# Here’s a question for you gun experts…



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Assume an infinitely level landscape. You fire a high powered rifle parallel to the earth. At the exact instant the bullet exits the muzzle, the empty cartridge case is ejected, also parallel to the earth.

Which hits the ground first, the bullet or the case?


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

from prone at a 1000 yard shot the case will hit the ground before you hit the steel. All things being equal and if they are falling at 32' per second per second it will be the same time.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Correct.

That was too easy. Let me work on a harder one.


----------



## ReignMan (Nov 13, 2015)

I simply drink enough beer that I no longer understand such terms as "infinitely" and "parallel". In my drunken beer stupor I transcend the mortal realm and become one with the hops, resulting in my ability to overcome the laws of physics so that I can control both bullet and casing in a ******* Matrix moment of awesome.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Actually, . . . the scenario is not possible.

There is a "lag" time from bullet exit until the unlocking, rolling, moving, etc., . . . of the action.

Therefore, . . . the bullet shall hit the ground first, . . . because it started falling first.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Okay here's another one:

A pointed bullet is fired perfectly vertically on a windless day. When it eventually lands, is it base down or nose down?


----------



## ReignMan (Nov 13, 2015)

Nose down due to bullet shape.


----------



## txmarine6531 (Nov 18, 2015)

It tumbles. Mythbusters fired pistol and rifle rounds straight up in the desert to see it a falling bullet would kill a person. The impacts were mostly on the sides. IF it were not to tumble, I would say base down due to the weight of the base vs tip.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

Ok if I drink six 3.2% Oklahoma Beers and twelve 6% Texas Beers and I am in neither State and I am in a Boat fishin where am I ???


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Gunner's Mate said:


> Ok if I drink six 3.2% Oklahoma Beers and twelve 6% Texas Beers and I am in neither State and I am in a Boat fishin where am I ???


Exactly in the center of Lake Texoma?


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

I am having a Goodtime
But Lake Texoma is a Good answer


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Gunner's Mate said:


> Ok if I drink six 3.2% Oklahoma Beers and twelve 6% Texas Beers and I am in neither State and I am in a Boat fishin where am I ???


Johnny Cash has your answer............. 




May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> Okay here's another one:
> 
> A pointed bullet is fired perfectly vertically on a windless day. When it eventually lands, is it base down or nose down?


Assuming a conical shape (not a wadcutter) because the rear of the bullet is fatter behind the CG (center of gravity) and results in greater drag the bullet should land point down The longer the bullet the more likely this is to be.

Any kid who designed model rockets (as I did) knows that.

As to the 1st question since the bullet has less air affected surface than the shell (larger area to mass ratio creating less friction dropping through the air) because of the resistance of the air to dropping the bullet should sink faster causing the bullet to land first.

32 square formula does no take air friction into account.

The misalignment between the bore and the sight axis may make this seem different due to parallax error.

Pick a harder question, I didn't even have to think hard for those two.


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

too many variables. Weight of the ejected casing. trajectory of the ejected casing. velocity of the ejected casing. 

We all know casing ejections are fairly consistent when fired from the same firearm using the same brass, but there are still variations in all the physics of what happens from the moment the primer is struck until the casing touches the ground. 

I don't know. Maybe I am over thinking it.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Mosinator762x54r said:


> too many variables. Weight of the ejected casing. trajectory of the ejected casing. velocity of the ejected casing.
> 
> We all know casing ejections are fairly consistent when fired from the same firearm using the same brass, but there are still variations in all the physics of what happens from the moment the primer is struck until the casing touches the ground.
> 
> I don't know. Maybe I am over thinking it.


You might be overthinking it a bit.
This is actually a standard physics question with regard to gravity acting on a mass. If the bullet leaves the barrel at the same time that the casing leaves the ejector port, and both are parallel exits, "all things being equal", they will hit the ground at the same time because they both fall at the same rate. Their masses don't matter.
The "all things being equal" phrase is a way for college students to assume a vacuum and disregard things like air resistance.
I never forgot that trick. 

It's the "feather vs. bowling ball" question, for shooters.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

That's right, Kauboy. Those of us old enough to remember the Apollo moon missions got treated to a first class example when the astronaut dropped a feather and a rock hammer and we watched them impact the lunar surface simultaneously.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

As to the pointed bullet fired vertically, I saw some very interesting answers, especially the Mythbusters experiment. 

