Bushmaster AR15 - Serious Quality Control Problems
ctip...@miamionthenet.com
Last July 11, 1998, I purchased a Bushmaster 16" carbine.
I want to pass on to others what my experience has been with this
rifle, Bushmaster service and generally my experiences since trading
it in for a Colt last weekend.
I had significant problems with the gun jamming when I first started
shooting it. I called bushmaster and was told by the gunsmith the
problem was probably my mags. Over the course of the next couple of
months, I purchased various types of mags from every manufacturer you
could name - Parsons, Adventure, Centre, Colt, etc. It had little
effect on the problem. I returned the gun to Bushmaster (Quality
Parts) and it was sent back to me supposedly fixed. Note that during
this first return the barrel had to be reindexed and a leaking gas
port fixed - this...on a brand new gun!
I continued to have the same problems and returned the gun - again I
was told the problems were fixed. They were not. During the next few
months I tried various types of ammo (IMI, PMC, Winchester, both 55
and 62 grain) to no avail.
I returned the gun again - this time requesting I be provided with a
new firearm, which is what Bushmaster elected to do.
I took the new (second) gun out to the range and the jamming problems
not only remained, but where significantly worse, in that the gun
would jam almost every other round. This was approximately two weeks
ago. I called and spoke with not only the gunsmith, but Tom Barr, the
CEO of Bushmaster, whom I had sent two letters explaining my
difficulties. The gunsmith told me the only problem he could think of
that might remain was to try and change out the bolt carrier assembly.
He sent me a new one and a week later I was back at the range with the
*same exact problems* - frequent jams. This time as well, the bolt
was not cycling back after each shot which probably accounted for the
jamming. The bolt would also fail to lock open after the last round.
I had also obtained two brand new mags from Bushmaster - they didn't
solve the problem either.
That afternoon I had had enough. I took the AR down to a gunshop and
the owner offered me a trade in on a Colt. I got back from shooting
it for the first time at the range several hours ago and lo and behold
- not one jam! Using the *same* mags and the *same* ammo I had used
in the Bushmaster! It shot beautifully and was probably more accurate
then the Bushmaster even though the Colt I now own is a light barrel,
not an HBAR.
In spite of the best efforts of Bushmaster and the CEO Tom Barr, my
experience with their products has been dismal and frustrating to say
the least. It has been one of the worst experiences with a product
I've ever had.
I cannot tell you how happy I was to be driving home from the range
knowing these problems are behind me - in spite of taking a loss on
the trade in - it was well worth the aggravation I know I won't be
dealing with in the future.
My impression of this experience is that Bushmaster is having some
very serious quality control problems these days. It's not for trying
- they did do that. They just simply couldn't solve the problems. I
also feel that almost a year is long enough to give them to try and
make it right. Hence, my decision to go for the trade-in on the Colt.
I encourage anyone who is considering purchasing a Bushmaster AR15 to
look elsewhere - even if you have to wait to find a Colt (hard to come
by these days). The differences between the two rifles are well worth
the few bucks more you will pay for the Colt.
Hopefully this will be a wake up call to Bushmaster - I know other
people are having these problems as well from talking with the guys
and range officers where I shoot. If they continue to put out less
then acceptable product to the marketplace and fail to address
customer satisfaction issues, they won't be in business much longer.
Regards and good shooting,
Chris
===================================================
"Perhaps the best advice for dealing with year 2000
problem may be to mirror the advice of Zen Buddhism:
"Do not depend upon books and words because they
only point the way. You must work out your own
salvation with diligence.", Capers Jones, the
conclusion to The Year 2000 Software Problem.
===================================================
The Y2K Problem
An Introduction for the Lay Person
http://www.miamionthenet.com/y2k.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find out about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
D.W. Griffith
Colt AR-15. I too have had zero problems with this exceptional Colt
weapon. I've used both USGI and Colt magazines as well have shot various
ammo without a single jam or misfeed. I bought mine a year and a half
ago for $800 and now the same gun is being sold for $1200 at the shops
here in the Florida panhandle (if you can find one).
Don
"ctip...@miamionthenet.com" wrote:
# I encourage anyone who is considering purchasing a Bushmaster AR15 to
# look elsewhere - even if you have to wait to find a Colt (hard to come
# by these days). The differences between the two rifles are well worth
# the few bucks more you will pay for the Colt.
#
John J Makel
Excerpts from netnews.rec.guns: 23-Jun-99 Bushmaster AR15 - Serious Q..
ctippins@miamionthen@mia (4526)
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
Did you ever clean the Bushmaster prior to shooting it as its packed in
grease? I find it very hard to believe that 2 rifles would
experience the same problem-unless you did not clean the grease
out of it prior to shooting.
Bushmaster makes a fine AR-and they have far better service than
Colt does-furthermore when you go to get parts for the Colt-you
are stuck with buying from Colt as their parts are not interchangeable
with any other mfg. And dealing with Colts
customer service is no where near Bushmasters is.
You get what you pay for-enjoy your Colt-I will enjoy my Bushmaster, Oly
Arms and Armalites-for me there will never
be a Colt AR in my household...
For every Colt that they sell-there are minions waiting to
buy Bushmasters, DPMS, Oly Arms, Armalite, and Hesse-need
I said anymore...
One satisfied Bushmaster owner here and no complaints on
anything I have ever nought from Bushmaster-period...
And my Bushmaster outshoots the Colts at the range where I go to.
Where you gonna be when you need Colt(tm) parts?
Thanks but no thanks-your opinion of Bushmaster is not what I
or countless other owners have experienced-if you have a doubt
go to AR15.com and get check out the discussion groups there...
Every mfg minus Colt is there answering questions to their
loyal customers.
Clark Magnuson
would suspect that your 2 data points are many standard deviations out.
If you look at a Bushmaster part and a Colt part and compare quality
and price, I think you will see why Bushmaster's market share is
growing and Colt's is shrinking.
During the civil war Colt got into trouble for drastically overcharging.
Not much has changed.
Clark
stu...@my-deja.com
great.
It seems a lot of people these days are posting complaints about various
new AR-15 type rifles. Maybe there's such a demand right now, the
company's are letting quality slip.
That said, I think Bushmaster makes quality products. Just like Ford
makes quality cars – even though the particular Mustang GT 5.0 I owned
was an absolute piece of shit that gave me more problems than I thought
were possible from a car. And, well, now that I think about it, my
sister's new Ford was a piece of shit, too – the windshield wipers
didn't work when they got wet, for instance. Well, what are you gonna
do.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
frank...@my-deja.com
John J Makel <jm...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> ...
Q..
> ...
in
> ...
Oly
> ...
Where is the grease that needs to be cleaned? Bushmaster sells a
video. Does this tell a new owner how to clean it before shooting?
How about the USMC manual/book? Is this packing grease in the bolt or
receiver?
BTW, what mags have you used successfully? Bushmaster is sold out of
all mags right now. They will have 10 rounders in a week. I just got
a BM shorty AK and my friend just got a Colt. I refused to buy any
Colt products based on their politics.
