/12whitworth.jpg

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 01:13 PM
With a boat-tail bullet, in real thin air, maybe. Hold at about 35 degrees.

I don't know much about muzzle-loaders. Is there one that could shoot a mile and a half?

I used to have a chart that showed the ranges of all commercial ammo from rimfire up to ... something more or less standard. The 30-06 had the longest range listed at a little over 4 miles. Everything else was less.

Paul Pless
12-25-2011, 01:17 PM
I used to have a chart that showed the ranges of all commercial ammo from rimfire up to ... something more or less standard. The 30-06 had the longest range listed at a little over 4 miles. Everything else was less.How could a .30-06 possibly have a longer range than a .30-06 Ackley Improved, or .300 H&H, or .300 Win Mag, or .300 Ultra Mag, or .300 WSSM, or .300 Wby Mag, or .30-378 Wby Mag???

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 01:21 PM
How could a .30-06 possibly have a longer range than a .30-06 Ackley Improved, or .300 H&H, or .300 Win Mag, or .300 Ultra Mag, or .300 WSSM, or .300 Wby Mag, or .30-378 Wby Mag???

standard commercial ammo. One of the ammo companies sent it to me... predates the looie spitooie and some others... I imagine the weatherby ammo considered a much heavier bullet so shorter range/different flight characteristics... prolly wasn't on there in the first place as most ammo makers did not load the weatherby stuff

it was only for comparison and not absolute

MiddleAgesMan
12-25-2011, 02:30 PM
2. Terminal Velocity of objects are the velocity when drag forces equals gravitational forces.
a. The shape and weight will affect the point where this happens.
So different object will have different terminal velocities.
b. A 30 caliber bullet will reach a terminal velocity of 300 Ft/Sec.(204 MPH)
A 50 caliber bullet will reach a terminal velocity of 500 Ft/Sec. (340 MPH)
c. A bullet travelling at 200 Ft/Sec (136 MPH) will penetrate the skull

So yes a bullet falling from the sky can kill you.

Sources
http://physics-animations.com/Physics/English/pisa_txt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger .50 caliber bullets have a terminal velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s).[8] A bullet traveling at only 150 feet per second (46 m/s) to 170 feet per second (52 m/s) can penetrate human skin,[9] and at 200 feet per second (60 m/s) it can penetrate the skull.[10] A bullet that does not penetrate the skull may still result in an intracranial injury

Well that makes perfect sense. Bullets reach higher terminal velocities than human bodies, desk chairs (and bowling balls) due to a combination of mass and shape. The same combination of factors results in a potentially lethal force even when the bullet has been fired straight up.

A BB is too small to be lethal but a 30 caliber bullet will probably be lethal. Since I don't have the math skills to run the numbers I'll assume a 22 short may or may not be lethal since its size falls between that of a BB and a 30 caliber bullet.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 04:29 PM
Some factors to consider
1. Object with different weights fall at the same rate.
a. Galileo proved that objects of different weights will hit the ground at the same time.
b. Galileo experiment was a short drop and drag did not enter into his experiment and the object did not reach terminal velocity.
2. Terminal Velocity of objects are the velocity when drag forces equals gravitational forces.
a. The shape and weight will affect the point where this happens.
So different object will have different terminal velocities.
b. A 30 caliber bullet will reach a terminal velocity of 300 Ft/Sec.(204 MPH)
A 50 caliber bullet will reach a terminal velocity of 500 Ft/Sec. (340 MPH)
c. A bullet travelling at 200 Ft/Sec (136 MPH) will penetrate the skull

So yes a bullet falling from the sky can kill you.

Sources
http://physics-animations.com/Physics/English/pisa_txt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger .50 caliber bullets have a terminal velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s).[8] A bullet traveling at only 150 feet per second (46 m/s) to 170 feet per second (52 m/s) can penetrate human skin,[9] and at 200 feet per second (60 m/s) it can penetrate the skull.[10] A bullet that does not penetrate the skull may still result in an intracranial injury

the above makes unreasonable assumptions... if the bullet tumbles, everything changes

Paul Pless
12-25-2011, 04:53 PM
That's not a pretty NapoleanQuite right, the pictured cannon is a Whitworth.:d

genglandoh
12-25-2011, 06:49 PM
the above makes unreasonable assumptions... if the bullet tumbles, everything changes

The source of the data was listed.

Julian Hatcher a firearms expert studied the speed of falling bullets.
I am sorry I will take word of an expert who studied the problem, over someone who makes assumptions the bullets may tumble when falling.


