Curious! [Archive] - Military Photos

Smoothie104

04-09-2003, 02:51 PM

The M16 and Its variants lack any real "punch" even at 200 yards. THe 5.56mm round is basically a very high speed .22 approx 3000 fps
(actual caliber is .223)

Due to the light weight of the bullet, It looses energy quickly.

Why anyone would want to hunt humans with your life on the line with a .22 is beyond me.

I understand the number of rounds vs. a given weight arguement, But the whole 1 Kill equals 1 man out vs. 1 wound equals 3 men out agument would carry more weight if the enemy left no men behind. But from what I've seen and read, especially in this conflict thats not the case.

In Deer hunting, its generally accepted that you need a minimum of 900 or so ft./lbs of energy to drop a deer or have it die quite soon after.

Past 200 yards, the .223 round is below that minimum. And in fact at 100 yards, is barely over it at approx 1140 ft/lbs.

For comparison lets look at the ballistics of the 7.62x51mm (.308) This is the round used in the FAL, M1A and variants such as the M14, and other NATO weapons.

Muzzle velocity is less at around 2600 or so fps. But the Bullet weighs nearly 2 1/2 times as much, and therefore hits with a lot more energy.

At 100 yards it has 2200 ft/lbs, at 300 yards it has 1678, and at 600 yards it has 1050 ft/lbs of energy.

At 600 yards the 7.62 has roughly the same stopping power that the 5.56 has at 125 yards.

vryhpyammoadded

04-09-2003, 03:01 PM

There are few greater pains in the arse with a 16 than an override and or knuckled .223 stuck in the receiver and that has been known to happen with dirty 16s. I broke an A2 trying to clear a bad mess like that once but it still worked minus a few widgets. Gotta love adrenalin. I doubt this would ever happen with an AK though ;-)
My personal experience has been great with the M16 family of weapons as long as I spent that little extra time and effort keeping crap out of them but, anyone who’s been in the field can tell you that’s a mighty though job at times.
As for the AK, like some old school Russian said about they’re old planes compared to watches. American watch’s and Russian watch’s do the same but when American watch stops after dropping it you take it to shop to have it fixed. When Russian watch stops after dropping it you simply drop it again and watch works.
I still prefer the M-14; accuracy and reliability!

Mal3

04-09-2003, 03:08 PM

I have a great respect for the better of the 7.62mm NATO battle rifles, but can easily see the merit of the 5.56mm round. Now, I have little experience with guns, so how the M16 works, esp. in battle, I am hard pushed to comment on.

However, I was doing some private research for fun regarding the M-16 and M-4 and noticed that several complaints have surfaced from troops in Afghanistan on the subject of M4 stopping power. I also noted that the Delta operator interviewed for Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden cursed his CAR-15 for being ineffectual in putting and keeping opponents down.

Isn't the problem that when the move from the 7.62mm NATO round was made it went too far? Shouldn't something around 6-6.5mm have been chosen with muzzle velocity approaching that of the SS109 bullet?

I haven't looked at a ballistics table in a few years so this might be a shot in the dark, pardon the pun.

Royal

04-09-2003, 03:14 PM

Agreed, but NATO use 5.56 as a standard, and as I stated, few infantry engagements (not involving support weapons) take place at over 100m, so the ammount of ammo over weight takes argument takes over...

However I remember a case from Op Corporate (Top Malo House) were an Argentine Captain from 602 Commando Company was hit with 5 x 5.56mm (M16) rounds and carried on running towards the Cadre (now Brigade Recce Force) guys before one of them dropped him with a 7.62mm (from an L1A1).

You can argue either way, but on balance I prefer 5.56mm (as I can't use 7.62 x 39).

vryhpyammoadded

04-09-2003, 03:19 PM

Here’s some good data to look at concerning this topic.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=autogun&msg=337.1&mov

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

Mal3

04-09-2003, 03:23 PM

IIRC then the ammo used in the M16A1 as in the Vietnam era was a better stopper than the 7.62x39 but also worthless at penetrating things.

The later SS109 (don't remeber the US designation) penetrates very well but doesn't have much authority in putting a man down.

I do suspect however that given the choice the excellent soldiers, that retook the Falkland Islands from the brave Argentinian soldiers, would have preferred an M16 over their L1A1/FALs. The commander (killed in the Battle for Goose Green and getting a posthumous Victorian Cross IIR) of 2 Para demanded that he'd get an extra GPMG for each squad as he thought the terrain needed more firepower than a regular squad could offer. The Falklands have a very open terrain, which should be where 7.62mm NATO rifles would be at home.