I hope I did the right thing in buying Bushamster. The last thing I
want is to be doing a Chinese fire drill trying to get a jammed round
out of a hot receiver in 10 seconds before the round "cooks" or I have
to stand there 15 minutes with teh gun pointed down range waiting for
the gun to cool off.
EDSTM
mags with no problems. Of course i live only 10 miles from Quality arms so if a
problem had occured i would have been on their door step.
Ed
ctip...@miamionthenet.com
#Did you ever clean the Bushmaster prior to shooting it as its packed in
#grease? I find it very hard to believe that 2 rifles would
#experience the same problem-unless you did not clean the grease
#out of it prior to shooting.
I cleaned the rifles meticulously - many many times. They did not
come "packed in grease", by the way. If anything I would say they were
slightly lubed, but that is all.
#Thanks but no thanks-your opinion of Bushmaster is not what I
#or countless other owners have experienced-if you have a doubt
#
I have no doubt that there are many happy Bushmaster owners out there.
If fact, that is one of the reasons why I bought one in the first
place. I am simply sharing my recent experience. I'm glad yours has
been different - in all honesty I wish mine had been, too. I sure as
hell wanted it to be and gave Bushmaster enough of an opportunity to
make it that way.
Regards,
Chris
===================================================
"Perhaps the best advice for dealing with year 2000
problem may be to mirror the advice of Zen Buddhism:
"Do not depend upon books and words because they
only point the way. You must work out your own
salvation with diligence.", Capers Jones, the
conclusion to The Year 2000 Software Problem.
===================================================
The Y2K Problem
An Introduction for the Lay Person
http://www.miamionthenet.com/y2k.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Daniels
#
##Did you ever clean the Bushmaster prior to shooting it as its packed in
##grease? I find it very hard to believe that 2 rifles would
##experience the same problem-unless you did not clean the grease
##out of it prior to shooting.
#
I had the exact same problem with my shorty AK,when I bought it it looked
clean enough,took it out and shot it,same problem jammed every shot,bolt
would not return to battery.Took it back to the dealer,he asked me if I
cleaned it,I told him no,I hadn't cause it was new.He told me that
Bushmasters were notorious for that and with that he cleaned it and test
fired it and presto...no more jamming...eats ammo like peanuts.
BTW I have never cleaned a gun just after purchase,just took them apart and
inspected for obstructions...etc. Thus I learned a lesson...clean the damn
thing!!!!
Keith
NiteOwl17
back several years. In a nutshell, I bought 3 ARs from them that were so
FUBARed they eventually replaced them... and the replacements sucked so bad I
just sold them. Sounds like nothing much has changed.
My ArmaLites are sweet
Scott
frank...@my-deja.com
ed...@aol.com (EDSTM) wrote:
> ...
and 40 rd
> ...
arms so if a
> ...
What kinds of mags (brands) are you using? Please try to be specific.
Also if you could mention where you got them. Thermolds have almost
vanished. Do you use any mags Bushmaster sells? They are currently out
of stock.
Frank
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John J Makel
Excerpts from netnews.rec.guns: 23-Jun-99 Re: Bushmaster AR15 - Serio..
ctippins@miamionthen@mia (1588)
# I have no doubt that there are many happy Bushmaster owners out there.
# If fact, that is one of the reasons why I bought one in the first
# place. I am simply sharing my recent experience. I'm glad yours has
# been different - in all honesty I wish mine had been, too. I sure as
# hell wanted it to be and gave Bushmaster enough of an opportunity to
# make it that way.
Sorry to hear that after all you had went through it was still botched
by Bushmaster-I do not have any suggestions as to why
it happened-but would feel the same way that you do.
Hope your Colt gives you many years of service with no problems.
john...
Al Garcia
don't like submitting my kids to the type of "crudeness" that you displayed
in stating your opinions. We don't believe this is necessary and it
certainly shows a lack of class. As you can see, I stated my opinion, and
I didn't use crude language!
Dave
short cycling. I learned this the hard way. They won't admit it.
"ctip...@miamionthenet.com" wrote:
> ...
Geoffrey Sandvik
20 min. away and I picked up 5 yesterday, they look clean. Burns #
516-234-7676. GeoffS
<frank...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
# What kinds of mags (brands) are you using? Please try to be specific.
# Also if you could mention where you got them. Thermolds have almost
# vanished. Do you use any mags Bushmaster sells? They are currently out
# of stock.
Clint McKee
If all else fails, try:
Thanks for the kind interest!
Clint
----------------------------------------------------------
In article <7krs13$bn3$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
Clark Magnuson <cmag...@home.com> wrote:
> ...
Clint McKee
Willie
#
#Oftentimes failure-to-feed problems on *new* AR-15's are caused by
#sharp teeth on the barrel feed ramp.
#
#
# 3) (recommended):
# First reduce the chance of a slam-fire, by using a shortened firing
pin:
#
# -buy an extra firing pin ($3.95 + s/h from www.bushmaster.com).
# -cut off 1/4" from the pointed end, and replace your firing pin
# with this one
#
# Now load up 10 30-rd magazines, find a good TV show, and insert mag #1.
# Keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction,
# pull back the bolt-assist and release. Repeat until you have
dry-cycled
# the mag until it's empty. At this point you *will* still get jams
# (failure-to-feed). But this will go away as you continue to dry-cycle
# the rest of the mags through.
#
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
PLEASE!!!!!
NEVER USE LIVE AMMUNITION IN THIS WAY!!!! Good grief! I can't believe
anyone would suggest such a thing. Well, OK - I can believe it.
Just DON'T do it! Common sense people . . . please. For ALL our sakes. ;-)
BTW, just what is a SAFE direction - INSIDE your home, with a loaded AR?
ModrnSound
#short cycling. I learned this the hard way. They won't admit it.
Why would they do this? Are they sniffing glue in the factory?
Scott Worne
jam in the many thousands of rounds that have been through it.That's
with still original factory parts-none yet to wear out. So far.
"The Right to Keep and Bear
Arms shall not be infringed"
Doug Owen
Willie wrote:
#
#
# NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
#
# PLEASE!!!!!
#
# NEVER USE LIVE AMMUNITION IN THIS WAY!!!! Good grief! I can't believe
# anyone would suggest such a thing. Well, OK - I can believe it.
# Just DON'T do it! Common sense people . . . please. For ALL our sakes. ;-)
While it may not be the safest way to go, it is far from tabu. Consider
the very common advice to cycle hunting and defense handloads through
the gun before using them 'for real'.
# BTW, just what is a SAFE direction - INSIDE your home, with a loaded AR?
Without seeing the home, my money's on (in order) down, then up. Muzzle
control is the key. You're right, you've no right to be handling the
gun if you can't practice safe muzzle control.
Doug Owen
Willie
#
#Willie wrote:
##
## NEVER USE LIVE AMMUNITION IN THIS WAY!!!! Good grief! I can't believe
## anyone would suggest such a thing. Well, OK - I can believe it.
## Just DON'T do it! Common sense people . . . please. For ALL our sakes.
#
#While it may not be the safest way to go, it is far from tabu. Consider
#the very common advice to cycle hunting and defense handloads through
#the gun before using them 'for real'.
Hi Doug!
