SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It all makes sense now.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It all makes sense now.Socks are prone to cannibalism, I always suspected that.
I recall reading what I think was a letter in a British aviation magazine. The author was a boy during the BoB and naturally there were airplanes coming down all over the place. He and friend decided to get in on the action. So they swiped a .303 Browning from a crashed RAF bomber; the crash site of a Hurricane yielded plenty of ammo for it.
One day they saw their chance when a BF-109 was flying up and down their little valley. They propped their purloined machine gun up on something and let fly at the German. At that moment, almost certainly by pure coincidence, the 109 made a sharp 180 degree turn and headed back their way. They abandoned the gun ran like hell. I don't know what they did with the Browning; one of them may still have it.
I wonder what they would have done if they had actually shot down the German? Probably still ran like hell.
You had me at "those with propellant and lead in their bloodstream...."I think you might be slightly mis-remembering? Or the letter writer was! There was a kids TV programme in the UK 70s/80s called 'The Machine Gunners' based on the following novel The Machine Gunners ... Replicates much of the essential detail (except the gun came from a crashed German aircraft)... Pretty good story from what I remember!
As for lethality of spent bullets - I seem to remember a Myth Busters episode that dealt with this. Now, I tread with trepidation, as as soon as a Brit / European mentions firearms and ballistics, those with propellant and lead in their bloodstream across the pond tend to get a bit proprietorial and start quoting the various laws on gun science, so please, don't shoot!!!!.... But as I (potentially mis)understood it, from a test they did firing a bullet *vertically*, it will indeed fall back to earth according to the old law of 32ft per second per second until terminal velocity is reached. For projectiles fired on a parabolic trajectory however, life, potential death and science becomes more interesting - and from what I remembered, whilst a tin helmet might be enough to protect you from a bullet which had expended all its energy before dropping back under gravity (and tumbling) you definitely *would not* want to get hit by a bullet describing a parabolic path, even at quite extreme range - as even a kids spinning top demonstrates that something with mass will keep happily spinning for a long time - and in the case of a bullet, that'll mean keeping its narrowest cross-section 'into wind', minimising the slowing affect of drag for a lot longer, and that it'll arrive at its terminal destination with a lot more sting.
(I will now inevitably hand you over to to a gentleman with an exquisite gun collection to correct/explain the dangerous ground I have trodden on!!!)
Apropos other bits of munitions dropping out the sky during the BoB, my grandfather told me of the ack ack fragments from a nearby battery hitting the tarmac outside his house with enough energy to strike sparks. He was convinced they'd have been quite lethal too.
Happens quit often on Cinco De Mayo and New Years in Southern California.I remember some years back, reading of someone in California killed by a bullet falling from the sky. Whether lethal or not, I certainly wouldn't want to be hit by one. Just imagine having someone drop one on your head from a 2nd-floor window. Probably wouldn't kill you, but wouldn't be fun.
You cant claim two conflicting physical laws at the same time. If a bullet continues to spin it will retain its orientation like a gyroscope and therefore not point downwards when reaching terminal velocity, unless fired vertically down in the first place. I believe this is an issue with sniper bullets at extreme range.I think you might be slightly mis-remembering? Or the letter writer was! There was a kids TV programme in the UK 70s/80s called 'The Machine Gunners' based on the following novel The Machine Gunners ... Replicates much of the essential detail (except the gun came from a crashed German aircraft)... Pretty good story from what I remember!
As for lethality of spent bullets - I seem to remember a Myth Busters episode that dealt with this. Now, I tread with trepidation, as as soon as a Brit / European mentions firearms and ballistics, those with propellant and lead in their bloodstream across the pond tend to get a bit proprietorial and start quoting the various laws on gun science, so please, don't shoot!!!!.... But as I (potentially mis)understood it, from a test they did firing a bullet *vertically*, it will indeed fall back to earth according to the old law of 32ft per second per second until terminal velocity is reached. For projectiles fired on a parabolic trajectory however, life, potential death and science becomes more interesting - and from what I remembered, whilst a tin helmet might be enough to protect you from a bullet which had expended all its energy before dropping back under gravity (and tumbling) you definitely *would not* want to get hit by a bullet describing a parabolic path, even at quite extreme range - as even a kids spinning top demonstrates that something with mass will keep happily spinning for a long time - and in the case of a bullet, that'll mean keeping its narrowest cross-section 'into wind', minimising the slowing affect of drag for a lot longer, and that it'll arrive at its terminal destination with a lot more sting.
(I will now inevitably hand you over to to a gentleman with an exquisite gun collection to correct/explain the dangerous ground I have trodden on!!!)
Apropos other bits of munitions dropping out the sky during the BoB, my grandfather told me of the ack ack fragments from a nearby battery hitting the tarmac outside his house with enough energy to strike sparks. He was convinced they'd have been quite lethal too.