Of course if my life depended on putting rounds into an assailant, I think I'd rather want to hit him (not miss him to make myself clear!) with 3 5.56 than 1 7.62. Achieving multiple hits with the 5.56 should be easier, but when the range gets greater this should be a moot point.

At Goose Green the Paras were heavily burdened and in that respect also a 5.56 chambered weapon would have helped a lot. Of course, they would have shot more ammo, I'd believe, and many shot a LOT as it was.

Guess there is no one gun for all reasons...

Chops

04-09-2003, 07:34 PM

Mal

Personally I thought the SLR would have been the obvious choice in the Falklands rather than the Armalite. I read similar from a Regiment guy who was annoyed that so many 22 guys took the M16 over the SLR. Try hitting anything over 400 metres with an M16.

Or, as for the M4, try hitting anything effectively over 250 metres. Lovely piece for CQB or MOUT but not great for longer ranges.

rgds

Chops

96B

04-09-2003, 07:42 PM

Not to be arrogant, but America spends 400 billion dollars a year on its military, which is the best equipped and most advanced in the world. If our weaponry had problems that would put our servicemen and women's lives in danger then we would fix it or replace it. If the M16 family was so bad then it would have been either heavily modified or replaced. If the M4 and such weapons were not any good then our most elite soldiers as well as other nations most elite would not be carrying them. No offense to anybody and I am not saying our weapons and equipment are perfect, nothing is perfect, I am just saying that the faults cannot be that big or it would have been fixed somehow. In any case one day I will possess an arsenal equal to that of a small army woot

Mal3

04-09-2003, 08:03 PM

Chops: I would be inclined to agree, but seeing as I have limited REAL experience I'm limited to opinions shaped by what I read.

Still I'm surprised at how big the difference between the M16 and the M4 is. One source I read pointed to the shorter barrel imparting less stabilizing spin on the bullet. Velocity affects trajectory much more than accuracy, so I'd think the balancing would be a bigger issue, along with shorter sight radius on the M4. But then, most everybody and his dog seems to be using optics on the M4 today...

As to generally hitting anything with an iron sighted rifle, isn't it pretty hard with a FAL at 400 metres, just as with an M16? The M16 is hardly less accurate at shorter distances, but is it noticably less accurate at longer distances, 400 metres and out? Of course, the bullet of the FAL will be MUCH more effective at long range.

Still, the 22 Regiment seems to have liked the FAL a lot. Their fixation for light and handy weapons goes back too, with the M1 Carbine seemingly most popular with the SAS in WWII.

Now, if I could pick a military rifle to own, I'd be quite partial to a L1A1. I'm an anglophile and I like the FALs history and looks. I have been lucky enough to heft one and was surprised at how manageble it felt, contary to my belief (former Israeli issue FAL with no muzzle device so length was "only" about a meter).

Of course, I wouldn't mind a M4A1 or similar with a few shiny toys attached. Of course, it wouldn't be as useful, more a gun to look at although it could be fun (and expensive) to plink at full auto...

FallenAngel

04-09-2003, 08:37 PM

oh...you're all full of crap. :D Here's distance AND stopping power in one hell of a package woot

http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2200/2289.htm

and the slightly "smaller" version of course.... ;)

http://securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2200/2288.htm

But as far as assault rifles go....I've **HEARD** overall that the G36 family is superior to the M-16 in reliability and quality of manufacture and on a par as far as accuracy and flexibility are concerned (mounting of optics and so forth). But, I've only shot a civie semi-auto M-16.

Mal3

04-10-2003, 08:50 AM

From what I've heard the SAS has started using the G36. Wonder if they'd switch from the Diemaco if the G36 doesn't have advantages. Of course, is HK still owned by BAe? That would slant things a bit.

Weapon acquirement seems influenced a LOT by politics.

Royal

04-10-2003, 09:40 AM

BAe sold H&K last year...

Yes politics is major in all this - otherwise we wouldn't have the bloody awful L85...

96B

04-10-2003, 11:02 AM

Can a civilian own a G36? If so, how much would they cost?

Duke

04-10-2003, 11:26 PM

Stuntman, there's nothing wrong with the M16. To put it bluntly, in the 223 range, there are just better rifles than the M16. But for American needs this firearm is perfect. Furthermore, the stigma of an imperfect weapon, I believe, continues due to misinformed people, the armchair warriors who wouldn't know a M4 if I brought them to the factory with a BIG sign that said COLT, pulled a M4 off the assembly line and handed it to them. Many along this thread donot make sense and I want to explain why we use the M4.