Actually I was considering the even _more_ common advice to not load a weapon
until you are ready to SHOOT it. There is no reason the operation suggested
could not be performed with inert or "dummy" rounds. Why recommend to someone
to "reduce the chance of slamfires" when you can eliminate them completely?
#
## BTW, just what is a SAFE direction - INSIDE your home, with a loaded AR?
#
#Without seeing the home, my money's on (in order) down, then up. Muzzle
#control is the key. You're right, you've no right to be handling the
#gun if you can't practice safe muzzle control.
#
#Doug Owen
I haven't seen the home either. My first reference would be to use my own home
if someone is giving me advice. Down, would be basement - workshop, laundry
area, ammo and gunpowder storage. Up, (2 story) would be bedrooms, bath, etc.
Have neighbors on both sides, and front and back. Family members could be
anywhere and neighbors, well - are all over the place. Haven't figured out a
safe direction yet . . .
How many shooters have you seen at Camp Perry cycle their ammo through the gun
before a rapid fire string, before using them 'for real'? That is - and be
allowed to remain on the firing line. Not a flame - just pointing out the fact
that not everyone is quite as lax as others about firearm safety.
All I know is, I'm glad I'm not the one that the lawyers will be looking for
(via Deja-News) if something happens to this poor guy or people close by.
Ah, the wonders of the internet! Forever archived . . . ;-)
Keep 'em in the X-ring!
Willie
ps. I would have followed up your e-mail reply, but your address bounced.
gunn...@earthlink.net
with 5" hider), and never had a single problem with any of them. The
only jams I had were with surplus military ammo of questionable quality
(i.e., Guatemalan .223 [mixed lot]). Their accuray, in my opinion, is
very good (about the same as the one I qualified "expert" with in the
Army). Maybe you just had some very bad luck.....
John
"ctip...@miamionthenet.com" wrote:
> ...
Doug Owen
Ted Johnson wrote:
#
#
#
# #Without seeing the home, my money's on (in order) down, then up.
# ^^^^
# Correct!
#
# And since that was a bit confusing to some people, I should also point
# out that if there are people under you (eg, in the basement, or your are
# on the second floor, etc), or if you have a house built on a cement slab
# (richochet danger), or <insert other exception condition) then there is
# no safe direction and you should not dry-cycle live rounds.
#
Well put WRT why 'down' is often the first/best choice.
The reason I put " then up." on is it's next on the list of directions
to consider. Since a round fired at random *up* is not life threatening
on it's way down (yea, yea, I know, but it's true!), that's a good
second direction to consider. Let's the rain in, though....
The real point of it all is that you (almost) *always* need a safe
direction when you handle a gun, it's one of the rules, remember?
Muzzle control. Pointing it in a safe direction? You've really no
business touching a gun until you know which way this is and how it
works (that's not one of the three rules, of course, but is part of NRA
Doctrine).
The rule's important, as are the other two. I've a long time guncrank
friend, an engineer, knowledgeable and safe to the end. He dropped the
slide to load his High Power in the loft (where his gun stuff is), and
for "unknown reasons" put a 124 grain round through the floor of both
the loft and the dining room below (and into the dirt in the crawl
space, we checked). Caught the wife back in the kitchen as she was
setting the table for a small dinner party. Gave rise to some
interesting dinner conversation, and some serious rethinking of rule
number one by Jim.
For those who'd like to try this at home, I've a few extra insights WRT
to repairs to pass on. The shag carpet in the dining room didn't need
repairs, the more conventional carpet upstairs was easy, the *celing*
was a hassle. It can also strain a marriage even given a lovely wife
like Jim's (a gun person in her own right, married to a Gunsmith before
Jim). All in all, not to be recommended.
FWIW, I'm no fan of dry cycling either. And I'm not in favor of working
out the bugs in a new rifle this way for sure, even with dummies. It's
just that as I see it, *if you practice Muzzle Control* it's safe
enough. As to if it's a good idea.....
Doug Owen
Doug Owen
Willie wrote:
#
# Actually I was considering the even _more_ common advice to not load a weapon
# until you are ready to SHOOT it. There is no reason the operation suggested
# could not be performed with inert or "dummy" rounds. Why recommend to someone
# to "reduce the chance of slamfires" when you can eliminate them completely?
#
Agreed all around, but this is not germane. I *can* be done safely
(given care and Muzzle Control). I don't think we were talking 'if' it
should be. FWIW, I think the original break in idea is a bit lame,
either do it properly (polish out the tool marks) or the way the maker
intended (by shooting) and learn about clearing jams in the process.
#
# I haven't seen the home either. My first reference would be to use my own home
# if someone is giving me advice. Down, would be basement - workshop, laundry
# area, ammo and gunpowder storage. Up, (2 story) would be bedrooms, bath, etc.
# Have neighbors on both sides, and front and back. Family members could be
# anywhere and neighbors, well - are all over the place. Haven't figured out a
# safe direction yet . . .
#
For sure it's geography dependant. There is no real danger (domestic
issues aside) in down into the laundry, ammo or powder if nobody is
there (the washing machine can be fixed, the ammo and powder won't
explode) although it may be hard to live down your new nick name (say
'the Washing Machine Shooter of Walnut Grove'?). Nor up not a 'safe
direction' when you've the house to yourself. The point is you have to
think about it each time, all the time, as you handle the gun. Ask
youself 'is this way really safe?'.
# How many shooters have you seen at Camp Perry cycle their ammo through the gun
# before a rapid fire string, before using them 'for real'? That is - and be
# allowed to remain on the firing line. Not a flame - just pointing out the fact
# that not everyone is quite as lax as others about firearm safety.
#
Sorry, never been there. It's been a lot of years since I shot HP.
Back then, everyone I knew did for match ammo, although at home. What
good does it do you to find out on the line? Back when I did shoot it,
you needed all the prep time you had for other chores. I also recall
another shooter's m1 tieing up on an overlong round. He was asked by
the old timers 'didn't you try your reloads first?'.
For sure practices change with diciplines, have you ever watched how
Trap shooters treat their muzzles? Their hounds for ammo control,
though. Must work, they've never killed anyone and they certainly have
a much larger opportunity than most other disciplines.
# All I know is, I'm glad I'm not the one that the lawyers will be looking for
# (via Deja-News) if something happens to this poor guy or people close by.
# Ah, the wonders of the internet! Forever archived . . . ;-)
#
I don't follow, but have to agree any time spent away from lawyers (or
the mess they cause) is time well spent.
# Keep 'em in the X-ring!
#
Only wish I could......
# Willie
#
# ps. I would have followed up your e-mail reply, but your address bounced.
#
Can't say why, I've been paying my bill..... It seems right, others are
using it.
Cory and Lilach Brickner
Doug Owen wrote:
#
# Well put WRT why 'down' is often the first/best choice.
#
# The reason I put " then up." on is it's next on the list of directions
# to consider. Since a round fired at random *up* is not life threatening
# on it's way down (yea, yea, I know, but it's true!), that's a good
# second direction to consider. Let's the rain in, though....
Doug, your logic is quite wrong and dangerous.
