Help needed 22lr shooting

[cooter]

Never heard of a bullet accelerating after a Ricochet, cooter, and cannot see how this could be? I can only imagine that if the bullet were smashed almost flat by the impact then the flat disc remaining would be more aerodynamic but then the impact needed to cause such deformation would absorb the majority of the bullets energy?

 

I fully agree that the whole bullet would in fact slow down with an impact which would cause the bullet to flatten in such a way.

 

When a bullet strikes an object it usually does so at an angle and fragments or deforms in some way.

The amount of fragmentation/deformation will obviously depend on bullet type, .22lr lead bullets (the query from the OP) being excellent at retaining a lot of their mass whilst deforming.

 

Many years ago I was on an air rifle range where some lads were innocently using golf balls as targets.

Normally a sub 12ft/lb pellet will be hard pressed to travel 100 yards, no mater what the angle, however some of the pellets were zipping off and hitting cars in the car park, which was at right angles to the air rifle stand and around 70 yards away.

The only way they could have traveled that far was to gain speed from somewhere.

 

The science side can be found in Google books 'Wound Ballistics: Basics and Applications' 2.3.6.1 Acceleration of Fragments.

Fragments of a bullet, which will obviously vary in size, can gain momentum from the impact, and it is the fragments that can travel faster than the original source, but not the bullet its self.

Accepting that I may have worded it better the fact is that a bullet fragment can gain speed from a ricochet.

[Dekers]

This is rather like the first zero.

If you have a 50 yard zero, then the bullet path will be -14.48" at 125 yards

If you have a 100 yard zero, then the bullet path will be -4.49" at 125 yards

If you have a 125 yard zero, then the bullet path will be 0 at 125 yards

In all three examples the bullet drop witll be - 28.08"

 

No argument about the drop, the zero effects when the bullet will hit the dirt, that was my response to the post!

Edited August 23, 2017 by Dekers

[Dekers]

Then explain the very dead, perfectly hit fallow buck and a hole through his truck window. He recovered the bullet by the way. Plus after many many years of shooting, some of us are not super special who never have a miss.

 

Then explain the very dead, perfectly hit fallow buck and a hole through his truck window. He recovered the bullet by the way

 

Can you explain that slowly using small words, I don't understand what you are trying to say!

 

Plus after many many years of shooting, some of us are not super special who never have a miss.

 

Who said nobody ever misses, I said "Simply hitting your quarry with the right calibre and ammo goes a long way to avoiding a ricochet!"

[Ultrastu]

I fully agree that the whole bullet would in fact slow down with an impact which would cause the bullet to flatten in such a way.

 

When a bullet strikes an object it usually does so at an angle and fragments or deforms in some way.

The amount of fragmentation/deformation will obviously depend on bullet type, .22lr lead bullets (the query from the OP) being excellent at retaining a lot of their mass whilst deforming.

 

Many years ago I was on an air rifle range where some lads were innocently using golf balls as targets.

Normally a sub 12ft/lb pellet will be hard pressed to travel 100 yards, no mater what the angle, however some of the pellets were zipping off and hitting cars in the car park, which was at right angles to the air rifle stand and around 70 yards away.

The only way they could have traveled that far was to gain speed from somewhere.

 

The science side can be found in Google books 'Wound Ballistics: Basics and Applications' 2.3.6.1 Acceleration of Fragments.

Fragments of a bullet, which will obviously vary in size, can gain momentum from the impact, and it is the fragments that can travel faster than the original source, but not the bullet its self.

Accepting that I may have worded it better the fact is that a bullet fragment can gain speed from a ricochet.

Some of your facts are a bit off .

 

A typical sub 12 .22 gun pellet will travel 450 yds at 28 degree and at 100 yds retain about 5.5 fpe

A .177 travel around 400 yds and hold 4 fpe of energy .

More than enough to damage a car at 70 yds.

A golf ball is a terrible target to shoot at with anything .

It's totally designed to rebound energy with absolute minimal loss on impact .

