kilotanker22
New member
Balderdash? I presume you mean this in the definitive sense. Although his writing could have been more concise, I do not think it was nonsense.
spin stabilization of projectile--yes or no?
- Thread starter stagpanther
- Start date
this thread is really getting amusing at this point 
considering I have never seen a bullet that travels at less than 20 MPH I would have to agree with Bart
BTW The physics involved in the basic bullet trajectory is high school or at most under grad level. Just basic parabolic movement. The atmospheric effects would incorporate some chaos theory in relation to the wind variability and consistency. Example I see wind flags pointing in several directions inside 100 yards frequently so a 5 MPH crosswind from 9 oclock is rarely constant from muzzle to target, speed and direction can and does change
considering I have never seen a bullet that travels at less than 20 MPH I would have to agree with Bart
BTW The physics involved in the basic bullet trajectory is high school or at most under grad level. Just basic parabolic movement. The atmospheric effects would incorporate some chaos theory in relation to the wind variability and consistency. Example I see wind flags pointing in several directions inside 100 yards frequently so a 5 MPH crosswind from 9 oclock is rarely constant from muzzle to target, speed and direction can and does change
Last edited:
stagpanther
New member
And thus--like the aircraft--cannot be "pushed" into a turn. Can the entire volume of air move the path of trajectory--yes; but that is still different from the notion of wind "impacting" the side of the projectile and thus causing it to turn. I have no earthly idea how you interpreted the statement "as long as the airspeed of an aircraft exceeds that of the windspeed, it cannot be "pushed" into a turn by the wind." to mean anything other than the aircraft (or projectile) doesn't "see" the wind unless its airpeed is less than that of the windspeed.
Phew, as much as I love aircraft (and do hold a pilots license) getting that brought into the discussion was ??????????????? We might as well bring in a String Theorist. (my one year at college my roommate was a math major, nice people but weird)
Bart B has it right, most of us don't go shooting in a Hurricane! (or a Tornado at least if we are smart and most if not all of us )
What does come to mind is fidelity (not to my wife though she has that). Its how fine a measurement we get even with radar on a bullet ? (not an aircraft)
Reality is that most of bullet development was done by brute force (Edison approach aka trial and error and some amazingly good results occurred).
So maybe we are reaching the point (pun) where we can actually see the smallest of motions of a bullet and someone will put out the answer (maybe the military can already and is not talking!)
Otherwise we are spitting into a Hurricane, Typhoon or a Tornado (ill advised)
Bart B has it right, most of us don't go shooting in a Hurricane! (or a Tornado at least if we are smart and most if not all of us )
What does come to mind is fidelity (not to my wife though she has that). Its how fine a measurement we get even with radar on a bullet ? (not an aircraft)
Reality is that most of bullet development was done by brute force (Edison approach aka trial and error and some amazingly good results occurred).
So maybe we are reaching the point (pun) where we can actually see the smallest of motions of a bullet and someone will put out the answer (maybe the military can already and is not talking!)
Otherwise we are spitting into a Hurricane, Typhoon or a Tornado (ill advised)
stagpanther
New member
I have nothing but tremendous respect for Bart who is far more experienced than I--I'm just completely mystified by how anything I wrote stated, implied or otherwise could be interpreted to mean I meant wind can/does exceed the airspeed of a projectile.
Since several of you got the same impression--please explain to me how you arrived at this conclusion from what I said. I mean this sincerely.
Since several of you got the same impression--please explain to me how you arrived at this conclusion from what I said. I mean this sincerely.I think I see where the confusion came from. When wind hits the bullet it does not turn the bullet, rather it pushes the bullet in the direction that the force was applied. When the forces ceases the bullet is no longer being pushed. At least I believe that is the point you are trying to make.
stagpanther
New member
Ahhhh...no, well kinda maybe, your interpretation is close.
It's more like the bullet is "along for the ride" rather than being directly pushed.
What I said was as long as the airspeed of an aircraft--meaning anything traveling through the air, be it an F20, a bullet launched out of a barrel or a shoe your wife throws at you--exceeds the speed of the wind--it cannot be pushed into a turn by the wind. What I think is stumping everyone is the concept of a mass of air encompassing an object and while that object is in that airmass whatever direction/velocity that airmass moves to the object will be displaced relative to a fixed position on the earth.