A 13 year-old girl was just killed here about 10 days ago from a stray
bullet. From the entrance wound in her skull and the fact that there were
6-foot mortar walls around the property, the bullet could have traveled 2
miles and killed her on the way DOWN after it had been fired UP.
This isn't rocket science people. The way some of you "guys" have posted on
this subject, you are gonna kill people by negligence. You shouldn't be
pointing a gun anywhere where you don't know what is gonna happen if the gun
goes off. You always check your target and what is behind it.
Anything else is just plain stupid. You are pushing your luck and if you kill
someone by accident you will have to live with it for the rest of your life,
then afterwards with whatever god you believe in.
Think safety. Don't give the socialists and the populists any more
opportunity to let the press make you look bad.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Cory Brickner The Freedom Pages
bric...@home.com http://members.home.com/brickner
Doug Owen
Cory and Lilach Brickner wrote:
#
#
# Doug, your logic is quite wrong and dangerous.
#
# A 13 year-old girl was just killed here about 10 days ago from a stray
# bullet. From the entrance wound in her skull and the fact that there were
# 6-foot mortar walls around the property, the bullet could have traveled 2
# miles and killed her on the way DOWN after it had been fired UP.
#
Can you supply a cite for this? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it didn't
happen that way. The laws of physics are strongly against it. It's
covered in some detail in Hatcher's Notebook, have you read it?
Real live military *rifle* bullets (which come down way faster, of
course) are not lethal by widely accepted standards, pistol rounds don't
stand a prayer.
How many times have you seen heaps of brass after the fourth or New
Year's on tele? Complete with the talking heads running down gunnies.
Don't you think that those same clowns would love to show you just one
hole in a roof somewhere? Trouble is, there are none, cuz the bullets
bounce off. If they won't hole shingles, they won't crack a skull.
For fun some time ask your insurance agent how many windshields he's
replaced from this. Mine has never done it, then again he's only been
in business for 35 years, in Oakland.
# This isn't rocket science people. The way some of you "guys" have posted on
# this subject, you are gonna kill people by negligence. You shouldn't be
# pointing a gun anywhere where you don't know what is gonna happen if the gun
# goes off. You always check your target and what is behind it.
Yup, rule number 3, and a sound one.
I'm not suggesting anyone shoot up, only that's a safe (not lethal)
direction for an AD, usually.
#
# Anything else is just plain stupid. You are pushing your luck and if you kill
# someone by accident you will have to live with it for the rest of your life,
# then afterwards with whatever god you believe in.
#
It is necessary that we be able to handle guns indoors. There is a need
to determine what way is safe in order to point the muzzle that way.
Without this, we could not touch a gun and stay within the guidelines.
# Think safety. Don't give the socialists and the populists any more
# opportunity to let the press make you look bad.
Good point. And while we're on the subject let's add 'don't spread
anti-gun stories that aren't true'? Or do you have a verified cite?
Doug Owen
Cory and Lilach Brickner
Doug Owen wrote:
#
# Cory and Lilach Brickner wrote:
# >
# >
# > Doug, your logic is quite wrong and dangerous.
# >
# > A 13 year-old girl was just killed here about 10 days ago from a stray
# > bullet. From the entrance wound in her skull and the fact that there were
# > 6-foot mortar walls around the property, the bullet could have traveled 2
# > miles and killed her on the way DOWN after it had been fired UP.
# >
#
# Can you supply a cite for this? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it didn't
# happen that way. The laws of physics are strongly against it. It's
# covered in some detail in Hatcher's Notebook, have you read it?
You'd be wrong. The laws of physics do allow it... You have a bullet fired
at xxx FPS and it is always going a certain speed until it stops. Handgun
bullets have a range of 1 or so miles, rifle bullets can go 2 to 3 miles.
Here is the article, but you don't need that. How about we test it out on
you? Would you be willing to do that and try it?
Bullets fired into air a deadly metro
problem
By Clay Thompson
The Arizona Republic
June 25, 1999
You might get shot today,
and there is nothing you can
do about it. The people who
could shoot you might not
know you; you might not
know them. They might not
even ever know they shot you.
Random gunfire, shots fired into the air with no thought of
where they might come down, are a daily occurrence in the
Valley, a steady drizzle of lead, according to police.
The sounds of gunfire may be common enough, but when an
aimless shot kills, the randomness of it, the senselessness, is
shocking. Last week, 14-year-old Shannon Smith was killed by a
falling bullet as she stood in the back yard of her central
Phoenix home, surrounded by an 8-foot wall.
Police said the fatal shot could have come from as far as a
half-mile away. A reward of $10,000 has been offered for
information leading to the arrest of the shooter.
"It's a huge problem," said Detective Mike McCullough, a
Phoenix police spokesman. "It's especially a problem on New
Year's Eve and the Fourth of July, but you'll have random
gunfire that happens every night."
New Year's Eve night brings "thousands" of incidents, but
McCullough estimated that on any given night, police field at
least 50 "shots fired" calls from all over the city.
Police in other Valley cities reported smaller numbers but said
the calls are as common as they are in Phoenix. Glendale
police spokesman Matthew Brown said officers responded to
313 "shots fired" calls in the past 60 days.
"I can almost guarantee we get at least one call a night," said
Sgt. Ken Phillips, a Chandler police spokesman.
In Mesa, Sgt. Earl Lloyd said police fielded 236 "shots fired"
calls
from May 1 to June 23. That would include everything from car
backfires to actual gunfire.
Random gunshots are nothing new, but the problem has
gotten worse as the Valley's population and number of guns
grow.
"Really, it's been a problem forever," McCullough said. "What
brings the problem to the forefront is the fact we have
become a much more condensed metropolitan area than we
were 10, 12, 15 years ago, and now you're more likely to hear
of someone being hit by a falling bullet than you were before.
"It's two things -- increase in population and increase in
weapons. And also the complete, utterly irresponsible belief
that nothing will happen to a bullet if you fire it in the air,"
he
said.
Many of the "shots-fired" calls are vague, such as a sleeper
awakened by a distant noise, and many probably are car
backfires or firecrackers. If the caller has specifics -- a
location,
a suspect, a victim -- officers are on the scene almost
immediately. Failing that, there is little police can do but
drive
through the neighborhood, listening for more shots, looking for
cartridge casings or suspicious people. In those cases, arrests
are rare.
Tempe police, for example, responded to 868 "shots fired" calls
last year. Seven of those resulted in arrests.
Most of calls may be backfires or fireworks, but an unknown
number of the incidents are people, drunk or sober, who for
whatever reason decide to shoot guns into the sky. If there are
no witnesses and no one is hit by the falling bullet, police
have
no way of knowing it happened.
"Laws cannot reach out and touch everyone," Phillips said.
"People need to take responsibility for their actions."
"It's unfortunate we can't enact a law for common sense,"
McCullough said. "How would anyone in any state of maturity
fire a shot in the air and not expect it to come down
somewhere?"
Urban dwellers "have a certain tolerance when violence
occurs in an area where they expect it," said Rob Melnick,
executive director of the Morrison Institute for Public Policy
at
Arizona State University.
But a random incident such as Shannon Smith's death "puts a
huge dent in the way people perceive their quality of life."