When I say there are better weapons, its true, but there are many factors that allow the M16 variates to be the mainstay of SOCOM. The main factor (and the only point I'll dwell on) is economic.
To put this in context, first let me talk about a far superior weapon than the M16, the Steyr AUG. Back in the mid-eighties, the Steyr AUG was the "RAGE" in the FBI and I know SEALs and Marines were looking at it. When compared to other 223s this rifle had some much to offer, it was very innovative. It had a synthetic stock in which the color could be changed from green to sand, a see through clip, bullpup design(hence a shorter rifle), handle/1.5x scope, studies showing less jamming under adverse conditions in comparison to the M16, and THE verticle front grip, ahh, that grip. If you are a shooter then you understand how comfortable it is when using a front grip. With all these features, everybody wanted to shift to the AUG, it made the M16 feel antiquated.

Hold your horses, the government doesnt work that way. Just because a rifle is better than another doesnt justify shifting to another gun. That's because there are economic factors that play out. Changing rifles means literally hundreds of millions of dollars must be spent. The government would have to retrain armorers(military gunsmiths), design new holders for the AUGs, print new Field Manuals, retrain Drill instructors and so on and so on into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Also the AUG is very expensive to make relative to the M4. This is due to the lack of stamp metal the AUG uses, its has a synthetic (plastic) stock.

The solution was to design the M16 that could produce similar results as the AUG and other rifles I didnt write about. We call it the M4. If you look at the AUG and the M4, M4 has many common charateristics with the AUG. Although at longer distances the AUG is still superior than M4, their specs are similar. With the M4, SOCOM can now field a weapon for all SOF. So when people dis the M4 they dont understand the many factors that playout in fielding a weapon, particularly the economic or "budget restraint".

ill comment on the 223 vs 308 debate later

Mal3

04-10-2003, 11:41 PM

BAe sold H&K last year...

Yes politics is major in all this - otherwise we wouldn't have the bloody awful L85...

I practically weep for Brit troops on account of that weapon. Still, I was doing some surfing and came against mixed reviews for the L85A2. It IS better I gather, question is; is it good enough?

Mal3

04-10-2003, 11:52 PM

Duke:

The AUG can hardly be seen as "the perfect gun" unless one is firmly in the bullpup camp. The AUG is probably a seriously good gun, but with faults of it own, although I wouldn't be surprised if it would beat the AR-15 derivatives on reliability. Still, I've heard the Australian made AUGs are inferior. Don't know if it is true, but at least I've never heard the quality/reliability of Austrian made AUGS questioned.

What I like in the M16 and M4 is the flexibility. They've been around for a while and seem to be better today than ever. If a .223 can do the job, you'll probably be able to tailor an M4 or M16 for it.

The G36 SEEMS to have most bases covered, reliability, accuracy, flexibility and it is an HK. So many HK weapons tickle my fance, but the G36 still is not really one of them. Not that I don't think it is any good.

As to what you said about costs, governments can't of course run out every time they see an incrementally better weapon. Most would want the troops to have the best, but throwing out perfectly good weapons every time something new comes out would be madness. Usually you wait untill a new generation of weapons shows up.

Duke

04-11-2003, 03:08 PM

Mal3

04-11-2003, 03:42 PM

I never said or inferred that the AUG was a perfect gun. I said that the military and FBI fawned over its innovation. Accordingly, the government rallied to create a gun with features similar to AUGs and other rifles.

No you didn't, and I had no intention of implying that. But you did call it a far superior weapon to the M16.

Duke

04-11-2003, 04:02 PM

For the needs of CQC for the Marine Corps, FBI and Navy SEALS I can say with extreme authority and knowledge that the AUG is a far superior weapon than M16A1. In saying that very subjective statement, which I know we can debate until the cows come home and back to the pasture, I can back that up with experience with both weapons and years of shooting experience. PM if you like to discuss

Bing

04-11-2003, 04:12 PM

From what a marine told me at camp Hansen (Okinawa) he said that the 5.56 had an advantage over the 7.62 in that the 5.56 could "bounce around" inside a vehicle and kill people while the 7.62 would just shoot right through. And a comparison between the m16 and AK was the accuracy, he said the m16's were accurate within an inch while the AKs were accurate within around two inches. This is all info from what he told me so don't criticize me personally if any of it isn't totally accurate. I met the marine as a part of a Boy Scout camp that the Marines had at a beach area near Camp Hansen in which i was a part of. This was back in '97.