Many years ago I read that a 105mm shell fired vertically will impact base down after reaching 36,000 feet or something like that. The reason is because the shell leaves the muzzle spinning at something like 22,000 rpm, and air friction slows this spin rate VERY slowly. The gyroscopic stability of the shell then causes it to remain 'upright' and it impacts base down. A big shell like that is a lot heavier than a rifle bullet and would have much more rotational momentum, though, and may explain the upsetting of the lighter rifle bullet in the experiment.


----------



## txmarine6531 (Nov 18, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> As to the pointed bullet fired vertically, I saw some very interesting answers, especially the Mythbusters experiment.
> 
> Many years ago I read that a 105mm shell fired vertically will impact base down after reaching 36,000 feet or something like that. The reason is because the shell leaves the muzzle spinning at something like 22,000 rpm, and air friction slows this spin rate VERY slowly. The gyroscopic stability of the shell then causes it to remain 'upright' and it impacts base down. A big shell like that is a lot heavier than a rifle bullet and would have much more rotational momentum, though, and may explain the upsetting of the lighter rifle bullet in the experiment.


22,000RPM, wow that's cookin'! My dad always told me and my sisters about the Apollo missions. How you could write to NASA and they'd send all kinds of cool stuff to you. Made me wish I was able to see all that live. He was beyond excited when Apollo 13 came out. I love that movie.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

They are actually taking resume' for astronaut positions.

npr.org/2015/12/16/459691082/nasa-s-looking-for-astronauts-do-you-have-the-right-stuff
Right on usajobs.com


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

Bill has a girlfriend in Chicago. But Bill lives in Miami.

It is 1300 miles between them.

If they board a train at the same time headed towards each other. Bill's girlfriend is traveling at 80 miles per hour and Bill is traveling at 45 miles per hour.

How long until Bill dumps his girlfriend and finds a local girl?


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

A train leaves Boston traveling 75 mph with one cat and 5 hookers onboard. Given the diameter of a UFO; of 125 meters. Find the resolution of a camera on a satellite focused on Hillary Clinton's email server. 2 points extra credit: find the destination of the taxi.


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

I'm a little Old and perhaps a bit slow, but could someone explain what variables would impact the performance of projectiles in the anti-gravity atmosphere of outer space? 
As to the rest of this conversation, a quick study in gyroscopic procession could be in order. JMHO.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Well there is micro gravity in outer space. Nowhere but in the theoretical mind is there no gravity. There is always a pull from a distant star galaxy or planet. If ever such a small amount of pull.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Ok..if the bullet and the case starts out falling at the same time..from the same height. I cant help but think the case would get slowed down because of air resistance. Same reason a pound of feathers lags behind a lead ball unless its in a vacuum. Let me know thanks.


----------



## txmarine6531 (Nov 18, 2015)

M118LR said:


> I'm a little Old and perhaps a bit slow, but could someone explain what variables would impact the performance of projectiles in the anti-gravity atmosphere of outer space?
> As to the rest of this conversation, a quick study in gyroscopic procession could be in order. JMHO.


Gravity from anything, space debris, solar winds



bigwheel said:


> Ok..if the bullet and the case starts out falling at the same time..from the same height. I cant help but think the case would get slowed down because of air resistance. Same reason a pound of feathers lags behind a lead ball unless its in a vacuum. Let me know thanks.


To my understanding; mass and shape have a big impact on falling objects within a gaseous atmosphere. Density of the atmosphere also plays a role I believe. There is a limit to the speed of falling objects in a gaseous atmosphere, terminal velocity. Drag prevents an object from accelerating beyond a certain point. I'm pretty sure. I'm not 100% sure on this though. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

txmarine6531 said:


> Gravity from anything, space debris, solar winds
> 
> To my understanding; mass and shape have a big impact on falling objects within a gaseous atmosphere. Density of the atmosphere also plays a role I believe. There is a limit to the speed of falling objects in a gaseous atmosphere, terminal velocity. Drag prevents an object from accelerating beyond a certain point. I'm pretty sure. I'm not 100% sure on this though. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.