Ie game of hitting golf balls a long way .

So the pellets in your story would have say hit the golf ball at 30 yds ? And then rebounded almost whole and solid and travelled the other 70 yds impacting the car with around 5 fpe .

They didn't accelerate and they didnt fragment into faster bits .it just skipped of the side of the ball squishing a bit but staying whole .

[Ultrastu]

Get as close as you possibly can, to ensure a good solid hit, then you needn't worry too much about ricochets.

There is a lot to be said for this .

The faster the bullet is going when it hits the quarry the more it will deform .and often the less penetration it will have (Due to the expansion ) .

A good example is a .17 hmr penetrates less up to 100 yds (cos it's fast ) and more beyond 100 yds as the plastic ballistic tip doesnt expand the bullet as much at the slower speeds .

[bruno22rf]

Still cannot see how a fragment can increase in speed - the speed of a fragment is surely determined by it's terminal velocity upon becoming a fragment and it's weight - so a fragment leaving a solid object (that has already massively reduced it velocity) and weighing a fraction of the original projectile is carrying a fraction of it's original energy and will thus suffer accordingly in terms of velocity? BTW - you need to fix your Airgun if it only reaches 100 yards.

[Dekers]

Still cannot see how a fragment can increase in speed - the speed of a fragment is surely determined by it's terminal velocity upon becoming a fragment and it's weight - so a fragment leaving a solid object (that has already massively reduced it velocity) and weighing a fraction of the original projectile is carrying a fraction of it's original energy and will thus suffer accordingly in terms of velocity? BTW - you need to fix your Airgun if it only reaches 100 yards.

 

Somehow any projectile would have to GAIN energy to increase in speed, I'm struggling to see how this could be achieved from a ricochet.

 

Can Cooter post a direct link to this Acceleration of Fragments.

 

Cheers

[cooter]

 

Somehow any projectile would have to GAIN energy to increase in speed, I'm struggling to see how this could be achieved from a ricochet.

 

Can Cooter post a direct link to this Acceleration of Fragments.

 

Cheers

 

Link below.

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q4jzcfLhBcYC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=wound+ballistics+acceleration+of+fragments&source=bl&ots=B6m472iiRT&sig=_RKl_zNIvtEcUtqMrRItFECmKCs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7q5zepu3VAhXiIJoKHRTgDxwQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=wound%20ballistics%20acceleration%20of%20fragments&f=false

[Dekers]

 

Link below.

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q4jzcfLhBcYC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=wound+ballistics+acceleration+of+fragments&source=bl&ots=B6m472iiRT&sig=_RKl_zNIvtEcUtqMrRItFECmKCs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7q5zepu3VAhXiIJoKHRTgDxwQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=wound%20ballistics%20acceleration%20of%20fragments&f=false

 

I've scanned through this and can't see anywhere it says fragments or bullets accelerate after ricochets.

 

Which bit have I missed?

 

Cheers

Edited August 23, 2017 by Dekers

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I missed that bit too.

 

Simple physics would suggest there is only so much energy and it will only diminish.

[wymberley]

 

I've scanned through this and can't see anywhere it says fragment or bullets accelerate after ricochets.

 

Which bit have I missed?

 

Cheers

Also totally confused. looks to me that accelerating fragments are a function of explosives - ie, a shell. Or am I way off?

[zipdog]

Also totally confused. looks to me that accelerating fragments are a function of explosives - ie, a shell. Or am I way off?

 

+1

 

If you shot a say a petrol tanker and the bullet fragmented then the petrol inside the tanker explodes and the fragments could indeed speed up, as referred to in the link. Bullets ricocheting of the ground cannot speed up and there is nothing to produce the extra energy.

 

If you still don't believe me take your garden hose and spray it at what ever object you want, the water may ricochet off but never at a higher velocity than when it comes out of the end of the hose

[cooter]

 

I've scanned through this and can't see anywhere it says fragments or bullets accelerate after ricochets.

 

Which bit have I missed?