"The perception is powerful that things are getting worse,
when in fact they are not," Melnick said.
Overall crime numbers may be down, but that didn't protect
Rich Toledo from a stray bullet.
About two years ago, just after he moved into his home in
central Phoenix's F.Q. Story neighborhood, Toledo was
awakened by a loud noise.
"I went into the living room and a huge patch of plaster had
fallen to the floor," Toledo said. "I looked up and there was a
bullet hole in the ceiling. We were a little nervous."
He called the police and was told there was no way of
knowing where the bullet had come from. He said he never
considered moving out of his new neighborhood.
"It was such a random thing, like lightning, I brushed it away,"
Toledo said. "I didn't see this as a poor reflection on my
neighborhood because it (the bullet) didn't come from my
neighborhood.
"And where are you safe? I picked up The Arizona Republic,
and there's the story of the fatal stabbing in Ahwatukee. The
best you can do is know your neighbors and call in any
suspicious activity."
Victims such as Shannon Smith may be rare, but the threat that
hangs over us all exacts another cost.
"Anxiety is related to the perception of uncontrollability or
unpredictability," said John A. Moran, a Scottsdale psychologist
who specializes in treating people who suffer from anxiety.
"Since life seems to be getting more dangerous, more
unpredictable," he said, "I do believe people's anxiety is going
up and congested urban living is the cause of this."
Republic writer Hank Hughes contributed to this article.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both congress and the
courts - not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who
pervert the constitution." - A. Lincoln
Cory Brickner The Freedom Pages
cory_b...@yahoo.com http://comming soon!
Gruhn
Yes, anywhere between xxx and 0 fps. What are you trying to say?
Paul Cassel
setup or urban legend or whatever as I have read Hatcher on this topic. But
then again, maybe it is true. I PERSONALLY heard it on the radio. That
doesn't make it true, but it isn't for me "a friend of a friend told me..."
-Paul
Doug Owen <dko...@home.com> wrote in message
news:7ld8oa$81l$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu...
> ...
posted on
> ...
gun
> ...
you kill
> ...
life,
> ...
Paul Cassel
fired
# at xxx FPS and it is always going a certain speed until it stops. Handgun
# bullets have a range of 1 or so miles, rifle bullets can go 2 to 3 miles.
#
Well, gosh, everything is going a certain speed until it stops. What's your
point?
#"Really, it's been a problem forever," McCullough said. "What
brings the problem to the forefront is the fact we have
become a much more condensed metropolitan area than we
were 10, 12, 15 years ago, and now you're more likely to hear
of someone being hit by a falling bullet than you were before.
Hit by a falling bullet and KILLED by one are quite a different matter.
Hatcher never said you can't get HIT by one only that it is spent and not
very dangerous.
The girl who was killed was killed by a bullet was said by police that might
have been fired from UP TO a half mile away. Most high power rifles are
deadly at much greater range so this isn't really the 'falling bullet'
situation, but just a non-point blank shot. Tomorrow I will compete at 1/3
of a mile shooting at an x - ring of about 6".
If you take that girl, make her 5' 6" tall, put her on the opposite side of
the yard from the entrance point and you'll see that's not a very steep
trajectory at all. No mysteries here.
The only thing that article proves is that if you shoot at someone with a
firearm, you might hurt them. Hot flash.
-Paul
Cory and Lilach Brickner <cory_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ld8pa$81r$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu...
#
#
Julius Chang
#
#
#Cory and Lilach Brickner wrote:
##
##
## Doug, your logic is quite wrong and dangerous.
##
## A 13 year-old girl was just killed here about 10 days ago from a stray
## bullet. From the entrance wound in her skull and the fact that there
were
## 6-foot mortar walls around the property, the bullet could have traveled 2
## miles and killed her on the way DOWN after it had been fired UP.
##
#
#Can you supply a cite for this? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it didn't
#happen that way. The laws of physics are strongly against it. It's
#covered in some detail in Hatcher's Notebook, have you read it?
You are confusing Hatcher's tests which examined
*terminal velocity* of bullets fired straight up vs. what
can happen if you fire at say a 45 degree angle.
For 5.56 mm, a 55 gr. bullet can still fly at over 800 fps
1000 yds downrange.
## This isn't rocket science people. The way some of you "guys" have posted
on
## this subject, you are gonna kill people by negligence. You shouldn't be
## pointing a gun anywhere where you don't know what is gonna happen if the
gun
## goes off. You always check your target and what is behind it.
#
#Yup, rule number 3, and a sound one.
I don't know whose safety rules you are using here.
But if it's Cooper's, it is Rule 4, know your target
and what is behind and beyond it.
-Julius
Doug Owen
Cory and I have been having an offline meeting of the minds on this, I
thought I'd allow others the chance to take part in the discussion.
This is my reply from yesterday:
Thank you for your prompt response, especially the cite, which I have a
comment or two on:
Cory and Lilach Brickner wrote:
#
#
# You'd be wrong. The laws of physics do allow it... You have a bullet fired
# at xxx FPS and it is always going a certain speed until it stops.
I sincerely hope you don't think this is true.
A shot fired up looses speed from the moment it leaves the barrel.
Gravity alone slows it, the air a lot more so at least a first. Rifle
bullets rise nearly 10,000 feet (handguns about a fifth that) where for
a two second period they rise 16 feet, slowing to a stop and drop 16
feet back, spinning all the while at nearly the same speed they had at
the muzzle. They then return in one of two groups, total times about 10
seconds apart depending on if they turn over and fall point down
(faster) or base down (slower). Total round trip time is about a
minute. Returning energy is a small fraction because they take over 2/3
of the total time coming down slower than they went up. Worst case
*rifle* energy is less than half that needed for a disabling wound, let
alone fatal. This for 'perfect' worst case rifle rounds, handguns would
be far slower.
Works that way in real tests, too. That's why I asked if you've read
Hatcher. He did it, or rather a series of tests, at Government expense
of course, he was in charge at the time. Finally they ended up shooting
a machine gun from a dock in a pond, looking for splashes. Changing
wind at higher levels made it hard. Finally they got lucky and a round
landed close by, 'and made a dent less than 1/16 inch deep in the soft
wood', hardly fatal. Painful perhaps.
# Handgun
# bullets have a range of 1 or so miles, rifle bullets can go 2 to 3 miles.
#
Not fired up they can't, but that doesn't really matter. No matter how
high they start, they reach terminal velocity, just like a sky diver,
and stay at that speed from then on the whole way to the ground.
# Here is the article, but you don't need that. How about we test it out on
# you? Would you be willing to do that and try it?
#
#
Thank you for the article. It is not quite as you portrayed it WRT the
girl. She was *not* shot by a bullet falling from the sky, it was a
normal shot (under 31 degrees) at extreme range from the sound of it.
Note the continued reference to the huge number of rounds being fired,
then a single guy not only gets a hole, but a big one? Sounds more like
a guy explaining how the hole got there after hearing an unexpected loud
noise....didn't mention recovering the bullet which would have been in
the floor.
Sorry, I stand by it, this tripe is all anti-gun hype. Written to dupe
folks. Calculations, tests and logic say it doesn't happen. So do I.