Julian Hatcher
Julian Sommerville Hatcher (June 26, 1888 December 4, 1963), was a noted firearms expert and author of the early twentieth century. He is credited with several technical books and articles relating to military firearms, ballistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics), and autoloading weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoloader). His premier works are Hatcher's Notebook and Book of the Garand, along with Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers and Pistols and Revolvers and Their Uses. He was also a pioneer in the forensic identification of firearms and their ammunition. Hatcher retired from the United States Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) as a Major General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_General). Afterward, he served as Technical Editor of the National Rifle Association's "American Rifleman" magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Hatcher

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Hatcher)

RodSBT
12-25-2011, 06:50 PM
45 Degrees will give you max distance for a given force applied. Of course this is in a vacuum where you discount the effects of atmospheric drag.

And a BB dropped from the Empire State bldg probably wouldn't kill someone; it has such low mass that the drag it encounters as it falls would keep it's terminal velocity low. (I suspect at least; not willing to test this out!)


Pretty much the case.
It has to do with momentum.
Mass is constant, velocity is diminishing the instant the projectile leaves the barrel. A heavier projectile will have a higher momentum at terminal velocity than a lighter one. Even though the muzzle loader ball/bullet is initially traveling slower, its higher mass will make up for it in the end. Think of a train traveling at 30 mph crashing into a brick wall 10 ft thick and a Ferrari at 100 mph hitting the same wall. One crashes threw and keeps on going, the other explodes on impact.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 09:44 PM
The source of the data was listed.

Julian Hatcher a firearms expert studied the speed of falling bullets.
I am sorry I will take word of an expert who studied the problem, over someone who makes assumptions the bullets may tumble when falling.


Julian Hatcher
Julian Sommerville Hatcher (June 26, 1888 – December 4, 1963), was a noted firearms expert and author of the early twentieth century. He is credited with several technical books and articles relating to military firearms, ballistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics), and autoloading weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoloader). His premier works are Hatcher's Notebook and Book of the Garand, along with Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers and Pistols and Revolvers and Their Uses. He was also a pioneer in the forensic identification of firearms and their ammunition. Hatcher retired from the United States Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) as a Major General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_General). Afterward, he served as Technical Editor of the National Rifle Association's "American Rifleman" magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Hatcher

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Hatcher)

I didn't say he was wrong, what I said was he made unreasonable assumptions... he needed to control the parameters and it was and is impossible to account for tumbling without also knowing the rate... there were too many variables so he did what he could in order to get repeatable results. I was just pointing out that the assumptions were not based on reality but only theory... if he were here he would agree

genglandoh
12-25-2011, 10:08 PM
I didn't say he was wrong, what I said was he made unreasonable assumptions... he needed to control the parameters and it was and is impossible to account for tumbling without also knowing the rate... there were too many variables so he did what he could in order to get repeatable results. I was just pointing out that the assumptions were not based on reality but only theory... if he were here he would agree

I do not see that he made any assumptions.
The link said he studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second.
So I read he conducted tests and measured the results.
Being a US Army Major General he had access to rifle ranges.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 10:19 PM
I do not see that he made any assumptions.
The link said he studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second.
So I read he conducted tests and measured the results.
Being a US Army Major General he had access to rifle ranges.

to measure the velocity of the 'falling' bullet, he had to hit two seperate chronograph screens at least 10 feet apart... how did he accomplish that?

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 10:29 PM
ask yourself, when the bullet reaches the apex of it's flight, does it fall back base first or tip over and come down pointy end first?

genglandoh
12-25-2011, 10:53 PM
to measure the velocity of the 'falling' bullet, he had to hit two seperate chronograph screens at least 10 feet apart... how did he accomplish that?

Of course I do not know the methods he used for his study.
He was a US Army Major General and studied ballistics.
So when he says he studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second, I will tend to go with the expert.

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 10:55 PM
Of course I do not know the methods he used for his study.
He was a US Army Major General and studied ballistics.
So when he says he studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second, I will tend to go with the expert.




ONCE AGAIN... WITH FEELING... I did not dispute his findings... I suggested the parameters were unrealistic

genglandoh
12-25-2011, 11:01 PM
ONCE AGAIN... WITH FEELING... I did not dispute his findings... I suggested the parameters were unrealistic

Maybe you know more about this then I do.
What was his parameters that he used and why are they unrealistic?
Do you have a copy of one of his books explaining his results?

Breakaway
12-25-2011, 11:24 PM
ask yourself, when the bullet reaches the apex of it's flight, does it fall back base first or tip over and come down pointy end first?




Don't bullets deform in flight?

And more to the point, most "laws" of science are pronounced in a vacuum, or ideal circumstances. For instance, its stated that falling objects accelerate at 9.8m/s 2. But we all know a lead ball is going to hit the ground before a sheet of paper in the real world.

Kevin

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 11:25 PM
Maybe you know more about this then I do.
What was his parameters that he used and why are they unrealistic?
Do you have a copy of one of his books explaining his results?

