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.

And physicists are crappy writers. But a GOOD writer has someone knowledgeable fact check the piece. This writer's failure is not ignorance, it is laziness. He should have had the piece fact checked.

There was an article a couple months ago that the army wants artillery that can fire 1000 nautical miles. I assume they will not be using traditional propellants.

Isn't that called an ICBM?

I saw one a few years ago that had me really dumbfounded. The author of an article on electric power confused kW with kWh. She compared the current kW (in Terrawatts) usage with expected future kWh (she still used Terrawatts) usage. She concluded that we needed to increase our current power plant output by about 10 times current output and soon! And at a cost of trillions of dollars!

Very much Wrong.


If you shoot a bullet 90 degrees up, it will rise, not fall,
It will keep rising until it's upward velicity comes to zero due to Air (Drag) slowing it down & Gravity pulling it back down

And then it starts to fall back to earth.
At which time it will speed up in it's fall untill the Gravity can not accelerate it against the air (drag)



If you shoot a bullet at 0 degrees : Flat (which rarely happens)
It will indeed start to fall right away.

If you aim flat, at your target, the further out your target is, the higher your barrel will point and the higher your bullet will go , before it starts to fall again.


Check out these Arti Rounds : They are not falling !!!
http://www.defenseworld.net/uploads/...1483518107.jpg

Ballistics.. It's not hard
But VERY few people get it.
And a lot of people who do get it, can't explain it to save their own life.

You cannot fall if you end up at a higher elevation then where you started
And you cannot make a bullet fly flat across the ground if you want to make it go far.

fall
[fawl]
ExamplesWord Origin
See more synonyms for fall on Thesaurus.com
verb (used without object), fell, fall·en, fall·ing.
to drop or descend under the force of gravity, as to a lower place through loss or lack of support.
to come or drop down suddenly to a lower position, especially to leave a standing or erect position suddenly, whether voluntarily or not:
to fall on one's knees.
to become less or lower; become of a lower level, degree, amount, quality, value, number, etc.; decline:
The temperature fell ten degrees. Stock prices fell to a new low for the year.


"but the nagging effects of gravity starts slowing a bullet down the moment it leaves the gun barrel"

This is the only real big error in the article, the main issue is Air that causes drag and causes the bullet to slow down.
Shoot it up, and gravity would indeed be a force that slows the bullet down, but it does so much less then drag.
Shoot the gun down, and it would not.. So it is a variable that can slow down the bullet.

Think of it this way, people think that when they shoot to a target that is up on the mountain, that they would have to aim higher. then expected.
The opposite is true, since they are shooting at an incline, the target is actually closer.

https://www.chuckhawks.com/leupold_RX-III_TBR.jpg

With this, if you shot at a target 1000 yds away
30 yds above you... The bullet will still fall at the end before hitting the target even though you are shooting up.

But for the most part of it's flight, it will be rising, rather then falling.

Bullet "drop" is only a function of aiming.
You aim at your target, and the barrel is given elevation so the bullet can rise high enough to be in a position it CAN drop .. to the aiming point.
if it never would rise, it would never be able to drop.

Elevation on your scope, is turning the scope DOWN , not up , relative to your barrel.
It's the barrel that comes up, not the scope.


The only true statement about gravity & bullets =
Gravity will affect the bullet the second it leaves the barrel.

It sounds like some of you know about as much about journalists as that writer knows about ballistics.

Well, at least a couple of us have worked with them, way back when, so I stand by my comments. Obviously, we are not saying they are all worthless, but more than you expect.

One other point, those that report the news on TV are generally even less knowledgeable about their subjects, especially at the local level.

Agree. I worked with one reporter that got it right. Others just made up what fit their view.

TV reporters are the worst. They LOVE to record crying. Moms crying are a staple. The funniest thing I saw was a TV reporter pull up to the scene of a fire, and immediately run over to the home owners and stick a microphone in the face of a crying mom, and then ask her how she feels. She used lots of profanity, but she expressed he feelings quite clearly. The local cops told the reporter to get off the property of they were going to jail.