For the Gun Tragics

Bobdown · Guru

For the Gun Tragics

Are We Lost · Guru

I'm no sniper rifle expert, but I find that impossible to believe. Wikipedia says the muzzle velocity is 853 metres per second. So if the projectile did not lose any speed over its return trip (impossible) it would take just under 2 seconds for the return journey - one second there, one second back. That part fits with the timing on the video.

However, the ping sound of the bullet hitting the target would take close to 3 seconds to return, so we would hear it at around 4 seconds from the firing. The bullet would have already returned and hit him well before then. And travelling at that speed we would not hear the ricochet sound before it hit him, because the bullet is travelling at almost 3 times the speed of sound.

Apart from those impossibiilties, a 180 degree "ricochet" and not lose speed?

There's more, but that will do.

Blues Man · Guru

It is very hard to dispute the physical evidence . How lucky was he.

Mike Harding · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:
I'm no sniper rifle expert, but I find that impossible to believe. Wikipedia says the muzzle velocity is 853 metres per second. So if the projectile did not lose any speed over its return trip (impossible) it would take just under 2 seconds for the return journey - one second there, one second back. That part fits with the timing on the video.

However, the ping sound of the bullet hitting the target would take close to 3 seconds to return, so we would hear it at around 4 seconds from the firing. The bullet would have already returned and hit him well before then. And travelling at that speed we would not hear the ricochet sound before it hit him, because the bullet is travelling at almost 3 times the speed of sound.

I like your thinking :)

When my children were younger we often spent a day in the bush with a BBQ and a couple of rifles, target shooting. One target was to inflate some party balloons and tie them to trees about 150m distant from camp. When a balloon was shot the image of its demise was instantaneous but the time delay for the sound was noticeable and provided an excellent example of the physics for the boys.

Gundog · Guru

Mike Harding wrote:
Are We Lost wrote:
I'm no sniper rifle expert, but I find that impossible to believe. Wikipedia says the muzzle velocity is 853 metres per second. So if the projectile did not lose any speed over its return trip (impossible) it would take just under 2 seconds for the return journey - one second there, one second back. That part fits with the timing on the video.

However, the ping sound of the bullet hitting the target would take close to 3 seconds to return, so we would hear it at around 4 seconds from the firing. The bullet would have already returned and hit him well before then. And travelling at that speed we would not hear the ricochet sound before it hit him, because the bullet is travelling at almost 3 times the speed of sound.

I like your thinking :)
When my children were younger we often spent a day in the bush with a BBQ and a couple of rifles, target shooting. One target was to inflate some party balloons and tie them to trees about 150m distant from camp. When a balloon was shot the image of its demise was instantaneous but the time delay for the sound was noticeable and provided an excellent example of the physics for the boys.

this video clip is a stichup, first and foremost the trajectory of the bullet is not flat when aiming at a target 1000 yards away, that coupled with the deceleration of the projectile it would be approximatly 1.6 seconds to target. Assuming the steel plate taget was perpect aligned for a return track, it is impossible for the projectile which would be seriously deformed with zero aerodynamic efficentcy after hitting a steel plate.

Bicyclecamper · Guru

I have fired a 50 cal. to a target at 1200 feet away, and that round came back a second later and took out the window of my army truck. 50 cals. are quite capable of coming back and killing you if shooting at a flat steel target. We were shooting to see if it would penetrate a inch thick steel plate at that distance. On all the other shots it had penetrated, but on this shot it returned. Scared the crap out of us.

peter67 · Guru

It's called "splash back" and usually happens at short ranges on steel targets. That rifle range looks no longer than 200mtrs.

landy · Guru

Bicyclecamper wrote:

I have fired a 50 cal. to a target at 1200 feet away, and that round came back a second later and took out the window of my army truck. 50 cals. are quite capable of coming back and killing you if shooting at a flat steel target. We were shooting to see if it would penetrate a inch thick steel plate at that distance. On all the other shots it had penetrated, but on this shot it returned. Scared the crap out of us.

There's a fair bit of difference though Ric your talking about 366 meters and the video is talking about a 1000 meters that's over 1200 meters further there and back. Landy

Teo · Senior Member

This video was made in about 2007 and created all the same discussions then as it has now.
It is a well made stitch up.
Dont let the truth get in the way of a good story!!!

-- Edited by Teo on Thursday 26th of August 2021 06:12:21 PM

oldbloke · Guru

Usually happens at shorter ranges because a lot of energy is obsorbed by the hard target. 1200 seems a long shot, excuse the pun.

Gundog · Guru

oldbloke wrote:
Usually happens at shorter ranges because a lot of energy is obsorbed by the hard target. 1200 seems a long shot, excuse the pun.

A 50cal 750gr projectile from a match grade round has a muzzle velocity of 2800 tf/s its trajectory over a 1000yds it drop approximatly 200 inches.

As someone who has fired many thousand rounds of 50 cal ammo not from a Barratt but from a Browning M2 rarely was the weapon actually aimed at the target, it was more the case of pointing it in the general direction firing and then walking the bullets to the target using the tracer ammo to get you there. Never had a ricochet come back when firing at old vehicles of Pucka Range.

Craig1 · Guru

So Gundog, you aim a bit over 16 feet above the target?

Kebbin · Guru

Like anything on the Net there's always someone about to myth bust, this fella thinks so anyway.

m.youtube.com/watch

Gundog · Guru

Craig1 wrote:
So Gundog, you aim a bit over 16 feet above the target?

In part yes but the average user would adjust the sight to compensate for the trajectory, a telescopic sight only gives you a better visual picture of the actual target compared to normal sights.

https://www.snipercountry.com/338-lapua-vs-50-bmg/

-- Edited by Gundog on Friday 27th of August 2021 09:10:14 AM