Duke

04-11-2003, 04:33 PM

you're right bing bouncing around is called tumble effect. The same problem exists in the 45 and 9mm debate. In studies of the Vietnam War and of law enforcement during the 70's and 80's, at most close distances, found that the 45 actually went through people--literally causing less damage when compared to lower caliber guns, unless it was a head shot. A 9mm has more of tumble effect bouncing off bones and organs.
As for distance shoting for the AK you're right. At some distances to hit a target with an AK you must loop or arc it to the target. This is due to the low speed in which the round travels just as it leaves the bbl, called low muzzle velocity.

Smoothie104

04-11-2003, 05:34 PM

The Bullet Drop for an AK round 7.62x39mm is roughly 5 inches more than a 5.56mm round @ 200 yards.

Scrim

04-11-2003, 05:42 PM

Ive read of cases where a 5.56 round has gone into someones chest and come out their toe.No ****.
I never had a problem hitting a target at 500yds with an M-16A2, admitedly thats on a range in controlled conditions. On the other hand, just about every time I used my rifle in the field (using blanks) after its been rolled around in the mud and dirt, at some point it jammed.
The British MOD has issued its own security and police with G-36's, after they paid around 600 Pounds($900)per rifle to H&K to update the SA-80 to its current A2 version. 600 Pounds is about what HK would have charged per rifle to equip the whole Army with G36's!!!!!! Theres some good politics for you!!

Mal3

04-11-2003, 06:28 PM

I think the UK MoD paid something like 80 million pounds to have around 300,000 rifles modified. 80 million pounds would hardly buy 300,000 new assault rifles, or what? Besides, you would need to train the army with the new weapon and at least get a couple of million magazines unless the old ones could be used...

Now, 80 million pounds is roughly 125 million US$. You could probably buy a new rifle for all active duty combat personell and train them to use it for that, but then you just might have a logistic problem.

The decision to adopt the L85 was a bad one, I think the decision to fix it was not as bad, still the fix will only be an interim solution IMHO.

Chris1

04-11-2003, 06:35 PM

The British MOD has issued its own security and police with G-36's, after they paid around 600 Pounds($900)per rifle to H&K to update the SA-80 to its current A2 version. 600 Pounds is about what HK would have charged per rifle to equip the whole Army with G36's!!!!!! Theres some good politics for you!!
This is because the decision was taken after final production of the SA80 stopped. To equip them with SA80's would of meant taking them away from the Army, which was unneccessary as the money to buy new was there.

papabear

04-11-2003, 08:37 PM

"Say, I wonder if this is as good as all the hype makes it out to be."

"Finders keepers!"

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030411/capt.1050078683.topix_iraq_us_war_baghdad_jbm102.jpg

U.S. Army Sgt. Patrick McDonald from Stratford, Conn., looks through the sights of an Austrian-made Steyr assault rifle, part of the private arms collection of Odai Hussein, son of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), in Baghdad Friday, April 11, 2003. U.S troops from A Company 3rd Battalion 7th Infantry Regiment found a huge cache of collectable as well as military weapons. (AP Photo/John Moore)

Bing

04-12-2003, 10:53 PM

all rounds need to be "arced" at long distances because a projectile's path is parabolic, you need to compensate for the effects of gravity. If someone could give me initial muzzle velocities(meters/sec) and the weight of the bullet(grams), i could calcuate for you the degrees you would need to raise the gun to compensate gravity at a given range (meters). I think the ak's rear sight has it's own bullet drop compensator by forcing you to arc the gun in order to use the sights properly, but you need to adjust it in order to use it, so u'd need some good range estimates.

stuntman

04-18-2003, 04:34 AM

[b]How about instead use the saved money (for the x-29 oicw) to retrofit gas piston systems to ALL M16/M4s, facing the problem HEAD-ON and solving it instead of covering DoD mandarin ass for failure over the years to improve the reliability of these otherwise superb weapons. For a proven way to do this, look at Allan Zitta's LR300 weapons Compact Assault Rifle - 5.56x45mm NATO - USA - 950 RPM - The LR300 M/L is a compact conversion of the M16/AR15 family. Allan Zitta has designed an entirely new upper receiver which uses an Armalite AR18 style gas piston and relocates the recoil spring over the barrel. The latter feature allows the elimination of the M16/AR15 buffer tube, and provides the base for a folding stock. The resulting product is more compact and reliable than the M4 Colt Commando. By placing the recoil springs on the front of the weapon, the M16/M4 can still use a telescoping stock for compactness, though with a full-length barrel for 800m range.
Plus i think that I found a replacement for the M16/M4 family please some feed back and why not its seems cheaper?!?!?!?!