Doug Owen
David Steuber
-> Real live military *rifle* bullets (which come down way faster, of
-> course) are not lethal by widely accepted standards, pistol rounds don't
-> stand a prayer.
I use 55gr UMC ammo in my AR-15. If I shot straight up into the air,
how fast will the bullet be moving when it reaches the ground? How
much energy is that?
Same question for .45 ACP.
I had a .45 ACP skip up my backstop several weeks back. It apparantly
hit a neighbor's garage door hard enough to dent it. This was a 230gr
UMC ball. I have stoped shooting at that location until I can make
arrangements for a better backstop.
--
David Steuber | You may call me david in e-mail replies, if you wish
V o t e P R O - R K B A
Support your local gun store: Shop there often
If you want to know what god thinks of money, just look at the people
he gave it to.
-- Dorthy Parker
Lee Lin
# Can you supply a cite for this? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it didn't
# happen that way. The laws of physics are strongly against it.
Doug,
I would like some clarification on the physics of a bullet fired
straight up from the ground. My college physics professor told us
that if a bullet was fired straight up, it should pass the point of
discharge with the pretty much the same velocity as when it was
fired (air friction will slow it down a little bit). He explained
that gravity was responsible for causing the bullet to stop upward
motion. However, gravity is also the main force for pulling the
bullet back to earth. With the upward and downward distance being
identical, and the force of gravity being a constant, the bullet
should return to earth with the same velocity, albeit a LITTLE
slower due to drag. Was he correct? Thanks in advance.
Lee
Dick Wells
bullets coming down have nowhere near the energy of a fired bullet but still
enough to smart. See Hatchers Notebook for more info on this subject.
RW
Hypnogator
Julian Hatcher did some extensive testing of this. Fired a 50-cal
machinegun straight up from under an armored roof, as I recall. Don't remember
the results, but it's detailed in "Hatcher's Notebook."
Gary L. Griffiths
Chief Instructor
Advanced Force Tactics, Inc.
gruhn
I hate when they let that happen.
#discharge with the pretty much the same velocity as when it was
In a vacuum, sure.
#(air friction will slow it down a little bit)
More than a little bit.
# He explained
#that gravity was responsible for causing the bullet to stop upward
#motion. However, gravity is also the main force for pulling the
#bullet back to earth
In a vacuum. Physics 101 also uses massless non-inertial pulleys and
frictionless table tops.
#albeit a LITTLE slower due to drag. Was he correct?
Again, not necessarily so. There's "terminal velocity". Has to do with mass,
cross sectional area and probably some overall shape stuff (coefficient of
drag perhaps). Afraid I don't have any numbers available other than - a
falling human hits about 120 mph. Of course, humans are not bullets.
He could have done a much better job than "a little slower". He could have
run the math. He should have had access to it. Afraid I haven't done physics
in well over a decade.
drenner
Lee Lin wrote in message <7lfor5$ggg$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
#Doug Owen wrote:
#
## Can you supply a cite for this? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it didn't
## happen that way. The laws of physics are strongly against it.
#
#Doug,
#
#I would like some clarification on the physics of a bullet fired
#straight up from the ground. My college physics professor told us
#that if a bullet was fired straight up, it should pass the point of
#discharge with the pretty much the same velocity as when it was
#that gravity was responsible for causing the bullet to stop upward
#motion. However, gravity is also the main force for pulling the
#identical, and the force of gravity being a constant, the bullet
#should return to earth with the same velocity, albeit a LITTLE
#slower due to drag. Was he correct? Thanks in advance.
#
#Lee
the bullet will return to earth tremendously slowed by the air. if this were
the moon, there would be no drag, hence no terminal velocity, and the bullet
would continue to accelerate in free fall until it hit the surface at the
same speed as it left it. think about the guys who are shooting 1000 yrd
competitions. by the time it reaches the target, a .308 is not much over
mach 1. in only 1000 yards, the bullet has slowed from mach 2.5 down to
barely mach 1. i don't know what the terminal velocity on a falling bullet
is. of course it varies with the type and the stability and attitude of the
falling projectile, but it is nowhere near the muzzle velocity.
douglas
#
#
# # happen that way. The laws of physics are strongly against it.
#
# Doug,
#
# I would like some clarification on the physics of a bullet fired
# straight up from the ground. My college physics professor told us
# that if a bullet was fired straight up, it should pass the point of
# discharge with the pretty much the same velocity as when it was
# fired (air friction will slow it down a little bit). He explained
# that gravity was responsible for causing the bullet to stop upward
# motion. However, gravity is also the main force for pulling the
# bullet back to earth. With the upward and downward distance being
# identical, and the force of gravity being a constant, the bullet
# should return to earth with the same velocity, albeit a LITTLE
# slower due to drag. Was he correct? Thanks in advance.
#
# Lee
#
He's a little off.
According to "Understanding Ballistics": If perfect the bullet would
return to earth base first at 300-350 fps, less perfect pointed end
down 450-500 fps, in the real world probably tumbling somewhat slower
than 300 fps. 150gr*200fps*200fps/450400= 13.2 ft-lbs energy compared
to a 22CB at ~34 ft-lbs. For you who are interested same source Quoting
"The American Rifleman" Dec. 94: terminal velocites of shot #9-74fps
#4-94fps BB-111fps 00buck-153fps.
It's a great book, has answers to many questions. It also has that
recoil chart someone was looking for, handguns and rifles.
Doug T
douglas
#
# Gentle readers,
#
# Cory and I have been having an offline meeting of the minds on this, I
# thought I'd allow others the chance to take part in the discussion.
# This is my reply from yesterday:
#
# Thank you for your prompt response, especially the cite, which I have a
# comment or two on:
#
# Cory and Lilach Brickner wrote:
# #
#
# # You'd be wrong. The laws of physics do allow it... You have a bullet fired
# # at xxx FPS and it is always going a certain speed until it stops.
#
# I sincerely hope you don't think this is true.
#
# A shot fired up looses speed from the moment it leaves the barrel.
# Gravity alone slows it, the air a lot more so at least a first. Rifle
# bullets rise nearly 10,000 feet (handguns about a fifth that)
Doug,
Gravity only slows the part of the bullets velocity which is up.
Fired level in a vacuum the bullet wouldn't slow only curve around to
eventually hit you in the back of the head.
Side note if fired straight up in that vacuum the calculated rise
would be ~ 113,000 feet or 21 and change miles, round trip time 168
seconds. Compared to round trip time for U.S. Ordnance test in 1919
& 1920 30-06 @ 2700fps 18 sec up 31 sec return total of 49.2 sec impact
at about 300 fps.
Doug T
Doug Owen
Dick Wells wrote:
#
# #From experience (sitting in a boat and firing straight up) I can say that the
# bullets coming down have nowhere near the energy of a fired bullet but still
# enough to smart.
Yipes! I have it on good authority you're dead...you'd better lie
down....
Doug Owen
Al Garcia
(initial velocity that it left the barrel)-ie-V(t)=-32t + V(0). This
assumes the bullet is fired straight upwards. Now I could on and on to
illustrate this but this just means that the equation for the velocity is
"linear" and that the bullet is constantly losing its speed....