It's more like the bullet is "along for the ride" rather than being directly pushed. What I said was as long as the airspeed of an aircraft--meaning anything traveling through the air, be it an F20, a bullet launched out of a barrel or a shoe your wife throws at you--exceeds the speed of the wind--it cannot be pushed into a turn by the wind. What I think is stumping everyone is the concept of a mass of air encompassing an object and while that object is in that airmass whatever direction/velocity that airmass moves to the object will be displaced relative to a fixed position on the earth.
Last edited:
stagpanther
New member
That often comes up in discussions of bullet winddrift, as if the wind "pushes" the bullet directly causing it to "turn" onto a new heading. The term wind drift accurately describes an object as drifting within the air--not being pushed.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
New member
No doubt about it. But old reports from the NRA showed the "air spiral" of the bullet NOSE to be on the order of 1/10".
Some of the "sleepy bullet" theories seem to say that there is some restoring force that causes the bullet to orbit around an axis not passing through the bullet's center of gravity and that tapers in as it goes along.
stagpanther
New member
Yes--that's an example of what I've read, thanks for getting us back on track.
From Sierra Rifle reloading edition 4, apparently. They use "coning motion" instead of what the Army studies refer to as "yawing". Remembering this is from bout 1995. Some of the words were not transferred properly from what ever format they were in. It may benefit for some to actually look at the links hounddawg provided, although maybe he didn't read this one.
https://www.sierrabullets.com/exter...stic-coefficient-dependence-on-coning-motion/
4.6 BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT DEPENDENCE ON CONING MOTION
Sierra Bullets > Exterior Ballistics > 4.6 Ballistic Coefficient Dependence on Coning Motion
4.6 Ballistic Coefficient Dependence on Coning Motion
{Please do not quote whole articles. A couple of sentences or the odd paragraph can be taken as Fair Use, but who articles definitely cannot. See the board policy on posting copyrighted material.}
https://www.sierrabullets.com/exter...stic-coefficient-dependence-on-coning-motion/
4.6 BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT DEPENDENCE ON CONING MOTION
Sierra Bullets > Exterior Ballistics > 4.6 Ballistic Coefficient Dependence on Coning Motion
4.6 Ballistic Coefficient Dependence on Coning Motion
{Please do not quote whole articles. A couple of sentences or the odd paragraph can be taken as Fair Use, but who articles definitely cannot. See the board policy on posting copyrighted material.}
https://www.sierrabullets.com/exter...follow-a-crosswind-and-resulting-deflections/
4.3 Turning of a Bullet to Follow a Crosswind and Resulting Deflections
The point was made in Section 3.2 that a crosswind does not “blow” a bullet off course. Rather the bullet turns in the crossrange direction to follow the crosswind.
{Please do not quote whole articles. A couple of sentences or the odd paragraph can be taken as Fair Use, but who articles definitely cannot. See the board policy on posting copyrighted material.}
that is exactly what I said in post #66, I used the term pushed instead of drifted. This forum is the epitome of pedantics
stagpanther
New member
My comments were completely independent of whatever you said--it had more to do with the common perception that the wind directly acts upon the projectile--like little hands pushing the surface of the bullet itself causing it to change its pitch, yaw or roll. That does not happen. I merely offered it up as an alternative conceptualization of what close-to-the surface winds do. I won't do it again, I promise.
stagpanther
New member
That was very cool, actually--that guy would have a great future in politics.
I'm too old and scared of road-raged lunatics to ride anymore.Yes it was. Shows how convoluted it can all get.
As for cycles, I got a Ural Side Car and have done fine! Granted Side Cars are a world unto themselves driving wise (you drive them you don't ride). Engine is very air cooled BMW like.
Modernized with Fuel Injection, vastly more reliable than the Soviet Union and Post Soviets were. Mostly are parts mfg (sourced) from other suppliers.
They moved the assembly to Kazakhstan this last 6 months though I think they were thinking in that direction anyway.
As for cycles, I got a Ural Side Car and have done fine! Granted Side Cars are a world unto themselves driving wise (you drive them you don't ride). Engine is very air cooled BMW like.
Modernized with Fuel Injection, vastly more reliable than the Soviet Union and Post Soviets were. Mostly are parts mfg (sourced) from other suppliers.
They moved the assembly to Kazakhstan this last 6 months though I think they were thinking in that direction anyway.
stagpanther
New member
I used to ride a Kawasaki Ninja and then a more sedate Harley XLH 1200. You probably know from riding that bikes too have their own version of adverse yaw before punching a leaning turn--so that's the connection to the subject at hand. : )