http://www.zmweapons.com/Lg_images/11_lr.jpg

yellowking

04-18-2003, 10:59 AM

The Bullet Drop for an AK round 7.62x39mm is roughly 5 inches more than a 5.56mm round @ 200 yards.
Out of curiosity (I freely admit to knowing very little about gun specs and ballistics), why would that be so? Both bullets should be affected by gravity similarly. Is it due to the shape of the round?

FallenAngel

04-18-2003, 12:43 PM

yellowking....

well, the russian round is bigger, and thus would have a greater pull on the earth and the earth on it, thus they wouldn't exactly be effected equally by gravity. THat, and also the muzzle velocity is pry lower on the russian round, so that when it leaves the muzzle, it isnt traveling relatively fast, so the effects of gravity and air resistance can more easily act on the round...

perfect example.....throw a football (an american one ;) ) without much effort with an "ok" spiral. That's your russian round. Now, if you can, get a size smaller football (say the ones they use for kid's football) and throw that one a little faster and with a tighter spiral. See how much farther it went? Cool huh? :)

yellowking

04-18-2003, 01:13 PM

well, the russian round is bigger, and thus would have a greater pull on the earth and the earth on it,
Actually, gravity affects objects independant of size and mass (not considering things like air resistance), which is why I was wondering what else might be going on. Back in school, got to see a penny and a feather fall at the same rate in a vacuum, pretty wild.

thus they wouldn't exactly be effected equally by gravity. THat, and also the muzzle velocity is pry lower on the russian round, so that when it leaves the muzzle, it isnt traveling relatively fast, so the effects of gravity and air resistance can more easily act on the round...
Ah, okay, that does make sense to me. They probably drop at similar rates, but since the larger round takes longer to get there, it has had more time to drop.

Bing

04-18-2003, 01:26 PM

It depends on how you shoot the round. Meaning if you point the gun perfectly horizontal or if you arc it a little. Sure the russian round is heavier, but gravity affects objects equally so no, it's not dependant on that (two objects of different weight will hit the ground at the same time if dropped from the same height provided that there is no air resistance, Galileo formulated this.). It has to do with the initial velocity of the round as well. Because X velocity is independant from Y velocity, it depends on how far the round can get before dropping. Thus if the AK round is slower, it will fall shorter than the 5.56. Also, both rounds will hit the ground at the same time because gravity acts on both rounds equally. If you arc the round, then you get into vectors because normally, the height that the bullet drops would just be from the muzzle to the ground, but if it's arced, the bullet travels upwards, this changes all the initial X and Y velocities. A slight arc on the shot will give you greater distance because the bullet now has more distance to fall which means it has more time to travel in the x direction. The reason why there's a deviation of 5 inches is because, the 5.56 reaches the 200 m first so by the time the 7.62 reaches it, gravity will have affeted it enough to pull it down 5 inches.

Smoothie104

04-18-2003, 02:55 PM

Sorry It took me so long to respond, but yes, its the difference in velocity that makes the AK round hit lower @ 200 yards.

Its taking a little longer to get there, so gravity has had a little more time to affect it.

Homework:

How much drift will you have to allow for on a 7.62x51mm (.308) at 400 yards with a 10 mph cross wind? assuming a muzzle velocity of approx 2750 fps, Bullet weight of 173gr.

yellowking

04-18-2003, 03:06 PM

Hey, this might be a little off-topic, but I was wondering why US forces adopted the FN MAG as the M240? It seems very similar to the M60 to me, so why adopt it when you've already got the lighter M60? Is there some real advantage to it over the M60?

Mal3

04-18-2003, 03:23 PM

Indeed! On paper the M60 looks like the better weapon, but from what I hear the M60 ever was all that good, whereas the FN MAG is very respected.

My question is: Why not get the HK21? That seems to be the most advanced GPMG around.