Would Ya'll care to just fill in an Old Country Gent as to the quadratic discrepancies assessed to these variables? Or did Ya'll want to continue answering valid questions with hyperbole? (Lay Person terms: BS Talks and Facts Walk)


----------



## txmarine6531 (Nov 18, 2015)

M118LR said:


> Would Ya'll care to just fill in an Old Country Gent as to the quadratic discrepancies assessed to these variables? Or did Ya'll want to continue answering valid questions with hyperbole? (Lay Person terms: BS Talks and Facts Walk)


A little testy aren't we? Or maybe just pretentious? I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not a physicist, engineer, or anything of the sort. Just a regular guy that fixes cars and lives my life the best I can. Please read the last sentence I typed in the paragraph you quoted one more time. It says please correct me, as in say "actually no, (this) is why (that) will behave in a certain manner". Not, please be an asshole and accuse me of speaking bullshit. In regards to that, please read the second to last sentence in the paragraph I typed that you quoted.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

The bullet never hits the ground because it embeds itself into the target that I am shooting at.

I can only assume that the casing is ejected from my firearm. I'm too busy having fun to notice. They appear to just materialize on the ground for me to pick up on the way home.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

If there is no gravity and it is shot down a flat plane won't it continue forever in that direction?? If I remember the question correctly.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> Correct.
> 
> That was too easy. Let me work on a harder one.


Only in a vacuum.


----------



## Stick (Sep 29, 2014)

See "Hatcher's Notebook".


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

CSI is right. The bullet can remain in flight for several seconds, but the empty casing will fall at a rate of 32' squared from a height of no more than 6 feet. Military snipers making long range shots are often able to recover from the recoil in time to see the bullet impact their target (red spray). 

The exception may be weapons that eject casings upwards, but other than the Beretta I cannot think of many at this moment.

However, I have seen hot casings go down the shirt of a woman with ample bosoms. Technically it made her a hot chick 
I used to think it was funny until I became a chrome-dome. Those damned casings hurt when they hit your bald head!


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Would like a nickle for each time a hot empty snaked its way down my shirt collar on the pistol firing line. Can really interfere with good technique when you have to stop and try to slap at it...lol.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

M118LR said:


> Would Ya'll care to just fill in an Old Country Gent as to the quadratic discrepancies assessed to these variables? Or did Ya'll want to continue answering valid questions with hyperbole? (Lay Person terms: BS Talks and Facts Walk)


Wow, talk about BS...
You give me the definition of a "quadratic discrepancy" with regards to calculating the speed of a falling mass in an gaseous environment, and maybe you'll get the response you're seeking in such a pretentious way.
Then again, maybe you won't. I haven't decided yet...


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

*Fight* *fight* *fight*


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

It close to Christmas. We need some shirtless cyber hugs around here.


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Wow, talk about BS...
> You give me the definition of a "quadratic discrepancy" with regards to calculating the speed of a falling mass in an gaseous environment, and maybe you'll get the response you're seeking in such a pretentious way.
> Then again, maybe you won't. I haven't decided yet...


Glad I didn't need to wait for your answer! Whew.... We've moved from a thrust driven object on a linear plane in an anti-gravitational atmosphere to falling mass in a gaseous environment. Refraining from pretentious responses:
" One might hope that the questions that depend on uncountably many values of a function be of little interest, but the really bad news is that virtually all concepts of calculus are of this sort. For example:
boundedness
continuity
differentiability
all require knowledge of uncountably many values of the function."


----------



## XDs (Nov 24, 2015)

The mythbuaters actually tested this they called it I think "a bullet dropped." they said it was confirmed. But because of the various ballistic coefficients and what not different bullets of the same weight but different constructions will drop at different rates. Though they tried this on the show the differences were so minuscule that they didn't account for it. But the differences are there.


----------



## ReignMan (Nov 13, 2015)

Gunner's Mate said:


> Ok if I drink six 3.2% Oklahoma Beers and twelve 6% Texas Beers and I am in neither State and I am in a Boat fishin where am I ???


Nice ... now this is a man after my own heart.


----------



## SoCal92057 (Apr 12, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> Assume an infinitely level landscape. You fire a high powered rifle parallel to the earth. At the exact instant the bullet exits the muzzle, the empty cartridge case is ejected, also parallel to the earth.
> 
> Which hits the ground first, the bullet or the case?


