Post by Andrew MasonPost by Tom PurvisPost by Andrew MasonPost by JayKHillnospamPost by Andrew MasonVol17_0454b.htm
cannot cause a 2000 fps 10 gram bullet to move more than a few
cm. off course. in the distance from the tree to the limo.
**********
Andrew, Since you are on record as having been incorrect in stating a branch,
twig or piece of shrubbery canNOT deflect a bullet, are you at least willing to
consider you might be wrong in your categorical assertion that such a twig
cannot have been the operative factor.
Was it O. Cromwell, writing to the Scottish Kirk, who said "I beseech
thee in the bowels of Christ to consider that you might be wrong."?
Are you at least WILLING to CONSIDER you might be wrong about how much a
particular bullet, in a single, probably singular ballistic episode, might be
deflected by a twig, branch, or a piece of shrubbery? Yes or no? Are you
willing to consider the propositon you might be wrong on this one as well?
Absolutely.
I could be wrong in my analysis of the physics which leads me to
conclude that the force required to deflect the bullet greatly
exceeds the force needed to pulverise wood so it cannot be
supplied by a wooden branch. If someone can provide some EVIDENCE
that 2000 FPS MC FMJ bullets can bounce off wood as you suggest,
I would be delighted to retract my conclusion and admit I goofed.
You are correct! In that you are "wrong" in your analysis of the
physics.
Post by Andrew MasonPost by Tom PurvisThis one is not a "physics" problem that can be resolved with a
formula.
There are just a few too many variables.
A 2000 fps 6.5 mm MC fmj pristine bullet hitting a thin tree
branch has too many variables?
You got it!
How many angles of penetration can you come up with?
How many different positions can you rotate the tree/limb rings/grain
growth?
How tight are the ring/grain growths. They are tight in oak, and even
tighter
in the same tree in different years due to things like water supply;
heat;
etc; and totally different for different types of trees.
How many rifle to limb positions can you account for?
Exactly what formula was utilized in order to compensate for loss of
bullet
spin/rotation as a function of bullet stability, and what graph
represents
this?
Exactly what formula was utilized in order to compensate for change in
bullet
configeration as a function of stability, and exactly how were the
massive
amount of unknown potential changes in bullet configeration correlated
with the
massive amount of unknown bullet spin/rotation possibilities to arrive
at the
conclusion that no bullet could veer by more than 22 inches in 75
yards.
Especially, when I am telling you that of an initial five bullets
fired through
a one-inch thick Live oak tree limb that three of these initial five
bullets
veered by more than 1-foot in less than 16-feet, and that all of these
five
bullets had started to tumble in flight and had completed an entire
360-degree
rotational tumble in less than 10-feet after having exited the tree
limb.
Post by Andrew MasonIt is not as if the bullet is going to move off course much. We
know it is going to penetrate the wood because the yield pressure
of wood is much less than the pressure exerted by the bullet at
that speed.
You must have a mouse in your pocket to utilize the "we", as I know
this
is CRAP. And until such time as you are willing to do some actual
"real" research on your own, you will no doubt continue to believe
your "physics"
solution.
Perhaps a study of aerodynamics as opposed to physics is in order.
In event the bullet strikes in such as position that only one side of
the
bullet nose strikes the wood, do we still have exact pressure on both
sides
of the bullet nose. I hope not, considering the density of the wood
as opposed
to the density of air.
Therefore, we have tremendous pressure exerted on one side of the
bullet nose and at the same time have little or no pressure on the
opposite side of the bullet nose.
Guess what! Major deflection, thats what!
Post by Andrew Masonhttp://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/american_rifleman_sept68_brush_tests.PDF
The maximum deflection of a rifle bullet over 75 yards after
passing through a 1 inch maple dowell was 22 inches. That is less
than 1/2 a degree.
I read this long ago, and do not recall all the specifics. However,
until
such time as someone can reproduce, with a 6.5mm Carcano rifle and FJM
bullets, and encompass all the variables and achieve the same
"maximum" deflection,
it is "apples" and "oranges" and irrelevant. And even then, I will
know
better as I have done my own testing.
Post by Andrew MasonPost by Tom PurvisAndrew;
Shall we change this to "Less on Silencers" and more on the "Facts"?
How about more about twigs deflecting bullets?
Post by Tom PurvisPost by Andrew MasonI could also be wrong in my conclusion that the destablising
effect of striking a branch will not cause the bullet to move off
course by more than a few cm in the ensuing 50-75 feet or so.
You are!
Post by Andrew MasonPost by Tom PurvisPost by Andrew MasonThat is largely based on the article in the American Rifleman
that you kindly sent me and is also based on the physics. But I
would need some EVIDENCE - evidence showing that 2000 fps MC FMJ
bullets can be deflected by several feet in the 50-75 feet after
striking an oak branch. If you can provide evidence that it can
happen, I will be the first to congratulate you on showing that I
am wrong.
You are incorrect on this! There can be no definitive statement as to
either the amount of deflection and/or the lack thereof.
Having long ago fired multiple WCC 6.5mm Carcano Bullets through a
one-inch thick oak limb, a pattern can be established. However, this is
only a pattern and can not be stated as fact that each and every shot
fired will fall within the mean of the pattern.
Why not? The American Rifleman study seems to be pretty good.
Very consistent results.
Post by Tom PurvisFirst, all shots fired were done so on a "dead center" impact upon the
limb. I do not even need to fire a round on a "glancing" strike to a limb
to know that it can cause the bullet to vear off course considerably.
