Shoot! But Not Up in the Air

 

Question: What is the terminal velocity of a returning .223 bullet once shot into the air and coming back to the ground, and will it perforate a standard corrugated steel roof?  And what is the attitude of a bullet falling to earth?  Point first?  Point up as it was when it was fired?  Flat?

I’ve lived in this house for probably eight years, and it’s pretty standard to hear relatively distant gunfire on midnight entering the new year.  In years past living at a different house, this has been done from a high public park perched over the ocean, firing (one would think) out to sea in the direction the old Spanish cannons are pointed, and incidentally setting the steep grassy slope to the ocean on fire – never knew how – but pretty and without fireworks, and lasting a good hour or so.  Not much danger, except to the local cemetery.  Cemeteries, it seems, always get the choice locations and best views.

But for the past several years I’ve lived inland, and rapid gunfire on New Year’s was always in the distance.  This year new neighbors (there are a lot of them, including on the adjoining hill facing my house) have been getting less neighborly with their loud noises, setting off what I assume were M80s either singly or seemingly tied together and lit with a single fuse, pretty much testing them (or enjoying them) any time of the day or night.  They sound like gunfire and I figure this was why several police cars rolled up with sirens on a few days ago.

It’s hard for me to tell wrapped fireworks from semi-automatic gunfire, though tonight at half past twelve I did hear full-auto fire a quarter of a mile away, oddly, coming from the direction that I hear “The Star Spangled Banner” played every morning on the naval base.

As an aside, when I was in my teens, I wanted to live in a faraway land, in an exotic location, and in my imaginings, Truk (now called Chuuk) was pretty much as far as anyone could get, thousands of miles from anywhere.  And very interestingly, I recently realized that that’s just where circumstances have led me to live, in Oceania, near enough to Truk (or Chuuk) where Chuukese can find it in their interests to fly in on weekends and deliver reasonably fresh reef fish and rock lobsters to the local Sunday morning market.  And even today I’ve had a couple of Chuukese men and a boy cutting ten-foot-tall grass and jungle on my side lot.  Nice guys, Christian, and they speak English, though they are hard for me to understand and tend to do other things than what I employ them for, performing a different job than I wanted, but it seems to be turning out alright anyway.

Getting back to New Year’s, I was awakened a little before midnight by music blaring, engines revving, and explosions, and alerted with the sound of what seemed like a bullet or two hitting and clanging either along or through my roof.  And it got me thinking.

Spitzer-shaped bullets, in all the charts I’ve seen, travel in an arc, but never have I seen – but only was left to suppose – the attitude of the bullet in flight.  If a bullet is fired into the air at, say, a 30-degree angle, and the spin of the bullet continues throughout its flight, does the bullet keep its upward-pointing attitude?  Or does the spin reduce and allow the bullet to tumble?  And if tumbling, does free-fall cause the bullet to nose down at the end of its trajectory, perhaps as the result of aerodynamic drag?

In other words, am I more, or less, likely to have a hole in my roof?  Any answers would be welcome – other than that I just have to get up there and look for scratches or holes – which, deep down, I already know.

Thanks in advance,
Flicker

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 103 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. J Ro Member
    J Ro
    @JRo

    This problem reminds me of the occasional at sea weapons test, say using 5 inch white phosphorus air bursts as fireworks in celebration of a holiday or of nothing, or a rack of 500 pounders dropped within sight of the ship for a mid ocean air show for the crew.

    It’s a big ocean, and it’s mostly empty.

    • #61
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    With all due respect to Jim (#18), I think the answer is a little less cut-and-dried than I originally believed. I’ve long been skeptical of the general lethality of falling small-arms projectiles, but I did a little calculating and now I’m less confident that my skepticism has been justified.

    Assuming I did the math right, and assuming a 65 grain .223 projectile that maintains ideal aerodynamic orientation throughout its flight and thus preserves a typical coefficient of drag of about 0.295, and using typical assumptions about air density, you get a projectile with a terminal velocity of about 310 feet per second.

    That’s slow by rifle projectile speeds, but hardly inconsequential. The kinetic energy of a 65 grain bullet moving at 310 feet per second is given by what is perhaps the only equation most of us remember from high school physics: kinetic-energy-equals-one-half-em-vee-squared.

