thursodog 353 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Cheers Mr Todd Quote Link to post
Acuspell 329 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Funnily enough, NORMA (not the one with wrinkling stockings) did a lot of work with deflection of bullets. they put up witness sheets 3 feet behind targets and carefully clipped twigs and light branches to see how much deflection there was. The theorists said that light, fast bullets would be deflected more than slower, heavier bullets.The results of actual tests showed up something quite different, they actually showed that fast, light, frangible bullets got deflected by as much as 6 feet within that 3 feet to the witness sheet. Slower, heavier bullets got deflected just as much. The big surprise was the medium weight, medium velocity bullets, they got deflected the least. This was with centrefire projectiles, but if carried over to airgun uses, it proves, conclusively, that the least deflected and therefore the most effective air rifle is th emedium weight, medium calibre 20 cal. :boogy: Quote Link to post
Sweeney-Todd 208 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Funnily enough, NORMA (not the one with wrinkling stockings) did a lot of work with deflection of bullets. they put up witness sheets 3 feet behind targets and carefully clipped twigs and light branches to see how much deflection there was. The theorists said that light, fast bullets would be deflected more than slower, heavier bullets.The results of actual tests showed up something quite different, they actually showed that fast, light, frangible bullets got deflected by as much as 6 feet within that 3 feet to the witness sheet. Slower, heavier bullets got deflected just as much. The big surprise was the medium weight, medium velocity bullets, they got deflected the least. This was with centrefire projectiles, but if carried over to airgun uses, it proves, conclusively, that the least deflected and therefore the most effective air rifle is th emedium weight, medium calibre 20 cal. :boogy: :laugh: Quote Link to post
tegater 789 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Duncan this could go on for ages and ages!! Lol Quote Link to post
The Duncan 802 Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Duncan this could go on for ages and ages!! Lol Ma Faute! Quote Link to post
ghillies 209 Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) engineering terms...mecanics, momentum, but the velosity makes the difference to what ever weight...theres a sweet spot for each, and a bad spot for each, so any arguements would be one sided without the full facts lol. friction, energy 'loss', shape, deformation, moments of or about axis etc etc... pellets are a diferent kettle of than bullets. (velosity being a major diference.), ooo material hardnes is another. in short for the purpose of missing that rabbit anything hitting a solid object will deflect at a similar angle for similar properties, i.e. material hardnes velosit and mass along with the old foot pound energy..initialy in one inch the angle neglagable, after maybe a foot it may be slightly more/less, but you've already missed it. a softer material will shed a bit of lead and will glass at less of an angle, but still miss...untill its goingat sonic plus speeds which will alter the angle to the less, untill to much of the projectile hits the solid object.. all thats if, i say if you repeat the tests acuratly, a twig isnt a constant surface, and your dealing with as little as .177 lol..how much colided, how much tried to contiue unhinderred, now predict accuratly the tumble effect etc.. hmmmm..weeeeeee-eowwww...that was close lol. (a .22 pellet at legal speed would probly have more 'width' to deflect befor hitting nose on in full..so more options at angles. but in short for momemtom, or change in momentom, the more mass (irispective of shape for now, that just complicates a multitude of variables already present) the harder it is to change it's direction. i think thats the down fall so far. how much clipped, and at how fast, and how hard or soft is the pellet and the object it's clipping....at this point the 'mass' is diferent according to its 'potential' which is down to the velosity and weight, the rest is angle. ooooo next the caliber debate hehehehe.................just a thought like. added in, pellet deformation changes its 'center' this dictates how it will fly after the colision, be it glancing or full on. totally random. another add in.. what angles the deflection surface?.. i think thats the major factor, if it slopes enough wouldnt make diddle squot diference as it would feed any thing that held together to the same potential 'mass' 'that way'..which only leaves how it flies and how far it goes after.(far enough to show the difference?). eeee another addin........angle of flight of the pellet...lolol...unpridictable without engineering models, graghs and maths for an about an average me thinks.. theory. think i'd vote for the 30 years a coach's 'intuision' on it. Edited January 26, 2012 by ghillies Quote Link to post
jasper65 6 Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Cheers Matt - I think the salient bit was on the previous page richmcgin said: 'As a firearms instructor i have a fair experience of most caliburs and a fair knowledge of how they behave during their short journey. its like using a .177 air rifle for shoting rabbits we all know its posible but the diflection risk is higher than that of the .22. if you would like a complete lesson on balistics and resonsible behavour i do charge.' spot on Dunc... I'll give the instructor 10/10 for the entertainment factor.... Quote Link to post
ghillies 209 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 hmmm, does any one want to pay me to zero their scope? hehehe Quote Link to post
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.