The thing to remember is that forward velocity has NO effect on the pull of gravity. In a vacuum, if one bullet was fired and another was dropped from the height of the muzzle at the same instant they would both hit the ground at the same time.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

M118LR said:


> Glad I didn't need to wait for your answer! Whew.... We've moved from a thrust driven object on a linear plane in an anti-gravitational atmosphere to falling mass in a gaseous environment. Refraining from pretentious responses:
> " One might hope that the questions that depend on uncountably many values of a function be of little interest, but the really bad news is that virtually all concepts of calculus are of this sort. For example:
> boundedness
> continuity
> ...


I'm glad I didn't bother either, since no definition was given. However, we were, yet again, provided with a new vocabulary list.
I'm sensing a desperate attempt to sound smart by saying a lot, but actually saying very little.
Kindly grace us with the formula you've worked out so that it can be reviewed for correctness, or drop it.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

James m said:


> A train leaves Boston traveling 75 mph with one cat and 5 hookers onboard. Given the diameter of a UFO; of 125 meters. Find the resolution of a camera on a satellite focused on Hillary Clinton's email server. 2 points extra credit: find the destination of the taxi.


Someone take a stab at it!! It's really easy.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

ReignMan said:


> Nice ... now this is a man after my own heart.


Ok, I have drank Twelve 3.2% Oklahoma Beers and twenty four 6% Texas Beers and I am in neither State and I am in a Boat fishin I am out of beer, bait and gas, someone call Seatow and have em drop off another case of beer a couple dozen baits and 5 gals of gas Thanks


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

Gunner's Mate said:


> Ok, I have drank Twelve 3.2% Oklahoma Beers and twenty four 6% Texas Beers and I am in neither State and I am in a Boat fishin I am out of beer, bait and gas, someone call Seatow and have em drop off another case of beer a couple dozen baits and 5 gals of gas Thanks


Damn the fishing is good


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

Gunner's Mate said:


> Damn the fishing is good


Heres some Pics


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

tinkerhell said:


> The bullet never hits the ground because it embeds itself into the target that I am shooting at.
> 
> I can only assume that the casing is ejected from my firearm. I'm too busy having fun to notice. They appear to just materialize on the ground for me to pick up on the way home.


,

Ding ding ding... We have the winner!


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> I'm glad I didn't bother either, since no definition was given. However, we were, yet again, provided with a new vocabulary list.
> I'm sensing a desperate attempt to sound smart by saying a lot, but actually saying very little.
> Kindly grace us with the formula you've worked out so that it can be reviewed for correctness, or drop it.


I'm sensing that the obvious differences between the restoring force stabilization fins used on a model rocket and the gyroscopic stabilization imparted on a conical projectile via barrel rifling, have already eluded calculation. Therefore the conical projectile faced with gyroscopic procession won't perform in the same manner as a finned rocket which performs in accordance with center of pressure. (CP) But we can drop it Kauboy, unless you have a valuable tidbit that can mesh both calculations?


----------



## txmarine6531 (Nov 18, 2015)

Gunner's Mate said:


> Heres some Pics
> View attachment 14026
> View attachment 14027
> View attachment 14028
> View attachment 14029


I like Port A. We like to fish the jetties, long walk but worth it. Drop Anchor is a nice little place to relax afterwards. There's a Cambodian girl that works there, awesome girl.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

M118LR said:


> I'm sensing that the obvious differences between the restoring force stabilization fins used on a model rocket and the gyroscopic stabilization imparted on a conical projectile via barrel rifling, have already eluded calculation. Therefore the conical projectile faced with gyroscopic procession won't perform in the same manner as a finned rocket which performs in accordance with center of pressure. (CP) But we can drop it Kauboy, unless you have a valuable tidbit that can mesh both calculations?


So you don't have an answer. Got it, thanks.


----------



## 7515 (Aug 31, 2014)

Damn, that was fun reading !


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Where are the math majors?


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> So you don't have an answer. Got it, thanks.


 Just gave you the references for both gyroscopic stabilization and center of pressure finned stabilization. So what exactly is the unanswered question that vexes you so Kauboy?