Al
drenner <dre...@milehigh.net> wrote in message
news:7lh4ar$lgo$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu...
> ...
didn't
> ...
were
> ...
bullet
> ...
the
> ...
JHrisoulas
starts to tumble it will present a greater "drag surface", therby increasing
the air friction.
Remember that in most cases a bullet is more or less streamlined in the
direction of flight, ie, "small pointy end goes first", if the bullet starts to
tumble and roll/yaw, this will not be the case.. More area "exposed" to air
friction. the more it will slow down...
JPH
Dr JP Hrisoulas,
Las Vegas, Nevada
Bladesmith, Metallographer, Researcher, Lecturer
Author:
"The Complete Bladesmith"
"The Master Bladesmith"
"The Pattern Welded Blade"
LtC, NVDoM
http://www.Atar.com
Stephen Cox
douglas wrote:
> ...
Air resistance IS THE MAJOR factor on a total time basis.
> ...
If fired at orbital velocity
> ...
I came up with same numbers (113,367 ft., 167.95 sec.) with formula from memory
(last physic classes in 1972).
> ...
Nice information to know. When you think about it, the bullet is probably slowing
down when it finally impacts. Having reached a faster terminal velocity at a higher
altitude, the bullet would then start slowing as it enters denser atmosphere.
Conclusions: What goes up must come down (under orbital velocity). The lower the
angle, the more danger the returning bullet presents. Shooting straight up gives
the least impact velocity The impact of a shot fire straight up can be simulated
by throwing bullets into the crowd from a stock car (about 200+ mph).
Regards,
Steve Cox
> ...
Doug Owen
douglas wrote:
#
#
#
# Doug,
# Gravity only slows the part of the bullets velocity which is up.
# Fired level in a vacuum the bullet wouldn't slow only curve around to
# eventually hit you in the back of the head.
Not quite, gravity still sucks...er pulls things down. The bullet you
describe (the one that flies around the moon to come up behind you will
only do that at one *exact* speed (orbit velocity for that set of
conditions). Since gravity will make 'all' bullets fall, this one
special (theoretical) instance has the bullet 'falling over the
horizon. A mite too fast and it will be over your head when it comes
by, a bit slow and it will hit the surface before you. I suspect the
precision required is sub PPM.
# Side note if fired straight up in that vacuum the calculated rise
# would be ~ 113,000 feet or 21 and change miles, round trip time 168
# seconds. Compared to round trip time for U.S. Ordnance test in 1919
# & 1920 30-06 @ 2700fps 18 sec up 31 sec return total of 49.2 sec impact
# at about 300 fps.
#
Yes, that total is *one of the three* listed in the NRA Firearms Fact
Book, the fastest. The others are base first in six seconds or so more
at 300 (the fast guys are really about 450 fps) and the third group, the
tumblers (most closely like handgun bullets) in a minute and a half at
under 200.
Bottom line is pointing a gun you don't intend to fire up is generally
safe (WRT being lethal) in the event of an AD. Safety WRT explaining
the noise and hole in the roof to the wife is left as an exercise for
the students......
A round that penetrates part of the house on it's way up is sure to
return slower than a pristine bullet as well.
Muzzle control.
Doug Owen
douglas
#
# douglas wrote:
# # Gravity only slows the part of the bullets velocity which is up.
# # Fired level in a vacuum the bullet wouldn't slow only curve around to
# # eventually hit you in the back of the head.
#
# Not quite, gravity still sucks...er pulls things down. The bullet you
# describe (the one that flies around the moon to come up behind you will
# only do that at one *exact* speed (orbit velocity for that set of
# conditions). Since gravity will make 'all' bullets fall, this one
# special (theoretical) instance has the bullet 'falling over the
# horizon. A mite too fast and it will be over your head when it comes
# by, a bit slow and it will hit the surface before you. I suspect the
# precision required is sub PPM.
#
Sorry I was using my blond brain cells. :)
Doug T
David Steuber
-> the least impact velocity The impact of a shot fire straight up can be simulated
-> by throwing bullets into the crowd from a stock car (about 200+ mph).
Does that qualify as a drive by shooting?
--
David Steuber | You may call me david in e-mail replies, if you wish
V o t e P R O - R K B A
Support your local gun store: Shop there often
"We had it tough ... I had to get up at 9 o'clock at night, half an
hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of dry poison, work 29 hours down
mill, and when we came home our Dad would kill us, and dance about on
our grave singing Haleleuia ..."
-- Monty Python
Doug Owen
David Steuber wrote:
#
# Stephen Cox <stev...@eurekanet.com> writes:
#
# -> the least impact velocity The impact of a shot fire straight up can be simulated
# -> by throwing bullets into the crowd from a stock car (about 200+ mph).
#
# Does that qualify as a drive by shooting?
#
Naw, that's 'drive by throwing' a sport traditionally done with beer
cans......
Doug Owen
Doug Owen
douglas wrote:
#
#
# According to "Understanding Ballistics": If perfect the bullet would
# return to earth base first at 300-350 fps, less perfect pointed end
# down 450-500 fps, in the real world probably tumbling somewhat slower
# than 300 fps. 150gr*200fps*200fps/450400= 13.2 ft-lbs energy compared
# to a 22CB at ~34 ft-lbs.
OHMYGOD! 13.2 fpe? That's 10% MORE than a pellet gun, it could put
your eye out!
Thanks for posting an excellent cite. I had the book at one time, it's
since gone off on some adventure. Perhaps I should get another....
FRE...@webtv.net
MPH. Skydiving straight down, head down. Jumped from 30K ft., had
full helmet and a skintight jumpsuit.
Doug Owen
FRE...@webtv.net wrote:
#
# OFF TOPIC, BUT FYI: I saw on TV a few days ago that a guy hit 320 or so
# MPH. Skydiving straight down, head down. Jumped from 30K ft., had
# full helmet and a skintight jumpsuit.
#
#
Off topic, perhaps, but surely interesting. That's way faster than I
understood typical (by like twice), and faster than the record for such
(something just over 275 as I recall?), it is 470 fps.
In a jumpsuit shaped like a 168 grain Sierra MatchKing, you say? Where
will it end? Fortunately, existing laws will prevent new jumpsuits
modeled after bullets of more than .50 bore (existing ones are
Grandfathered, but cannot be sold or transferred). Surely some local
authorities will ban soft and hollow point jumpsuits. Many will seek to
expand the European Military Jumpsuit prohibitions to this country,
citing the relatively low numbers of skydiving abuses there (while
ignoring the record of the countries that don't fit). In this case the
Japanese numbers remain a problem, so many skydivers jumping off
buildings and such without parachutes at all....
Thanks for sharing,
I hope you and all our gentle readers are enjoying this most special,
most American, of holidays. That this time finds them and theirs in
good health and spirits.
Happy Fourth! Appreciate (and celebrate) the Freedom!
Doug Owen
Doug Owen
Sgt. Wolf
.. Now I could on and on to
# illustrate this but this just means that the equation for the velocity is
# "linear" and that the bullet is constantly losing its speed....
# Al
Exept in real life, air resistance (drag) is also affecting the bullet, and
is a nonlinear equation.