 

Cheers

 

Title of paragraph 2.3.6.1 'Acceleration of fragments'.

Second paragraph. 'Fragments may also be created when ...or the bullet itself breaks up'

 

 

Whilst the above is from a book on a related subject, I always base any statements I make on my own experiences.

 

As boys we used to shoot air rifles on the local mine slag heaps.

It was not unusual to see a line of us seeing who can shoot the furthest.

The longest impact we ever managed to consistently confirm was just short of 200 yards, with one exception when one of the shooters had blanked off the relief port on his crossman pump up and got out to 300 yards.

Take a look at Chairgun and, as quoted in other posts, it states that the pellet will travel out to 450 yards, search previous threads on the subject and the reality is somewhere between 150 and 300.

 

From studies which can be found online on ricochets etc, the amount of energy lost is dependent on the angle of impact and the surface material (concrete, glass, metal and wood have normally been stated as the test material), and for a useful starting point a 20 degree impact/ricochet will cause an estimated 18% loss, whilst a 90 degree impact would be closer to 35% (ref. bev fitchetts guns magazine).

 

 

In the example I gave it was a golf ball, and another post quite rightly pointed out that these are designed to react to an impact, hence them not being the best items to use as targets.

 

As the golf balls in question were securely fixed, the transfer of energy could only have been in the opposite direction, and the lighter pellet was then accelerated away, at a rate which compensated for the loss of energy on impact (in this case an estimated 30%), sufficiently to allow it to crack a car window at a distance which should have removed the energy required to do so!

 

Of course it is all speculation, based entirely on real life experiences and observations, with no scientific evidence to back it up, but given to advise the OP that it is possible.

[wymberley]

 

Title of paragraph 2.3.6.1 'Acceleration of fragments'.

Second paragraph. 'Fragments may also be created when ...or the bullet itself breaks up'

 

 

Whilst the above is from a book on a related subject, I always base any statements I make on my own experiences.

 

As boys we used to shoot air rifles on the local mine slag heaps.

It was not unusual to see a line of us seeing who can shoot the furthest.

The longest impact we ever managed to consistently confirm was just short of 200 yards, with one exception when one of the shooters had blanked off the relief port on his crossman pump up and got out to 300 yards.

Take a look at Chairgun and, as quoted in other posts, it states that the pellet will travel out to 450 yards, search previous threads on the subject and the reality is somewhere between 150 and 300.

 

From studies which can be found online on ricochets etc, the amount of energy lost is dependent on the angle of impact and the surface material (concrete, glass, metal and wood have normally been stated as the test material), and for a useful starting point a 20 degree impact/ricochet will cause an estimated 18% loss, whilst a 90 degree impact would be closer to 35% (ref. bev fitchetts guns magazine).

 

 

In the example I gave it was a golf ball, and another post quite rightly pointed out that these are designed to react to an impact, hence them not being the best items to use as targets.

 

As the golf balls in question were securely fixed, the transfer of energy could only have been in the opposite direction, and the lighter pellet was then accelerated away, at a rate which compensated for the loss of energy on impact (in this case an estimated 30%), sufficiently to allow it to crack a car window at a distance which should have removed the energy required to do so!

 

Of course it is all speculation, based entirely on real life experiences and observations, with no scientific evidence to back it up, but given to advise the OP that it is possible.

This would mean that if you set a Newton's Cradle in motion it would speed up not slow down.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Cooter, put quite simply, you are wrong!

[wymberley]

I missed that bit too.

 

Simple physics would suggest there is only so much energy and it will only diminish.

Accurate physics suggests that energy can not be created or destroyed, only transferred.

[Dekers]

 

Title of paragraph 2.3.6.1 'Acceleration of fragments'.

Second paragraph. 'Fragments may also be created when ...or the bullet itself breaks up'

 

 

Whilst the above is from a book on a related subject, I always base any statements I make on my own experiences.

 

As boys we used to shoot air rifles on the local mine slag heaps.

