How come journo's can't get the basics right?
 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-russian-company-plans-a-sniper-rifle-that-can-fire-1829496377/amp

"As the bullet gradually slows down it begins to fall vertically at a predictable rate known as “the drop”, which a shooter can compensate for. "

Begins to fall as it slows down?

OK, never mind. What I would like to know is how does the barrel handle all that speed? I am guessing that is part of the reason Springfield gave up on the tests int eh 9000fps range? I am guessing recoil would be an issue if the round has any weight to it.

Not a gun guy but it must have been a fatty.

I liked the Springfield in Nazi Zombies. Head shots.

"Begins to fall as it slows down?" I thought I learned in physics it began to fall at the rate of 32 ft./sec./sec. when it exited the barrel. Of course that was 50+ year old physics. Maybe things have changed since.

LOL if they could make a bullet fast enough, it'd go forever!


Public edumacation system at work.

Then how does it ever rise above the level of the muzzle? “Fall” implies a negative change in altitude. The rate of vertical acceleration decreases at 32ft/sec/sec, but it doesn’t immediately fall out of the barrel. As long as the rate of upward acceleration exceeds 32ft/sec/sec the bullet will rise, at least while it’s near the earth.

Yep, if it was going fast enough it would continue into space and go forever.

If I shoot straight up does the projectile immediately start to fall?

It’ll fall right out of the barrel and hit you in the eye. :D

My good eye or my bad eye?

I could see that happening ;)

I sure can't....not anymore...

I sorta feel sorry for our local news "bimbos".... they sure try....but bless their hearts ;)

P.O. Ackley's Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders includes a brief treatise on a smart ass wildcat he developed sometime in the late '50's to early '60's. He used the then new .378 Weatherby Magnum case, which was a belted round based on the beltless .416 Rigby, to build the ultimate .22 caliber varmint round. This thing held 120 grains of powder and achieved over 8,000 fps muzzle velocity. Mr. Ackley called it, tongue in cheek, the "Eargeschplitzenloudenboomer". He made note of the short barrel life. So short, in fact, that it made it impossible to either develop a suitable load or to zero the rifle before the barrel wore out.

I think these Russians are in the same boat, along with their unwitting customers and the clueless press that has latched onto their story. At least they acknowledge the short barrel life. They appear, however, completely unaware of the logistics problems with the rifle's zero that that situation entails. The technically less than savvy might assume one can replace a rifle's barrel with no change in zero and just keep shooting as one wears out barrels. Those familiar with the vagaries of rifle accuracy, particularly at long range, know better.

And if you fire down from an aircraft, does the bullet only start to fall once it slows down?

A key is to assign the correct journalists to the correct jobs.

For example, the two women from CNN that wrote the article about F1 returning to turbocharged cars were not the right choice to write that article.

"Turbo charged cars are better at gripping up steep inclines."

When the press writes an article, it's not about the facts, it's about how it makes you feel.

Reporters write what make them feel good. Facts are not really important, but just the flavor of the article. I worked as a press photographer back in the olden days of film. Many times I would be right in the middle of an event or press conference, taking pictures and listening to what is going on. The next day I read the paper, and see the photos I took, and wonder what planet the reporter is from to have written what they wrote. Their perception filter was completely different than mine.

I always figured the reporters lived in the world of movies. I saw a movie the other night where a lady photographer shot photos with a digital camera, but pulled a roll of 35mm film out of her bag to process it in a darkroom with a red safelight, and then was looking at a strip of 120 color transparencies. Pure Hollywood reality, or maybe the world reporters live in.

The short answer is the journalists typically have no knowledge of the subject they write about, they were trained in writing not in the subjects they cover.

Let's also say that journalism students weren't usually the sharpest the students in college.

As for the ballistics issue, the US plans to introduce a new generation of military rifle in a few years, that may also have significantly increased muzzle velocity.

Yep....don't think I've ever seen a "news" story, that I experienced first hand even come close to my real world. I tune most of it out....or try to.

I haven't read the article. I gave up on Jalopnik and their related sites quite a while ago - a whole bunch of clickbait, advertising and facts that ain't.

I won't give them the clicks any more.

Regarding the new Russian Sniper rifle and cartridge - the real world is tough. I suspect that the next great leap in small arms won't be using a traditional cartridge.

Anyone who has been involved in or has witnessed a newsworthy incident will tell you just how far off the reporting can be. The few times this has happened to me, I have wondered if the reporter was even covering the same incident.