Do You Spread Gun Counter Myths?

IF is a huge 2 letter word. IF the barrel were parallel to the ground the bullet would begin to fall as soon as it left the muzzle. But rifles are almost never parallel to the ground. Optical sights as well as iron sights are designed so that the muzzle is almost always higher than the breach. So yes, a bullet will almost always rise above the muzzle after being fired.

Can't say the sound of a pump action will always deter a determined attacker. But I know for a fact it changed the mind of at least one drunk.
 
I know the racking of an empty M-14 brought a drunken serviceman in line after he was caught sneaking back into base after hours and wanted to fight, so says an immediate family member of mine who caught him while on guard duty.

But to answer the OP question, no I don't generally speak any of these "myths"
 
To be more precise, the bullet does not rise above "the plane" of the barrel.

Obviously if you point the gun straight up, the bullet will rise "above the barrel" in altitude, but not above the plane of the barrel.
 
Moving off the "bullets rise" discussion & back to the OP, nope I have not perpetuated any of those myths. The "racking a pump shotgun" one is what I hear most often among non-gun folks, I just let that one pass since it's usually said partly in jest. I discuss the others when I hear them and can have the opportunity for a reasonable exchange.

As demonstrated in prior threads, the "bullets rise" statement leaves too many variables undefined - it can be argued on both sides by folks who completely understand trajectory and ballistics if precise definitions (horizontal plane vs bore axis for example) aren't explicitly stated.
 
Last edited:
In the simplest terms I can think of, the barrel is always pointed "up" to a degree, so the bullet is always fired at an angle UP.

The easiest way to see what is going on is to go to extremes.

Look at a mortar. Exactly the same factors at work. The sharply angled barrel fires UP, while the sights look straight at the target. Same things at work in a rifle, just smaller angles.

The bullet cannot "rise" above the plane of the muzzle, it is fired UP so it travels above the LEVEL of the muzzle, until gravity pulls in down.
 
The bullet cannot "rise" above the plane of the muzzle, it is fired UP so it travels above the LEVEL of the muzzle, until gravity pulls in down.
Click to expand...
Best explanation.


Now can we tackle the magazine spring myth?
 
Now can we tackle the magazine spring myth?
Click to expand...

It's no myth.

Whether it is true or not is entirely dependent on the quality of the spring in question.

it was a general truth at one time, springs left compressed could "take a set" and weaken or even completely lose their spring properties.

significant advances in spring tech began around the turn of the century, and are still going on.

There are numerous examples of magazines being found fully loaded for long periods of time, and working flawlessly when used. Some from WWII.

Modern metallurgy says a quality spring is not affected by being compressed for a period of time. OVERcompression does cause damage. Normal wear happens during the compression/relaxation cycle, not at either end.

Unfortunately, the only way to tell if you spring actually IS the quality it is intended to be is to see how it behaves over time.

So, essentially, IF your spring weakens from being left loaded, its because it wasn't a high quality spring to begin with, despite (or because of) the makers wishes.

After my Dad passed, I found his Colt Govt Model, in his dresser drawer. Mag fully loaded. The gun had been there some time, I estimate 10 years, maybe more, the oil had turned to gum thick enough that the slide slooowly closed and stopped about half way shut.

After all the old gunk was cleaned off and the gun re lubed, the original loaded mag was fired 7x7 flawless. I'd count that as a good spring.
 
It "does" rise above the muzzle . It does not rise above the bore axis . There's a difference . The picture clearly shows it . The red line is the bore axis not just where the muzzle is in relation to the bullets flight .
Click to expand...

Your going to have to explain the difference between the muzzle and the bore axis in a lot more detail before this makes enough sense to refute.

Regardless, the bullet does not rise above any part of the gun. From the instant it leaves the muzzle, it drops.
 
Someone mentioned backspin. Backspin can make the object rise higher not due to release point or angle if enough backspin is applied given the weight of the object with the amount of backspin. I have seen it in ping pong, airsoft and paintball. So technically backspin could make the projectile raise higher than the bore. However modern bullets do not have major backspin to apply. I could see it happening with a bb gun or possibly muzzle loader or cap and ball if backspin were applied to extremes. There are no firearms that use a gun powder that I know do this however.
 
Regardless, the bullet does not rise above any part of the gun. From the instant it leaves the muzzle, it drops.
Click to expand...

Well that's just not true period . If the muzzle is 3 feet off the ground when fired and the bullet is 5 feet off the ground at the top of it's ark . How is the bullet "not" higher in flight then the muzzle ? The question is NOT why is it higher . The question is , is it ever higher . If the bullet at any point is higher then the muzzle it must have rose above the muzzle .

Lets start with the fact that the muzzle is a single point and place on the rifle

The muzzle of a firearm is the end of the barrel from which the projectile will exit.
Click to expand...

Now that we know the definition of muzzle and now understand the muzzle has nothing to do with the bore , stock , trigger or bolt . We can then think of it as a single point on the rifle .

In fact You can swing the rifle by the muzzle 360* and the muzzle will stay in the same place while all other parts of the rifle will be at different angles through out that 360* turn .

The bore is a long length of material that has a plain and an axis . Does the bullet rise above the plain/axis or "the plane" of the bore/barrel "no" but it does rise above the muzzle/tip of the barrel .