You cant claim two conflicting physical laws at the same time. If a bullet continues to spin it will retain its orientation like a gyroscope and therefore not point downwards when reaching terminal velocity, unless fired vertically down in the first place. I believe this is an issue with sniper bullets at extreme range.
I am British, only ever fired a shot gun once in my life. If a bullet is fired vertically and is spinning fast it will still be point upwards as it falls back to earth. A poster stated here, that with sniper rifles at long range the bullet has a parabolic path but the bullet itself, because it is spinning retains the orientation it had leaving the barrel (or close to it), at extreme ranges for a sniper like 1 1/2 miles it isnt point first but at a considerable slant. For a lot of air combat the planes were a couple of miles up in the air, generally firing close to horizontally, the bullets they fired will have travelled many miles before coming to earth.I wasn't. I was describing a projectile fired in a parabolic path. Anything fired shy of vertical is describing a parabola - and has not expended so much of its initial energy, whereas a bullet fired upwards literally expends all of its energy battling gravity and air resistance and will slow down to (comparatively) next to nothing before it converts all of that potential energy back into 32ft per second squared untill it reaches the limits of air resistance vs its mass - ie, its terminal velocity. And that bullet might still be spinning I guess, but the ones coming back to earth in those tests were clearly tumbling. Im guessing that at the point the bullet converts from going 'up' to going down, its airspeed is too low for it to maintain stability.
A bullet fired at a lower trajectory so that its forward momentum continues (even if being degraded by air resistance) is very likely to be carrying a lot more velocity and therefore energy when it finally reaches the ground- and also in an orientation for longer to hold that energy for longer (and therefore do more damage.)
In other words, someone firing a rifle up in the air right next to you might be responsible for giving you a headache and some concussion if they managed to drop a spent bullet on your noodle. But if they fired at an angle of 45% from 3 miles away and hit you, they'd very likely put a much more serious hole in you. I know from my own reading that something like an infantry .303 Vickers gun in WW1 had sight settings to allow it to be fired. The wiki entry says "The Vickers was used for indirect fire against enemy positions at ranges up to 4,500 yards (4,115 m) with Mark VIIIz ammunition.[40] This plunging fire was used to great effect against road junctions, trench systems, forming up points, and other locations that might be observed by a forward observer, or zeroed in at one time for future attacks, or guessed at by men using maps and experience."
'Plunging fire' in this context doesn't seem very different in reality to bullets describing a parabola fired between aircraft and potentially landing on people or property miles away.
In terms of the OP, there would be *a lot* of variables regarding the lethality of spent bullets and munitions. Its a surprisingly interesting subject now I've dabbled round the edges of it.
I found the following as a quote from a guy on Quora who claimed to be a certified firearms instructor:
".... If fired directly upright, it will likely run out of velocity, stop, and come down. At some point it will reach terminal velocity. That velocity will vary depending upon the round—specifically how many "grains" it weighs—and potentially the bullet profile. According to a Slate article, US Army Major General Julian Hatcher calculated the terminal velocity of a .30 caliber round to be about 300 feet per second.[1] The article claims that 9mm and other lighter rounds will come down even slower. At such speeds, the round is unlikely to kill, but this is far from certain. To be sure, it can cause serious harm.... If fired with any kind of arc (not fired directly up), it will come down with some velocity. It may kill someone if it hits them. On New Years of 2017, a Texas House Representative was struck by just such a bullet. It did not kill him, but he was seriously wounded."
Like I said, I'm not a southern gentleman with an exquisite knowledge of guns and ballistics. If any peruse this thread and can quote gun science, I'd love to read a learned view
When I was in Mexico the Football (soccer) World Cup was being held in USA. Mexico won a knock out match against some traditional rival and 5 people died in the celebrations. Some drowned in fountains or fell from lamp posts but one was shot on a balcony by a guy in the street below, if you are firing shots in the air, at least make sure they are going in the air. For the next game there was a curfew in Mexico city, fffing madness.Falling bullets is why the police do not fire warning shots in the air. In New Orleans people have been hit by falling bullets during New Year celebration with one death that I can remember. In the late 50s, the incident which stopped NOPD from warning shots was a warning shot in the French Quarter hit a passenger on a street car on Canal Street and killed him. It was nearly half a mile away. I have several bullets picked off the sidewalks in downtown New Orleans in the 60s & 70s apparently fired into the air from residential areas some distance away.
If a bullet is fired vertically and is spinning fast it will still be point upwards as it falls back to earth.
These are theoretical discussions, there is no evidence. Unless you know of a perfectly machined barrel firing perfect bullets absolutely vertically into completely still air. It is also generic, there were many types of bullets with different weights velocities and barrel rifling.No - emphatically not from all of the evidence I can find. If it was fired truly vertical, it would tumble.