I wish I did have a copy...

to test an actual falling bullet requires that it be shot up in the air... in perfect conditions it still can't come down and hit the hole it came out of... the earth's rotation prevents that.
if he used a machine rest and managed to get the bullets (it'll take quite a few to preform this experiment) to return 'close' to the rifle they are fired from... he would likely had to have very over sized chrony screens (the type available 50-60 years ago... lots of vaccume tubes and the like). one screen must be suspended 10 feet above the other (start and stop screens for the clock).
All this would take a lot of techies and himself working at some expense... for each seperate shot for each seperate caliber.

Now, this brings up predictably un-predictable problems.
the spin of the bullet (gyrocope) will tend to make the bullet return base first... any yaw in the bullet will cause the bullet to return very wobbly. The wobbling will start at different hights because the shots will vary in velocity from shot to shot (I'm guessing anywhere from 20 fps to 80 or 90 fps), resulting in differing hights of travel. The wobbling will also effect the return velocity. Additionally, the variation of muzzle velocity will change the rate of spin. as it would be desirable for the bullet to return point first, the foregoing presents a problem... should he fire the rifle at enough angle to allow the bullet to tip over and return point firse? that would change it off vertical and some forward velocity might be added to the falling velocity...

I assume he got good numbers but I also assume he had to cheat with theory and probibility statistics... if someone knows how the experiment was set up I would be interested

Phillip Allen
12-25-2011, 11:30 PM
Don't bullets deform in flight?

And more to the point, most "laws" of science are pronounced in a vacuum, or ideal circumstances. For instance, its stated that falling objects accelerate at 9.8m/s 2. But we all know a lead ball is going to hit the ground before a sheet of paper in the real world.

Kevin

they definatly deform in the firing... not in flight... generally
there were some experiments wherin the bullets came apart in flight... very thin skinned bullets fired at very high velocities... the guy I talked to who did this said they looked like little ropes of smoke going down range as they flew apart

genglandoh
12-26-2011, 12:27 AM
I wish I did have a copy...

to test an actual falling bullet requires that it be shot up in the air... in perfect conditions it still can't come down and hit the hole it came out of... the earth's rotation prevents that.
if he used a machine rest and managed to get the bullets (it'll take quite a few to preform this experiment) to return 'close' to the rifle they are fired from... he would likely had to have very over sized chrony screens (the type available 50-60 years ago... lots of vaccume tubes and the like). one screen must be suspended 10 feet above the other (start and stop screens for the clock).
All this would take a lot of techies and himself working at some expense... for each seperate shot for each seperate caliber.

Now, this brings up predictably un-predictable problems.
the spin of the bullet (gyrocope) will tend to make the bullet return base first... any yaw in the bullet will cause the bullet to return very wobbly. The wobbling will start at different hights because the shots will vary in velocity from shot to shot (I'm guessing anywhere from 20 fps to 80 or 90 fps), resulting in differing hights of travel. The wobbling will also effect the return velocity. Additionally, the variation of muzzle velocity will change the rate of spin. as it would be desirable for the bullet to return point first, the foregoing presents a problem... should he fire the rifle at enough angle to allow the bullet to tip over and return point firse? that would change it off vertical and some forward velocity might be added to the falling velocity...

I assume he got good numbers but I also assume he had to cheat with theory and probibility statistics... if someone knows how the experiment was set up I would be interested

I would expect most people (and the military) are more interested in the practical question will a typical shot in the air come down and kill you?

Not the theoretical question of the perfect shot straight up and down.

A simple test of shooting a bullet at let’s say 5-10 deg off center and landing into a piece of wood, measuring the time of the flight and the depth on the bullets impact and you could answer both, will the bullet kill you and what was the speed of the bullet at impact.

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 01:29 AM
I would expect most people (and the military) are more interested in the practical question will a typical shot in the air come down and kill you?

Not the theoretical question of the perfect shot straight up and down.

A simple test of shooting a bullet at let’s say 5-10 deg off center and landing into a piece of wood, measuring the time of the flight and the depth on the bullets impact and you could answer both, will the bullet kill you and what was the speed of the bullet at impact.

I guess I would like to know exactally what he wasw trying to achieve... your example or mine

pipefitter
12-26-2011, 04:08 AM
Anyone who has ever stood under a Southern Live Oak, where the squirrels intentionally and accurately bombard you with acorns, would be particularly glad that bullets don't grow on trees.

Iceboy
12-26-2011, 07:31 PM
This gentleman prefers to think that falling bullets assume a flat fall. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-07/1152283538.Ph.r.html

The assumptions most folks make about falling objects and speed are based in a vacuum. The bullet fired and dropped is a good example. Can't happen outside of a vacuum. Interesting topic.