rwilson452
New member
Do we now want to discuss what happens when a bullet enters the transonic speed?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bullet stabilizing at distances past the barrel?
- Thread starter Nytelyte
- Start date
It's why we used ball ammo at 200 and 300 yards with our match M1's and switched to LC 178 gr match bullets for 600 and 1000 yards. Us team members would get together before a match and sort ball ammo and one guy would get the short bullets another the long bullets and the rest of us whatever medium length rounds. It kept our groups just a tiny bit tighter if all the bullets in your clip were the same length and beat the match ammo at those ranges by a pretty good margin. Crazy but it worked. .
Several years ago I stopped in at the Ballard Rifle factory in Wyoming & had an interesting chat with one of the craftsmen there.
We were talking accuracy and long range shooting, and when I was talking about what a particular rifle I had in a caliber we were discussing did at 100 yards he wasn't much interested and asked what it did at 200 yards.
He said the bullet hadn't had time to "go to sleep yet" at 100 and that's why a 100-yard group wasn't all that important as an indicator in long range accuracy.
In the heavier calibers common to the Ballards, 200 and 300 yards were better distances to judge accuracy at. By the time they reached out that far, those bullets had "gone to sleep", or stabilized.
Denis
We were talking accuracy and long range shooting, and when I was talking about what a particular rifle I had in a caliber we were discussing did at 100 yards he wasn't much interested and asked what it did at 200 yards.
He said the bullet hadn't had time to "go to sleep yet" at 100 and that's why a 100-yard group wasn't all that important as an indicator in long range accuracy.
In the heavier calibers common to the Ballards, 200 and 300 yards were better distances to judge accuracy at. By the time they reached out that far, those bullets had "gone to sleep", or stabilized.
Denis
Its also why Armor Piercing Bullets penetrate metal better at two hundred yards than at one hundred yards.
I am not sure that this is the sole reason for better penetration at that distance.
Take a standard AR-15 or M-16A1 in 5.56mm as an example. Remember that the round first climbs upwards crossing the shooters aiming line at about 25 meters and again crosses his aiming line at 250 meters as the trajectory is into it's drop. This is why the Army practices much of their shooting at 25 meters and why the 25/250 meter distances play into their battle sight procedure.
Now think about at what distance a round would strike a metal plate at an optimal angle for maximum penetration?
This may have an additional effect on penetration and this distance will of course vary depending on ammo and weapon being used. Not all guns shoot 25/250.
bazookajeff89
New member
so to sum it up?
So, I don't really understand the physics involved in this but from what you all are saying I think I have a pretty good grasp of what's going on and want to try and dumb it down for others.
So a bullet exits the barrel not spinning perfectly, think football right after release, and because of this it will hit at a specific point at 100 yards. But the bullet can then stabilize into a nice tight football spiral further on, hitting(consistently at one spot) at not the same point on a 2-300 yard target.
Honestly this seems like a very complicated, though interesting, conversation about one factor of why you need to sight in your rifle for different lengths if you want dang near perfection.
So, I don't really understand the physics involved in this but from what you all are saying I think I have a pretty good grasp of what's going on and want to try and dumb it down for others.
So a bullet exits the barrel not spinning perfectly, think football right after release, and because of this it will hit at a specific point at 100 yards. But the bullet can then stabilize into a nice tight football spiral further on, hitting(consistently at one spot) at not the same point on a 2-300 yard target.
Honestly this seems like a very complicated, though interesting, conversation about one factor of why you need to sight in your rifle for different lengths if you want dang near perfection.
Come and take it.
New member
The path of the bullet is not altered. Nor does it deviate from its course and than realign. What accuracy it loses when it has reached 100 yards it will never regain. When the bullet goes to sleep the accuracy will not degrade further.
That is what is demonstrated by the physics. You will absolutely not see a 1.5 moa group at 100 (consistent average) and than find a 1.25 moa group at 200 (consistent average) it simply doesn't work that way.
If you read up on the physics and follow the formulas it explains everything.
The phenomenon can be observed in experiments involving gyroscopes.
It is simply a misunderstanding of physics and the way it works. The only way a massive body could create a spiral path (where its very center of gravity actually moves in a spiral path) is if it orbits another massive body or it has its own energy source and fins/wings.
So far all the references listed in the thread have pointed to this explanation unless someone can post a scientific reference that refutes this explanation.
That is what is demonstrated by the physics. You will absolutely not see a 1.5 moa group at 100 (consistent average) and than find a 1.25 moa group at 200 (consistent average) it simply doesn't work that way.
If you read up on the physics and follow the formulas it explains everything.
The phenomenon can be observed in experiments involving gyroscopes.
It is simply a misunderstanding of physics and the way it works. The only way a massive body could create a spiral path (where its very center of gravity actually moves in a spiral path) is if it orbits another massive body or it has its own energy source and fins/wings.
So far all the references listed in the thread have pointed to this explanation unless someone can post a scientific reference that refutes this explanation.