It was not unusual to see a line of us seeing who can shoot the furthest.

The longest impact we ever managed to consistently confirm was just short of 200 yards, with one exception when one of the shooters had blanked off the relief port on his crossman pump up and got out to 300 yards.

Take a look at Chairgun and, as quoted in other posts, it states that the pellet will travel out to 450 yards, search previous threads on the subject and the reality is somewhere between 150 and 300.

 

From studies which can be found online on ricochets etc, the amount of energy lost is dependent on the angle of impact and the surface material (concrete, glass, metal and wood have normally been stated as the test material), and for a useful starting point a 20 degree impact/ricochet will cause an estimated 18% loss, whilst a 90 degree impact would be closer to 35% (ref. bev fitchetts guns magazine).

 

 

In the example I gave it was a golf ball, and another post quite rightly pointed out that these are designed to react to an impact, hence them not being the best items to use as targets.

 

As the golf balls in question were securely fixed, the transfer of energy could only have been in the opposite direction, and the lighter pellet was then accelerated away, at a rate which compensated for the loss of energy on impact (in this case an estimated 30%), sufficiently to allow it to crack a car window at a distance which should have removed the energy required to do so! Where did you get that from, there is NO LOGIC in this. IF your statement was true and the pellet ACCELERATED away then if it hit another golf ball and another then it would continue to accelerate, which patently obviously does not happen, or you would have invented the perpetual motion machine!

 

Of course it is all speculation, based entirely on real life experiences and observations, with no scientific evidence to back it up, but given to advise the OP that it is possible.

 

Cooter

 

I am increasingly confused by your posts on this subject.

 

None of this refers to the acceleration of fragments/bullets/pellets after ricochet, indeed, even you are now talking about LOSS of energy due to ricochet!

 

...and what has tampering with an air rifle to increase the range got to do with Ricochets accelerating?

Edited August 24, 2017 by Dekers

[Scully]

Logic tells me fragments can't accelerate, but I'm no scientist.

Shrapnel is used in explosives as fragmented shards of the original projectile or casing; having a devastating effect on soft tissue, but as part of the original projectile it isn't accelerating. It is the mass of spinning sharp edged shards which cause the damage; I doubt very seriously that a tumbling .22 rf round could do much harm, but solid backstops are your friend regardless.

[wymberley]

Logic tells me fragments can't accelerate, but I'm no scientist.

Shrapnel is used in explosives as fragmented shards of the original projectile or casing; having a devastating effect on soft tissue, but as part of the original projectile it isn't accelerating. It is the mass of spinning sharp edged shards which cause the damage; I doubt very seriously that a tumbling .22 rf round could do much harm, but solid backstops are your friend regardless.

Unless the projectile is a shell. Prime example is a hand grenade which travels relatively slowly until it goes off then the fragmented pieces are accelerated by the exploseive charge. TIGHTCHOKE is quite right in that when said pellet strikes the golf ball which is unable to move heat is generated which is transferred in part to the ball so the energy retained by the pellet is diminished.

[cooter]

 

Cooter

 

I am increasingly confused by your posts on this subject.

 

None of this refers to the acceleration of fragments/bullets/pellets after ricochet, indeed, even you are now talking about LOSS of energy due to ricochet!

Example is that the power of the sub 12 fp pellet at 100 yards after ricochet should not have been enough to damage anything solid, the reality being that the unknown losses could possibly have been compensated for by the structure and purpose of the golf ball.

 

As highlighted by you (concrete, glass, metal and wood have normally been stated as the test material). Not golf balls so it has not been disproven.

 

...and what has tampering with an air rifle to increase the range got to do with Ricochets accelerating?

Taken out of context. Context being the theory that the maximum distance a sub 12 fp air rifle pellet will travel is 400-500 yards, and the reality that this is not possible when shooting on open flat ground, regardless of angle.

 

And I also stated

'Of course it is all speculation, based entirely on real life experiences and observations, with no scientific evidence to back it up, but given to advise the OP that it is possible.'