We're talking about 6.5 mm 10 gram fmj bullet at 2000 fps.
Yep! That is exactly what we are talking about. WCC 6.5mm Carcano
rounds fired from a model 91/38 Carcano. Same rifle, same bullets.
Even had plenty of old Italian FMJ and would not reload and use it. I
wanted the answers as
to what WCC 6.5mm ammo would do. As hard as it was to find the WCC
ammo, if
one is to duplicate conditions, he should strive to emulate the exact
ones.
Post by Andrew MasonHandguns don't count.
Post by Tom PurvisSecondly, the rifle to limb distance was extremely short in order to
assure a dead center strike. Therefore, the projectile did not have the
time/distance necessary to fully stabilize and eliminate "tail wag" and
for the spin/rpm's to fully stabilize the bullet.
Although I would have to "dig" to find the results, from memory, I know
that a minimum of three of these bullets varied as much as 1-foot off line
of site, 12 or 16-feet past the point of impact/passage through the limb.
The results are there. Over 75 yards, the maximum drift was 22
inches. And that was with a 1" maple dowell.
Bullet "drift" and bullet "deflection" are two seperate items. I hope
you are referring to deflection.
Nope! The results, utilizing a 6.5mm Carcano and WCC 6.5mm ammo
resulted in bullets deflecting as much as a foot in less than 16 feet.
Oh, by the way, each and every test bullet fired through the 0ne-inch
thick live oak limb started showing signs of instability at
approximately 48-inches
after having exited the limb. In addition to this, each and every
test bullet fired showed evidence of having completed a complete
360-degree tumble in flight
by the time the bullet passed 8-feet from the impact with the tree
limb.
Now, try and convince someone else that a tumbling 6.5mm carcano
bullet is not/
can not veer off course by more than 22 inches in 75 yards.
My dog will not even believe that!
Post by Andrew MasonPost by Tom PurvisIn addition to the above, the exact nature of the wood is a key factor.
Whereas I specifically secured "Live Oak", for my tests, other Oaks could
result in totally different results due to the structure and tightness of
the wood grain.
Show me the data. The simple fact is that the forces holding wood
together cannot begin to withstand the force of the nose of a 6.5
mm fmj MC bullet at 2000 fps. The bullet will simply go through
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/exhibit-3.html
Post by Tom PurvisPost by Andrew MasonSo far you have offered no evidence. You have offered
unverifiable anecdotes from hunters passing stories around the
lodge after a day of hunting and drinking.
You were given the "evidence" and still chose to stick with your
physics
formula. It appears obvious that you are not willing to conduct the
ballistic testing yourself, and when informed of your errors by those
that have done so,
you wish to hide behind your mathmatical equation.
This is a "reality" equation, not a mathmatical one.
Post by Andrew MasonPost by Tom PurvisIt is assumed that this was meant for JayKHill. To date/to me, he appears
to be quite correct in most as regards this subject.
Yes, I believe it was Dr. Lattimer who showed us that the 6.5 FMJ Carcano
would penetrate 40-inches of Pine. Well here is a test which you can
perform.
Get two 10-penny nails! Get a green pine and green oak board of
equivelant thickness! Set up a hydraulic ram with adequate pressure
measurements. Then press a nail into each of the boards and measure the
force required to penetrate the pine as opposed to the oak.
OK, got the pressure required!
Now, re-construct the testing, only this time, mark the boards EXACT on
entry side and direct alignment exit side. Now, conduct the same testing
and see if the nail head exits EXACTLY on the designated/marked exit
point.
Do this multiple times at multiple angles and you may be suprised at the
variations in exit points away from the "direct alignment" point marked.
You cannot begin to duplicate the effect of a 6.5 mc bullet at
2000 fps with pounding a nail. The force required to deflect the
nail is miniscule (in the order of 1/600,000,000th) compared to
the force required to deflect that bullet through a given angle.
The reason is: time. The force only has 1/24,000th of a second to
act in passing through a 1 inch branch. Pounding a nail one inch
into pine in 1 second takes 1/(24,000)^2 as much force to deflect
it a given angle.
You cannot use intuition for events that take place in 1/24,000th
of a second. Use f=ma and do the math.
Better yet! Get you a 6.5mm Carcano Rifle and some good FMJ ammo and
conduct a "real" experiment for yourself. Then come back to us with
your answers and f=ma!
1.Interception with and the passing through the tree limb by a bullet
totally effects it's circular rotation (spin). It's called "grab"!
The circular rotation/spin is what keeps the bullet stable and true in
flight.
Affect the spin and the flight is totally changed.
2.Passage of a bullet through a tree limb can easily change the
shape/configuration of the bullet, as it did to CE# 399. The bullet
body configeration and the spin/rotation are a part of the bullet
stability.
So, exactly how much spin/rotation is lost due to the bullet having
passed
through the wood and exactly how was this compensated for? Exactly
what bullet configeration change is it that happens each and EVERY
time this bullet passes through the wood, that it can be calculated in
with an exact formula that works each and every time?
Kind of like the pressure/volume formula and forgetting to add in
temperature
as a factor isn't it? Except in this case, we have two unknown
variables which
can not be known.
Tom P
Post by Andrew MasonAndrew Mason
Post by Tom PurvisTom P
P.S. Just for your information, on the day after the WC completed their
assassination re-enactment in Dealy Plaza, members of this group who
stayed behind, cut and removed the limbs from the top of the Live Oak tree
which is located on the corner of Elm St. directly in front of the TSDB.
The limb through which CE# 399 passed was apparantly removed at this
time.
--