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

bigwheel said:


> Where are the math majors?


Making a better living than me and not sitting here wasting time on Prepperforums.net


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Don't move! Nobody divide by zero!


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)




----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

M118LR said:


> Just gave you the references for both gyroscopic stabilization and center of pressure finned stabilization. So what exactly is the unanswered question that vexes you so Kauboy?


Your poor attempts to sidestep are comical. Answer the question or apologize to those you insulted.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

dwight55 said:


> Actually, . . . the scenario is not possible.
> 
> There is a "lag" time from bullet exit until the unlocking, rolling, moving, etc., . . . of the action.
> 
> ...


True.

Furthermore, how far away from the ground was the shot made? Why is it important? Terminal velocity. Everything falls at 32 feet per second squared until it hits terminal velocity. Terminal velocity for the bullet is higher than the casing.

I can split hairs all day long!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Crap. I didn't notice this is an old thread with many pages to it. Backing out, now.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

correct response 
why does it matter?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Medic33 said:


> correct response
> why does it matter?


Because the answer might have already been offered and I repeated it because I didn't bother to look at the page count. I am embarrassed. DOH!

Everybody; stop looking at me!!!!!


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

and if the bullet hit the intended target why does it matter if it did so at the exact time the empty case hits the ground? besides I use a wheel gun and a bolt rifle so it ejects when I decide.
again what's the point.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Medic33 said:


> and if the bullet hit the intended target why does it matter if it did so at the exact time the empty case hits the ground? besides I use a wheel gun and a bolt rifle so it ejects when I decide.
> again what's the point.


It was intended as a rudimentary physics problem about two falling objects. It then evolved into a competition on who could contort it the most with unknown variables.
For all intents and purposes, the true answer cannot be known.
The textbook answer is that two falling objects, released at the same time from the same height, in a vacuum, will hit the ground at the same time, regardless of differences in mass or shape.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

If a pig drank a quart of buttermilk before he starts, and runs a mile before he farts, the farther he runs the farther he sets, how long will it be before he shits?


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Given an advertised pocket protector pen capacity of 5. Find the amount if ink that will leak onto a pocket calculator. 2 points extra credit; hold a conversation with a member of the opposite sex.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> Assume an infinitely level landscape. You fire a high powered rifle parallel to the earth. At the exact instant the bullet exits the muzzle, the empty cartridge case is ejected, also parallel to the earth.
> 
> Which hits the ground first, the bullet or the case?


I'm not reading ahead but the obvious answer is a bullet dropped at the same time hits the earth exactly at the same time as the fired round, the cartridge case has no bearing on the question.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> Exactly in the center of Lake Texoma?


Good answer but actually I am in federal water offshore in the GOM my buddies came down to Texas to fish and brought some Okla beer with them


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

I Looked out the window and started countin phone poles going by at the rate of 4 to the 7th power I put 2 and 2 together added 12 and carried 5 and came up with 22,000 telephone poles per hr


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Gunner's Mate said:


> I Looked out the window and started countin phone poles going by at the rate of 4 to the 7th power I put 2 and 2 together added 12 and carried 5 and came up with 22,000 telephone poles per hr


We have similar taste in music, I see.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

sideKahr said:


> Assume an infinitely level landscape. You fire a high powered rifle parallel to the earth. At the exact instant the bullet exits the muzzle, the empty cartridge case is ejected, also parallel to the earth.
> 
> Which hits the ground first, the bullet or the case?


It depends on the weight and air resistance of the bullet vs. the casing. In a vacuum, and assuming the casing ejected sideways and not upward as well, they would both hit the ground at the same time. Apollo astronauts proved this on the moon by dropping a bowling ball and a feather at the same time from the same height.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Pir8fan said:


> It depends on the weight and air resistance of the bullet vs. the casing. In a vacuum, and assuming the casing ejected sideways and not upward as well, they would both hit the ground at the same time. Apollo astronauts proved this on the moon by dropping a bowling ball and a feather at the same time from the same height.


That's pretty funny; NASA paying to send a bowling ball to the moon at $10,000 a pound!


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

sideKahr said:


> That's pretty funny; NASA paying to send a bowling ball to the moon at $10,000 a pound!


It was actually a hammer. Here's the youtube link.


----------