    That falling 65 grain projectile weighs about 0.0093 pounds. 0.5 x 0.0093 x 310 x 310 gives us a kinetic energy at terminal velocity of about 445 foot-pounds.

    Again, in terms of the typical rifle, that isn’t a lot: only the lowly .22 and .17 caliber rounds produce less energy as they come out the muzzle. But it’s still two or three times the energy of the typical .22 caliber round fired at point-blank range.

    So I guess it depends on your tin roof. If a guy standing on the roof with a .22 plinking rifle points it straight down and pulls the trigger, are you confident that the bullet won’t make it to your pillow? Because that .223 round will be coming in with two or three times as much energy.

    Again, assuming I got the numbers right.

    I have a great deal of respect for the damage a .22 can do. When I was 17 years old I got shot in the shoulder at point blank range. It shattered my collar bone plus other damage.

    How did that happen? Don’t say you were cleaning it.

    I was out shooting rabbits with a couple of buddies. They invited a friend of theirs to join us. We startled a doe. I was less than 5 feet from the deer. The kid tried to shoot at it over my right shoulder. The end of barrel hit me just to the right of the shoulder blade as he was pulling trigger.

    Was that the original plan/intent?  Deer hunting with a .22?

    • #62
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    With all due respect to Jim (#18), I think the answer is a little less cut-and-dried than I originally believed. I’ve long been skeptical of the general lethality of falling small-arms projectiles, but I did a little calculating and now I’m less confident that my skepticism has been justified.

    Assuming I did the math right, and assuming a 65 grain .223 projectile that maintains ideal aerodynamic orientation throughout its flight and thus preserves a typical coefficient of drag of about 0.295, and using typical assumptions about air density, you get a projectile with a terminal velocity of about 310 feet per second.

    That’s slow by rifle projectile speeds, but hardly inconsequential. The kinetic energy of a 65 grain bullet moving at 310 feet per second is given by what is perhaps the only equation most of us remember from high school physics: kinetic-energy-equals-one-half-em-vee-squared.

    That falling 65 grain projectile weighs about 0.0093 pounds. 0.5 x 0.0093 x 310 x 310 gives us a kinetic energy at terminal velocity of about 445 foot-pounds.

    Again, in terms of the typical rifle, that isn’t a lot: only the lowly .22 and .17 caliber rounds produce less energy as they come out the muzzle. But it’s still two or three times the energy of the typical .22 caliber round fired at point-blank range.

    So I guess it depends on your tin roof. If a guy standing on the roof with a .22 plinking rifle points it straight down and pulls the trigger, are you confident that the bullet won’t make it to your pillow? Because that .223 round will be coming in with two or three times as much energy.

    Again, assuming I got the numbers right.

    I have a great deal of respect for the damage a .22 can do. When I was 17 years old I got shot in the shoulder at point blank range. It shattered my collar bone plus other damage.

    How did that happen? Don’t say you were cleaning it.

    I was out shooting rabbits with a couple of buddies. They invited a friend of theirs to join us. We startled a doe. I was less than 5 feet from the deer. The kid tried to shoot at it over my right shoulder. The end of barrel hit me just to the right of the shoulder blade as he was pulling trigger.

    Was that the original plan/intent? Deer hunting with a .22?

    Yes.  The rabbits were just in the way.

    • #63
  4. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    With all due respect to Jim (#18), I think the answer is a little less cut-and-dried than I originally believed. I’ve long been skeptical of the general lethality of falling small-arms projectiles, but I did a little calculating and now I’m less confident that my skepticism has been justified.

    Assuming I did the math right, and assuming a 65 grain .223 projectile that maintains ideal aerodynamic orientation throughout its flight and thus preserves a typical coefficient of drag of about 0.295, and using typical assumptions about air density, you get a projectile with a terminal velocity of about 310 feet per second.

    That’s slow by rifle projectile speeds, but hardly inconsequential. The kinetic energy of a 65 grain bullet moving at 310 feet per second is given by what is perhaps the only equation most of us remember from high school physics: kinetic-energy-equals-one-half-em-vee-squared.

    That falling 65 grain projectile weighs about 0.0093 pounds. 0.5 x 0.0093 x 310 x 310 gives us a kinetic energy at terminal velocity of about 445 foot-pounds.