My OP
The bullet does rise higher then the muzzle in flight if shooting accurately at any real distance .
Click to expand...

And later clarified
I don't like to assume things that were not written in the OP but I think it would be fare to assume he meant the bullet would travel some distance forward of the rifle .
Click to expand...

You can use another part of the rifle and ask the same question . Does the bullet ever rise above the scope ? Does the bullet ever rise above the front sight post ? Or does the bullet rise above the tip of the barrel ?

Again the muzzle is a single point on the rifle and is no different then any other single reference point on the rifle . The example in the OP as written was clear to me .

He then came back with the baseball example .

So, yes, in my analogy the pitcher's arm angle at the point of release represents the muzzle at the point of bullet escape.
Click to expand...

No , the pitcher's arm angle at the point of release represents the plain of the bore . His hand represents the muzzle .

They don't call them bolt brakes , trigger brakes , bore brakes , they call them muzzle brakes . The reason is because the go on the muzzle the very tip of the barrel .
 
Last edited:
5. The AR is unreliable.
Click to expand...

Based upon my experience in SEA, I would have to agree...

I guess improvements have been made in the last 50 years, though.

What I find mildly amusing, however, is the current trend towards gas piston operation, a feature found on the FAL, which, as the T-48, kicked ass over the T-44 (M 14) during test trials. Politics at work...
 
Last edited:
With a scope you are shooting up but it's still falling the moment it leaves the barrel.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what type of sights used, the bullet is travelling upwards until it gets to "midrange;" At that point it begins to fall. This is because sights are designed to launch the bullet in an arc trajectory.

A barrel that is exactly parallel with the ground will launch a bullet that does start falling immediately after leaving the muzzle since it was not fired with an arc trajectory.

Think of sending a ball bearing downrange from a slingshot. If your aim is directly at the target, the ball is going start falling immediately after you release it. So, in order to compensate, you aim a "little high," thus launching your ball bearing in an arc trajectory to compensate for the effects of gravity.

Some people can't grasp that concept, thus the confusion and myths.
 
Last edited:
natman said:
Regardless, the bullet does not rise above any part of the gun. From the instant it leaves the muzzle, it drops.
Click to expand...

If the bullet doesn't rise above any part of the gun, what's the point of an anti-aircraft gun?

Point a loaded gun straight up at the roof of your living room and pull the trigger. I will gaurantee you that the bullet WILL NOT drop the instant it leaves the muzzle. It WILL decelerate, but it WILL NOT start dropping until it reaches the height where the acceleration due to gravity overcomes the bullet's initial velocity. The hole in your living room roof will hopefully be sufficient proof to you that the bullet definitely rises above all parts of the gun!

You think that all those pictures of WW2 bombers getting hit by anti-aircraft fire are fake?

ebdd18dd428c25d4cfd8751166b7b134.jpg


"464Th Bomber, Military Aircraft, Anti Aircraft Fire"


tumblr_nx5zvjhJOH1ujdmelo1_500.jpg


"hit by anti-aircraft fire over Germany, 1944. B-24H Liberator bomber of 783rd Bomb Squadron, 465th Bomb Group, US 15th"
 
Last edited:
The argument is going on between one group of people who are referencing the bore axis and another who are referencing the axis of the sights. Realizing that the two axes are not parallel leads one to the conclusion that the the projectile will not rise above the bore axis, but may, to a greater or lesser degree, rise above the sight axis. I am not sure if the arguments are arising because some people don't realize the difference or because they are being obstreperous - probably a little of each.
 
All I know is a semester of physics calculations tell me that the bullet is not under it's own power and is falling from the moment it leaves the muzzle. It will travel in an upward trajectory if fired in such a way, but it will not rise. The only force acting upon it in it's travel is gravity.
 
Why are you racking a shotgun when the intruder is already in your house? Shouldn't you already have a shell in the chamber and be flicking off the safety? :)
 
Last edited:
That's the way it's done in the movies... It must be the proper way. If it scares off intruders, why own shells.

I think I'd make a door alarm that plays 20 shotguns racking at once.

Of course the shotgun racking is going to illicit a fight or flight response, who can predict how a person will respond in an altered mental state? You may just get a response opposite to what you desired.
 
rickyrick said:
All I know is a semester of physics calculations tell me that the bullet is not under it's own power and is falling from the moment it leaves the muzzle. It will travel in an upward trajectory if fired in such a way, but it will not rise.
Click to expand...

You should either invest in better teachers or pay more attention in class. Gravity accelerates a bullet towards the center of the earth at 32.2 ft/sec^2 (or 9.8 m/sec^2 in the metric system).

A bullet will rise (move away from the center of the earth) until the vertical component of it's velocity is overcome by the acceleration due to gravity. At that time it will begin falling (moving closer to the center of the earth).

Or possibly english is not your native language and you're not familiar with the definition of "rise":

rise

verb
1.
move from a lower position to a higher one; come or go up.

noun
1.
an upward movement; an instance of becoming higher.
Click to expand...

Hard to see how anyone that claims to have any knowledge of physics can make the statement that a bullet can travel in an upward trajectory without rising. The same reference system that defines it's trajectory as "upwards" also defines it's movement as "rising".

The very definition of rising is to "go up" or "an upward movement"!

As others have clearly stated, it will not rise above the bore axis, but it appears that you fail to understand the difference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top