CWilson231
Many years ago, a guy named Joe Kitteridge jumped from a balloon flying at
about 120,000 ft. and actually broke the sound barrier during his freefall. I
believe that he is the only person to have broken the sound barrier without
benefit of some mechanical device.
Doug Owen
"Sgt. Wolf" wrote:
#
# .. Now I could on and on to
# # illustrate this but this just means that the equation for the velocity is
# # "linear" and that the bullet is constantly losing its speed....
# # Al
#
# Exept in real life, air resistance (drag) is also affecting the bullet, and
# is a nonlinear equation.
#
Ah, that pesky reality again. It sure ruins many a discussion. Air
resistance is not only part, but it is the dominant part by far. I
holds maximum range to a few percent (like 4%) of what it would be
otherwise.
It is far from linear itself, highly dependent of the speed of sound.
The 'sonic boom' takes energy directly from the bullet, slowing it down.
Doug Owen
flimflam
Flimflam
A-1 Pawn & Jewelry
1925 S.E.Hwy 19
Crystal River, Florida, 34429
352-795-2777
fax# 352-795-2093
flim...@xtalwind.net
Al Garcia
person that said that the bullet lands at about the same velocity as when it
left the barrel??
Al
Sgt. Wolf <aam...@online.no> wrote in message
news:7lsuds$ncn$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu...
> ...
is
> ...
and
> ...
Shawn Husk
old and I've shot about 4,000 rounds of military surplus
ammo through it without a single malfunction. All parts
original.
Shawn
gruhn
#eventually hit you in the back of the head.
What's orbital velocity at ~1000 + 5.5 feet?
Brian Liedtke
is at sea level. Also the terminal velocity of an object is higher at
120,000 ft. than it is where the air is thicker. I can see that the terminal
velocity of an object at freefall, say at 100,000 ft., is faster than the
speed of sound at that altitude. Doesn't change the fact of what happens
at lower altitudes though.
Brian
CWilson231 <cwils...@aol.com> wrote:
: Again, off topic:
: Many years ago, a guy named Joe Kitteridge jumped from a balloon flying at
: about 120,000 ft. and actually broke the sound barrier during his freefall. I
: believe that he is the only person to have broken the sound barrier without
: benefit of some mechanical device.
mem...@yahoo.com
wrote:
#Doug Owen wrote:
#
## Can you supply a cite for this? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it didn't
## happen that way. The laws of physics are strongly against it.
#
#Doug,
#
#I would like some clarification on the physics of a bullet fired
#straight up from the ground. My college physics professor told us
#that if a bullet was fired straight up, it should pass the point of
#discharge with the pretty much the same velocity as when it was
#fired (air friction will slow it down a little bit). He explained
#that gravity was responsible for causing the bullet to stop upward
#motion. However, gravity is also the main force for pulling the
#bullet back to earth. With the upward and downward distance being
#identical, and the force of gravity being a constant, the bullet
#should return to earth with the same velocity, albeit a LITTLE
#slower due to drag. Was he correct? Thanks in advance.
Your prof has the physics right, but he needs to study some more
of the aerodynamics. The air will slow it down A LOT.
Actually, it will be falling at nowhere near muzzle velocity.
This assumes that you are using "normal" bullets, normal rifle,
and we are talking about shooting bullets up from the surface of
the Earth, not the Moon.
While it is possible for a projectile to have a supersonic
terminal velocity, it is not for a rifle bullet. It is simply
too small. The density of the bullet is simply not enough to
overcome the serious drag of the air. Even at subsonic speeds,
with any drag coef. the drag still goes up as the square of the
velocity. That is, for a given projectile moving at speed x,
the drag is y, and for speed 2x the drag is 4y.
For any car going 100mph is 4 times as hard as going 50mph.
For near sonic or super sonic speeds, the speed/drag relations
get more complex. This is not really a factor for our rifle
bullets falling in earth's gravity and atmosphere, as once they
have slowed to a stop at the peak of the trajectory, they will
never be accelerated anywhere near supersonic speeds as they
fall.
Remember, it's relatively easy for a rifle bullet to leave the
muzzle at Mach 3. It will never get anywhere near that by falling.
For example let's calculate the drag on a typical bullet.
Here's the equation:
Drag = CoefDrag x density x (velocity x velocity)/2 x FrontArea
Let's have a Cd of 0.2,
frontal area of 0.223/12 x 3.14 = 0.058 square feet
air density = 0.0023 or so
Drag = 0.02 x 0.0023 x (v x v)/2 x 0.058
What we want is the terminal velocity where the drag is
exactly balanced by the pull of gravity. We use some
algebra to re-arrange the drag eq to get:
velocity = sqrt( 2 x Drag / (CD x dens x FArea) )
If bullet weight = 100 grains = 100/7000 = 0.014 lbs.
so v = sqrt( 2 x 0.014 / ( 0.02 x 0.0023 0.058 ) )
v = sqrt( 0.028 / 0.00000368 )
v = 87.23 feet per second
v = 59.47 mph which is less than that of a skydiving man!
if the CD was .1, v = 123 fps
if the weight was 200g and cd = 0.2, v = 123 fps
if the weight was 200g and cd = 0.1, v = 174 fps
Quite a bit less than muzzle velocity, eh?
MWHolz
Mike
Mr1Jesse
Stephen Cox
mem...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ...
This is very hard to believe that ANYONE with any background in physics would
be ignorant of the effects drag on a ballistic object. Terminal velocity is a
well understood concept and was illustrated quite well by Galileo. Ask your
professor what he's been reading for the last four hundred years?
> ...
Snip...
> ...
ltl919
#
# frontal area of 0.223/12 x 3.14 = 0.058 square feet
Say, area=pi*rad^2 NOT pi*rad, so the frontal area should be 2.712e-4 ft^2
which is about 214 times smaller than your value
You wrote:
# velocity = sqrt( 2 x Drag / (CD x dens x FArea) )
Assuming the rest of your math is correct, then the terminal velocity should be
larger
by factor of sqrt(214) = 14.6. That means some of your calculated values
for terminal velocity (87 fps, 123 fps, 174 fps) will become well over
1200 fps!! That is supersonic - so something in the calculation must be wrong.
Doug Owen
Mr1Jesse wrote:
#
# lol... you guys need to give it up!
Why is that? Did I miss something? To me it looks like interested (and
interesting) people exchanging ideas, the very sort of thing I come to
this group for.
# ... what happened to the bushmaster?
#
Didn't you hear, they had Serious Quality Control Problems.....
Doug Owen
Doug Owen
Stephen Cox wrote:
#
# This is very hard to believe that ANYONE with any background in physics would
# be ignorant of the effects drag on a ballistic object. Terminal velocity is a
# well understood concept and was illustrated quite well by Galileo. Ask your
# professor what he's been reading for the last four hundred years?
#
#
Well a lot of traditionalists stopped following him when he got into
that little tiff with the Pope.
It's nice to know some folks can still live in an ideal world, it's
kinda scary that they don't seem to realize it, even scarier that we are
intrusting our youth to them... Then again they could be watching TV.