    Again, in terms of the typical rifle, that isn’t a lot: only the lowly .22 and .17 caliber rounds produce less energy as they come out the muzzle. But it’s still two or three times the energy of the typical .22 caliber round fired at point-blank range.

    So I guess it depends on your tin roof. If a guy standing on the roof with a .22 plinking rifle points it straight down and pulls the trigger, are you confident that the bullet won’t make it to your pillow? Because that .223 round will be coming in with two or three times as much energy.

    Again, assuming I got the numbers right.

    I have a great deal of respect for the damage a .22 can do. When I was 17 years old I got shot in the shoulder at point blank range. It shattered my collar bone plus other damage.

    How did that happen? Don’t say you were cleaning it.

    I was out shooting rabbits with a couple of buddies. They invited a friend of theirs to join us. We startled a doe. I was less than 5 feet from the deer. The kid tried to shoot at it over my right shoulder. The end of barrel hit me just to the right of the shoulder blade as he was pulling trigger.

    Was that the original plan/intent? Deer hunting with a .22?

    Shooting rabbits.  Danny got a case of “buck fever.” 

    • #64
  5. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Flicker: Question: What is the terminal velocity of a returning .223 bullet once shot into the air and coming back to the ground, and will it perforate a standard corrugated steel roof?

    What do you mean?  An African or European .223 bullet?

    • #65
  6. KCVolunteer Lincoln
    KCVolunteer
    @KCVolunteer

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    I believe for a while patrol LEO’s in the Los Angeles metro area would all park under overpasses shortly before midnight until the bullets stopped coming down.

    I have parked a police car on New Year’s Eve outside of a neighborhood that sounded like a firefight with three or more police cars.

    If you get an invite to attend a Saudi wedding, you might want to just send a gift and stay home.

    This answers the question, “Who needs more than a ten round magazine?”

    • #66
  7. Eugene Kriegsmann Member
    Eugene Kriegsmann
    @EugeneKriegsmann

    Back in 1971 I was heading into the Nuristan area of Afghanistan on a climbing expedition. We were in Mercedes mini bus and passed a wedding celebration along the road. The men in the parade were holding AK-47s and shooting into the air. It was pretty scary wondering whether we would make it through the return barrage before we were well and safely passed them. We lucked out. I do wonder, periodically, how often the participants in such stupidity end up having to carry one of their number home for medical care.

    • #67
  8. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Quick update for anyone who cares: my math was wrong, as explained here.

    • #68
  9. GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms Reagan
    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms
    @GLDIII

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    [ Ignore everything here except the correction at the end. ]

    With all due respect to Jim (#18), I think the answer is a little less cut-and-dried than I originally believed. I’ve long been skeptical of the general lethality of falling small-arms projectiles, but I did a little calculating and now I’m less confident that my skepticism has been justified.

    Assuming I did the math right, and assuming a 65 grain .223 projectile that maintains ideal aerodynamic orientation throughout its flight and thus preserves a typical coefficient of drag of about 0.295, and using typical assumptions about air density, you get a projectile with a terminal velocity of about 310 feet per second.

    That’s slow by rifle projectile speeds, but hardly inconsequential. The kinetic energy of a 65 grain bullet moving at 310 feet per second is given by what is perhaps the only equation most of us remember from high school physics: kinetic-energy-equals-one-half-em-vee-squared.

    That falling 65 grain projectile weighs about 0.0093 pounds. 0.5 x 0.0093 x 310 x 310 gives us a kinetic energy at terminal velocity of about 445 foot-pounds.

    Again, in terms of the typical rifle, that isn’t a lot: only the lowly .22 and .17 caliber rounds produce less energy as they come out the muzzle. But it’s still two or three times the energy of the typical .22 caliber round fired at point-blank range.

    So I guess it depends on your tin roof. If a guy standing on the roof with a .22 plinking rifle points it straight down and pulls the trigger, are you confident that the bullet won’t make it to your pillow? Because that .223 round will be coming in with two or three times as much energy.

    Again, assuming I got the numbers right.


    CORRECTION:

    But I didn’t get the numbers right.