XASA

04-18-2003, 03:26 PM

Here's a quote from Mark Kuebler, USASOC Project Officer for Combat Development working on SPEAR (SOF Personal Equipment Advanced Requirements) on the M4:

"The M4 isn't working the way everyone would like," he says. "The Army recently went to all armor-piercing bullets to pierce body armor at 150 meters. But if you go into a room with somebody not wearing body armor, that is like hitting them with an icepick--it probably won't stop them doing what they are doing, enough though they may wind up bleeding to death. But you still want to maintain range and accuracy out to at least 300 meters. So that's where the tradeoffs are."

From "The Year in Defense 2003 Edition"

Trigger

04-18-2003, 03:39 PM

This may be a stupid question, but why would they do that? Have we been encountering bad guys wearing body armor?

Duke

04-18-2003, 03:52 PM

Without giving elevation and temp, winddrift could be anywhere between 12.5 to 13.5 inches.

FallenAngel

04-18-2003, 04:41 PM

Speaking of GPMGs.....I still think the Americans should just adopt the MG3....thats basically an MG42 redone to fire 7.62 NATO rather than the old german 8mm round. The M60 was just an "Americanized" version which ended up being pretty crappy.

Mal3

04-18-2003, 04:48 PM

But the MG3 is basically a WWII design. The HK21 is a very flexible design that seems to be very tough as well as accurate.

Not that accuracy is a big attribute for a GPMG but it does offer for some interesting niche possibilities.

FallenAngel

04-18-2003, 05:38 PM

Mal, the M2 .50 is basically a turn of the century design.....still the best there is for what it's suppose to do. :)

"If it aint broke, dont fix it..."

Duke

04-18-2003, 05:43 PM

The M240 breaks down on average at 26 000 rounds, while the M60's average is 19 000. This is due to a more reliable and sturdy piston system. The M240 has a greater maxium effective range of 1800 m and the M60 is 1100m. Lastly, in controlled burts the M240 is more accurate than the M60.

Mal3

04-18-2003, 05:51 PM

Mal, the M2 .50 is basically a turn of the century design.....still the best there is for what it's suppose to do. :)

"If it aint broke, dont fix it..."

You got me there. I'm not faulting the MG3 for being of such vintage design, I'm just questioning whether something more effective hasn't come along in all this time.

stuntman

04-19-2003, 06:29 PM

How about these for a replacement!
http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudiesgroup/lr300b.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudiesgroup/lr300a.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudiesgroup/lr300c.jpg
Pretty cool!

Mal3

04-19-2003, 06:36 PM

They sure are, but they hardly represent a new generation in assault rifles...

Bing

04-20-2003, 12:33 AM

when you say crosswind do you mean wind going from say right to left, perpendicular to the bullet's path?

Here's what i have calculated so far (I converted everything into SI units). range 400 yds (365.76 m), speed 2750 fps (838.2 m/s), weight 173 grain (.011Kg). Time it takes to travel the 365.76 meters, (838.2m/s)/(365.76m) = 2.29 seconds. Amount of bullet drop = (1/2)(9.8m/s^2)(2.29s)^2 = 25.733 meter drop wow...

a 10mph crosswind (assuming right to left, perpendicular to the bullet's path, parallel to the ground) would be a 16.09 Km/h speed in SI units would be 4.47 m/s. T= 2.29 seconds, is a 10.23 m deviation or in imperial units, 403 inches. This means at 400 yds, the bullet would be 403 inches away from the target. You would need to adjust the muzzle about 1.6 degrees to the right to compensate at that range.

someone correct my math if i'm wrong (one can never be too sure). thanks...

Smoothie104

04-20-2003, 01:41 AM

Bing

here is some help.

if the bullet is traveling more than 800 meters per second, how can it take 2.26 seconds to go 360 some meters? Also, the velocity is not constant.

And Duke is correct in regards to windage. Roughly 13 inches over 400 yards with a 10mph crosswind.

Bing

04-20-2003, 03:41 PM

lolololololol i'm sooooo sorry, i did these calculations at 12:33 am after i got home from work so obviously i wasn't thinking completely straight. lol i did the units completely wrong and did rate/distance = time when infact it's distance over rate = time which screwed everything up haha. Anyway, to atone for my mistakes i'll now attempt to do them CORRECTLY lol

ok to make things a little clearer, I'm doing the calculations assuming that the muzzle is pointed straight, w/o any curves. That means that the 2750fps velocity stays the same for the x velocity provided that there is no wind.

now that we've established distance/rate = time (lol i still can't believe i did that), 365.76/838.2 = .436 seconds (sounds much better).

bullet drop = (1/2)(9.8)(.436^2) = .933 meter drop

that's what i have so far.