But I think you're bang on with the rest - if it was describing a parabolic path, it would land pointy-end pretty much at the reciprocal angle to that which it was fired. [edit - provided it was being fired from land target to land target - being fired in the air means it'll potentially continue the downward part of its parabola for potentially far longer]
Myth Busters on firing a bullet vertically - In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact.
Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured.
I am British, only ever fired a shot gun once in my life. If a bullet is fired vertically and is spinning fast it will still be point upwards as it falls back to earth.
I dont know much about it but every time I have read anything about it I noted immediately it is one helluva lot more complex than I ever thought possible, what seems simple is a mass of contradictions.Your are correct. In fact, this is an important area of design for artillery and spin-stabilized mortars, e.g. the WWII U.S. 4.2-inch mortar. The 4.2-inch had a limited maximum elevation which was caused by its spin (radians/second) and was less useful for close range 'plunging fire', which is one of the most desirable features of fin-stabilized mortars. Fin-stabilized mortars always land 'nose down', more or less, but they are somewhat less accurate. Spinning shells that are over-stabilized (too great a rifling twist) may cause the shell to land flat or even tail-down and not activate the nose fuse. The design of a new artillery piece has to compromise on the rifling twist (turns/length, in the barrel) and loose a little bit of accuracy (higher spin) in order to insure the shell will 'turn over' after the apex of the flight path, under all conditions. The spinning rate slows some during the shell's flight but it has to be designed so that it is below some value (based on mass, geometry, etc.) before it reaches its 'turn-over' point. Even the design of the rotating band (obturation) can have a huge effect on the shell's flight characteristics. I bought a book on exterior ballistics a few years ago, and, brother, is that stuff complicated. I 'perused' a few early chapters of the book and then passed out from brain-burn. When I finally came to, I put the book in my book shelf and haven't touched it since.
Not necessarily. A typical spitzer-type rifle/MG bullet has its C of G quite far back, so is inherently unstable when flying point-first. But it is relatively stable when flying base-first. So if it is fired absolutely vertically, at the moment that it stops and begins to fall, it may continue to fall base-first, achieving a higher terminal velocity than if it was tumbling.No - emphatically not from all of the evidence I can find. If it was fired truly vertical, it would tumble.
1. If a projectile is fired from a rifled barrel at any upward angle, in a vacuum, the gyroscopic effect would ensure the bullet would retain its original orientation and strike the ground with the edge of the ~base first.
2. If a projectile is fired from a rifled barrel at any angle other than vertical, in an atmosphere, the gyroscopic effect will try to keep the projectile in the same orientation as it has when it leaves the barrel. The atmospheric resistance, however, will try to tilt the projectile into the orientation that offers the least resistance, which is usually pointy end first. In order to make sure that the projectile maintains the desired orientation (ie pointed in the direction of flight), the shape of the projectile, the rate of spin, and the velocity will have to be 'balanced' to give the correct result.
As ~proof of the accuracy of my statement #2 above I offer the real-world example of a nose fuzed artillery shell fired at near its maximum range angle of departure (ie angle of departure of +45°). If the projectile maintained its departure angel of +45° due to the gyroscopic effect, it would strike the ground at a +45° angle and the nose fuse would most likely fail to function. With properly designed projectiles matched with the correct rate of spin and velocity, the projectile will strike the ground nose first at an angle of about -45°. If this example, is not enough, I offer the real world example of an Armour Piercing projectile fired at long range in order to strike the deck of a ship (ie 'plunging fire'). If the projectile maintained its departure orientation it would not strike with the hard pointy nose, and would have no hope of penetrating any significant thickness of armour.
There are occasional real world examples of projectiles designed to be fired at x velocity becoming unstable when the velocity is increased, and many examples if a different rifling is used. In addition, if a velocity drops too low before the spin of the projectile slows enough or stops, the projectile will usually become unstable and begin tumbling. This is due to the difference in the surface velocity of the smaller diameter nose of the projectile vs the larger diameter base. The difference in surface velocity creates asymmetric skin friction forces which cause the body to precess/nutate, resulting in unbalanced aerodynamic lift/drag, which in turn usually results in tumbling.
Not necessarily. A typical spitzer-type rifle/MG bullet has its C of G quite far back, so is inherently unstable when flying point-first. But it is relatively stable when flying base-first. So if it is fired absolutely vertically, at the moment that it stops and begins to fall, it may continue to fall base-first, achieving a higher terminal velocity than if it was tumbling.
There is a data table in the NRA Firearms Fact Book (a useful compendium of miscellaneous information) which gives the terminal velocity of a vertically-fired 180 grain PSP .30 cal bullet depending on whether it falls point first (450 fps), base first (320 fps), or is tumbling (180 fps).