    The m in 1/2 m v^2 is mass, not weight. The bullet weight is 65 grains, which does indeed weigh about 0.0093 pounds. Unfortunately for me (but lucky for Flicker), that isn’t the bullet’s mass. The bullet’s mass is the weight divided by the gravitational acceleration here on Earth, which is about 32.2 ft/sec.

    So divide my resulting kinetic energy by 32.2, and we get a mere 14 foot-pounds. Nothing at all.

    Jim was almost certainly correct in #18, in that the bullet will not penetrate a metal roof: it lacks the kinetic energy to do so.

    As for my math… egg, meet face.

    Which as a retire NASA engineer, I always did my calculations in metric, it has institutional egg faced precedence.

    • #69
  10. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    And even my correction is slightly misstated, in that acceleration is expressed in feet per second squared, not feet per second. Sheesh. 

    • #70
  11. Michael Henry Member
    Michael Henry
    @MichaelHenry

    Returning home after a New Year’s Eve party in Natchez, MS about twenty years ago, I walked upstairs and found a .45 cal slug had gone through a thick tin scuttle-hole in the roof of my 1870’s two-story house, struck a framed photo on the landing, smashing the glass and frame, and coming to rest on the carpeted landing.

    That same New Year’s Eve, or maybe the year after, I read that two persons walking in the French Quarter in N.O. were struck by falling bullets. One victim was shot in shoulder with serious complications, the other hit in the thigh with minor injury.

    I’ve never stayed out past ten p.m. on 12/31 since. 

    • #71
  12. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Thank you, @flicker for doing the math!

    I have long hated how people say “it comes down at the same speed it went up.” That is simple nonsense: the question is terminal velocity (speed at which wind resistance matches gravity). And then the question is one of the mass of the bullet itself. The total force number is not a lot.

    Here is a BS-check: Hail

    For small hailstones (<1-inch in diameter), the expected fall speed is between 9 and 25 mph. For hailstones that one would typically see in a severe thunderstorm (1-inch to 1.75-inch in diameter), the expected fall speed is between 25 and 40 mph.  In the strongest supercells that produce some of the largest hail one might expect to see (2-inches to 4-inches in diameter), the expected fall speed is between 44 and 72 mph.  [72 mph is 100 ft/second]

    Is hail comparable to a falling bullet?  Not directly. Hail is much less dense than a bullet, but its greater mass compensates. So hail can fall at 100 ft/second, and a bullet at 250 ft/s. But hail has much more mass.

    We KNOW it hurts to be in a hail storm, and hail regularly deeply dents cars (but does not penetrate).

     

    • #72
  13. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    I think most bullets are designed to keep spinning for well over their projected range. It should still be spinning when it hits the ground from gravity drop if was fired around a degree or two angle. Most small bullets are direct fire, far below 30 deg elevation. I would guess it would tumble at some point if fired at 30 degrees but you would have to know it’s muzzle velocity and when spin is designed to slow down. If you knew that, it could be calculated. It would definitely tumble if fired vertically on the way down but I think it would be stable and spinning until it reached its height. I could be wrong on that last thought. 

    • #73
  14. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    iWe (View Comment):

    Thank you, @ flicker for doing the math!

    I have long hated how people say “it comes down at the same speed it went up.” That is simple nonsense: the question is terminal velocity (speed at which wind resistance matches gravity). And then the question is one of the mass of the bullet itself. The total force number is not a lot.

    Here is a BS-check: Hail

    For small hailstones (<1-inch in diameter), the expected fall speed is between 9 and 25 mph. For hailstones that one would typically see in a severe thunderstorm (1-inch to 1.75-inch in diameter), the expected fall speed is between 25 and 40 mph. In the strongest supercells that produce some of the largest hail one might expect to see (2-inches to 4-inches in diameter), the expected fall speed is between 44 and 72 mph. [72 mph is 100 ft/second]

    Is hail comparable to a falling bullet? Not directly. Hail is much less dense than a bullet, but its greater mass compensates. So hail can fall at 100 ft/second, and a bullet at 250 ft/s. But hail has much more mass.

    We KNOW it hurts to be in a hail storm, and hail regularly deeply dents cars (but does not penetrate).