 

The collective are stating both that the bullet looses energy on impact, which the consensus agrees with, and also stating that it is not possible for the surface of the target to actually induce a positive affect on the bullet, without providing evidence to this effect.

 

I am providing an actual example, without scientific evidence, where there has been no apparent loss in energy as a result of impact with an object, when there clearly should have been.

The only possible explanation is that the surface of the target had either no affect on the bullet, which is unlikely based on the accepted norm, or it increased the speed of the bullet enough to make it carry more energy than it should have had.

 

 

I fail to see the objective of the dismissive other than having an opinion on an event, to which none were not present, and cannot offer any logical explanation.

[Dekers]

 

The collective are stating both that the bullet looses energy on impact, which the consensus agrees with, and also stating that it is not possible for the surface of the target to actually induce a positive affect on the bullet, without providing evidence to this effect.

 

I am providing an actual example, without scientific evidence, where there has been no apparent loss in energy as a result of impact with an object, when there clearly should have been.

The only possible explanation is that the surface of the target had either no affect on the bullet, which is unlikely based on the accepted norm, or it increased the speed of the bullet enough to make it carry more energy than it should have had.

 

 

I fail to see the objective of the dismissive other than having an opinion on an event, to which none were not present, and cannot offer any logical explanation.

 

Come on Cooter, this is getting boring, believe what you like, but you are wrong, and none of the references you have supplied support your comments that Ricochets Accelerate fragments.

 

You are not providing evidence of ricochets off ANY surface accelerating anything, you have misinterpreted information and speculated inaccurately.

 

You eventually actually stated:-

From studies which can be found online on ricochets etc, the amount of energy lost is dependent on the angle of impact and the surface material (concrete, glass, metal and wood have normally been stated as the test material), and for a useful starting point a 20 degree impact/ricochet will cause an estimated 18% loss, whilst a 90 degree impact would be closer to 35%

 

For some strange reason you think a Golf ball imparts energy and accelerates fragments, if this were the case ricocheting from one to another to another etc., etc., would increase the speed forever, which is ridiculous.

 

Bullets/fragments whatever, accelerate due to an initial force/energy being exerted on them, hitting something down line absorbs some of that energy and SLOWS the object. On your reasoning, if you fired at a trampoline the fragment would accelerate because the trampoline is springy, the fact is, more energy is imparted/lost in moving the trampoline than is imparted by and spring back, it is just the same with the golf ball you mention.

 

Again, what the heck has the maximum distance of a 12ft lb air rifle pellet got to do with this, 12ft lb is 12ft lb, like for like and in the normal course of events all that will make a 12ft lb air rifle pellet go further than the one next to it is INCREASING the Original energy, not ricocheting it off something.

 

ATB!

Edited August 24, 2017 by Dekers

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I bet this can get to 6 pages!

[spandit]

Being a pedant, acceleration means a change in velocity, which has a direction, so a ricocheting bullet could be said to have accelerated (and also remember acceleration can be negative!) but I don't think this is what was implied by whoever said it first.

 

Bullets bouncing off a hard surface can retain a significant amount of energy, though, but unless they fragment, they cannot speed up. A small portion of a bullet could ricochet at a higher speed, I suppose...

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Being a pedant, acceleration means a change in velocity, which has a direction, so a ricocheting bullet could be said to have accelerated (and also remember acceleration can be negative!) but I don't think this is what was implied by whoever said it first.

 

Bullets bouncing off a hard surface can retain a significant amount of energy, though, but unless they fragment, they cannot speed up. A small portion of a bullet could ricochet at a higher speed, I suppose...

 

No it couldn't!

[bruno22rf]

No matter how hard you may hit a Golf Ball or with whatever type of projectile you choose to use, the Ball will absorb energy till the cows come home. Any debris resulting from the break up of the original projectile cannot accelerate after losing energy and weight. Drive your car at 100 miles an hour and then turn off the engine - as you slow down try throwing out a couple of seats and see if they overtake you.