     

    I agree the bullet probably won’t penetrate but the hail is way more brittle. If it had more velocity, it would probably splatter rather than bounce. A metal bullet is going to have different impact dynamics. I still think it’s going too slow to penetrate the metal roof. If you direct fire to the roof it could penetrate depending on the thickness of the steel. You have probably seen cars with bullet holes. 

    • #74
  15. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Manny (View Comment):
    You have probably seen cars with bullet holes. 

    I have MADE cars have bullet holes. Spent an entire day doing a vehicle assault course, and we shot in, through, around cars – as well as through the windscreen from the inside. The last is a chaotic event, btw – you cannot predict where the bullet will go until you shoot enough to clear an opening.

    • #75
  16. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Manny (View Comment):
    If you direct fire to the roof it could penetrate depending on the thickness of the steel.

    We found that only the pillars and engine block stopped an AR round. Car doors provided no protection whatsoever for an AR, and only a few bits of the door affected a pistol round. Do NOT rely on a car door for bullet protection! 

    • #76
  17. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    iWe (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    If you direct fire to the roof it could penetrate depending on the thickness of the steel.

    We found that only the pillars and engine block stopped an AR round. Car doors provided no protection whatsoever for an AR, and only a few bits of the door affected a pistol round. Do NOT rely on a car door for bullet protection!

    Very sound advice!!

    • #77
  18. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Manny (View Comment):

    I think most bullets are designed to keep spinning for well over their projected range. It should still be spinning when it hits the ground from gravity drop if was fired around a degree or two angle. Most small bullets are direct fire, far below 30 deg elevation. I would guess it would tumble at some point if fired at 30 degrees but you would have to know it’s muzzle velocity and when spin is designed to slow down. If you knew that, it could be calculated. It would definitely tumble if fired vertically on the way down but I think it would be stable and spinning until it reached its height. I could be wrong on that last thought.

    Yes.  Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical.  The bullet comes to near a stop at apogee and reaccelerates on it’s way down.  It is a good question, whether the rotational inertia on a bullet is less than the forward inertia.  And I don’t know if it’s rotational drag coefficient near apogee is more or less than its forward drag.

    Either way, two sources, BDB I think, and one on Quora, said that when fired upwards, rotation stops near apogee and after that the bullet tumbles on its return or else turns to fall butt-first.  These two orientations give different drag coefficients.

    • #78
  19. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical. 

    And 30 degrees off vertical in which direction?  If we want to get stupendously technical, we have to factor in if you have fired in the direction of the Earth’s spin or opposite it.

    • #79
  20. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    iWe (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    If you direct fire to the roof it could penetrate depending on the thickness of the steel.

    We found that only the pillars and engine block stopped an AR round. Car doors provided no protection whatsoever for an AR, and only a few bits of the door affected a pistol round. Do NOT rely on a car door for bullet protection!

    An enduring memory for me was firing steel jacketed 8mm Mauser bullets at a car wheel.  One shot hit the —  how do I describe this — the flat horizontal side of I guess 1/4-inch steel — essentially entering the steel at it’s edge — and the bullet displaced the steel to either side for a good two inches (I may be off here in measurements because it was so long ago) leaving a two-inch long tunnel through the steel without any deflection.  I was impressed.

    • #80
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical.

    And 30 degrees off vertical in which direction? If we want to get stupendously technical, we have to factor in if you have fired in the direction of the Earth’s spin or opposite it.

    And at what latitude?

     

    • #81
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    If you direct fire to the roof it could penetrate depending on the thickness of the steel.

    We found that only the pillars and engine block stopped an AR round. Car doors provided no protection whatsoever for an AR, and only a few bits of the door affected a pistol round. Do NOT rely on a car door for bullet protection!

    An enduring memory for me was firing steel jacketed 8mm Mauser bullets at a car wheel. One shot hit the — how do I describe this — the flat horizontal side side of I guess 1/4-inch steel — essentially entering the steel at it’s edge — and the bullet displaced the steel to either side for a good two inches (I may be off here in measurements because it was so long ago) leaving a two-inch long tunnel through the steel without any deflection. I was impressed.

    Photos of that would be VERY cool!

    • #82
  23. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical.

    And 30 degrees off vertical in which direction? If we want to get stupendously technical, we have to factor in if you have fired in the direction of the Earth’s spin or opposite it.

    And at what latitude?

     

    I thought of that and came back to mention it, but you beat me.

    • #83
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical.

    And 30 degrees off vertical in which direction? If we want to get stupendously technical, we have to factor in if you have fired in the direction of the Earth’s spin or opposite it.

    And at what latitude?

     

    I thought of that and came back to mention it, but you beat me.

    Also elevation…

    And Earth’s gravity isn’t exactly the same everywhere either.

    • #84
  25. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical.

    And 30 degrees off vertical in which direction? If we want to get stupendously technical, we have to factor in if you have fired in the direction of the Earth’s spin or opposite it.

    Why?  Over the range and time involved, the Earth might as well be flat.  Also, the atmosphere moves with the Earth.

    • #85
  26. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    BDB (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical.

    And 30 degrees off vertical in which direction? If we want to get stupendously technical, we have to factor in if you have fired in the direction of the Earth’s spin or opposite it.

    Why? Over the range and time involved, the Earth might as well be flat. Also, the atmosphere moves with the Earth.

    You’ve got to shoot a lot farther than a .22 can before you have to start worrying about all that.

    • #86
  27. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical.

    And 30 degrees off vertical in which direction? If we want to get stupendously technical, we have to factor in if you have fired in the direction of the Earth’s spin or opposite it.

    Into the wind.

    But, yes, I thought of that, and Coriolis effect and wind speed.  My guess is that tumbling would change point of impact more than earth’s rotation.

    The point of this article is that the point of impact of these bullets is presupposed, and land on my house.  :)

    • #87
  28. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical.

    And 30 degrees off vertical in which direction? If we want to get stupendously technical, we have to factor in if you have fired in the direction of the Earth’s spin or opposite it.

    And at what latitude?

     

    13°30′N

    • #88
  29. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I think most bullets are designed to keep spinning for well over their projected range. It should still be spinning when it hits the ground from gravity drop if was fired around a degree or two angle. Most small bullets are direct fire, far below 30 deg elevation. I would guess it would tumble at some point if fired at 30 degrees but you would have to know it’s muzzle velocity and when spin is designed to slow down. If you knew that, it could be calculated. It would definitely tumble if fired vertically on the way down but I think it would be stable and spinning until it reached its height. I could be wrong on that last thought.

    Yes. Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical. The bullet comes to near a stop at apogee and reaccelerates on it’s way down. It is a good question, whether the rotational inertia on a bullet is less than the forward inertia. And I don’t know if it’s rotational drag coefficient near apogee is more or less than its forward drag.

    Either way, two sources, BDB I think, and one on Quora, said that when fired upwards, rotation stops near apogee and after that the bullet tumbles on its return or else turns to fall butt-first. These two orientations give different drag coefficients.

    You know, you made me realize that while I understand the principles of spinning bullets, I know very little about how they despin. Normally they have plenty of spin for their range. I should look up artillery rounds. They spin, fired at high elevations, and have long ranges. 

    • #89
  30. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Manny (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I think most bullets are designed to keep spinning for well over their projected range. It should still be spinning when it hits the ground from gravity drop if was fired around a degree or two angle. Most small bullets are direct fire, far below 30 deg elevation. I would guess it would tumble at some point if fired at 30 degrees but you would have to know it’s muzzle velocity and when spin is designed to slow down. If you knew that, it could be calculated. It would definitely tumble if fired vertically on the way down but I think it would be stable and spinning until it reached its height. I could be wrong on that last thought.

    Yes. Actually I was intending that the bullet was fired into the air, meaning no more than 30 degrees from vertical. The bullet comes to near a stop at apogee and reaccelerates on it’s way down. It is a good question, whether the rotational inertia on a bullet is less than the forward inertia. And I don’t know if it’s rotational drag coefficient near apogee is more or less than its forward drag.

    Either way, two sources, BDB I think, and one on Quora, said that when fired upwards, rotation stops near apogee and after that the bullet tumbles on its return or else turns to fall butt-first. These two orientations give different drag coefficients.

    You know, you made me realize that while I understand the principles of spinning bullets, I know very little about how they despin. Normally they have plenty of spin for their range. I should look up artillery rounds. They spin, fired at high elevations, and have long ranges.

    And do arching artillery rounds hit point first?

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.