Definitive answers on external ballistics and overstabilization
- Thread starter RiverRider
- Start date
- Status
Widow maker 223
Well-known member
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: RiverRiderDuring the last knock-down-drag-out slugfest over the subject of overstabilization, many points of view were expressed. I thought I had discovered the answer but I had no luck digging up an authoritative source to back my own assertions. From time to time since that discussion I have searched the web but had no success finding anything at all.
This evening I tried some different search terms thinking little would come of it, but I hit the motherlode. The following is a link to a Canadian field artillery manual. About one-third down the page, in the fifth column is a link to a document: B-GL-306/FP-001. Pay special attention to Chapter 3, sections 3 and 4.
Click it and wait patiently.
This "document" is a low level dated manual, that is so filled with errors that I would be typing for a month.
It is nothing.
This evening I tried some different search terms thinking little would come of it, but I hit the motherlode. The following is a link to a Canadian field artillery manual. About one-third down the page, in the fifth column is a link to a document: B-GL-306/FP-001. Pay special attention to Chapter 3, sections 3 and 4.
Click it and wait patiently.
This "document" is a low level dated manual, that is so filled with errors that I would be typing for a month.
It is nothing.
RiverRider
New member
I look forward to you providing a link to later and more correct information.
Originally Posted By: RiverRiderI look forward to you providing a link to later and more correct information.
I look forward to you providing a link with information as to how this applies to rifles...still. Or, just one documented case of rifle bullet over-stabilization. Just one...
I look forward to you providing a link with information as to how this applies to rifles...still. Or, just one documented case of rifle bullet over-stabilization. Just one...
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: RiverRiderI look forward to you providing a link to later and more correct information.
You need to understand something that so far you do not understand - you can not have a discussion about something that YOU do not understand, by scrounging around the internet like a rat, trying to prove something that you don't understand. You don't even understand the link you posted.
When you (that's Y-O-U) get the language down right, and understand enough physics (particularly Newtons first and second laws) to continue this conversation, and stop depending on links that you do not understand... then let me know that you have grown up and are ready to talk like a grown-up, instead of some dumb kid with an ego problem.
Conversations are not made of links.
You need to understand something that so far you do not understand - you can not have a discussion about something that YOU do not understand, by scrounging around the internet like a rat, trying to prove something that you don't understand. You don't even understand the link you posted.
When you (that's Y-O-U) get the language down right, and understand enough physics (particularly Newtons first and second laws) to continue this conversation, and stop depending on links that you do not understand... then let me know that you have grown up and are ready to talk like a grown-up, instead of some dumb kid with an ego problem.
Conversations are not made of links.
Smokin Barrel
Active member
Originally Posted By: BeluebowThe sub-dermal haematoma should never be confused with the post mortal flatting of cerebral convulsions........arrgghh screw it.
Is that like saying "I would rather have a bottle-in-front-me than a frontal lobotomy"?
Is that like saying "I would rather have a bottle-in-front-me than a frontal lobotomy"?
RiverRider
New member
Originally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: RiverRiderI look forward to you providing a link to later and more correct information.
You need to understand something that so far you do not understand - you can not have a discussion about something that YOU do not understand, by scrounging around the internet like a rat, trying to prove something that you don't understand. You don't even understand the link you posted.
When you (that's Y-O-U) get the language down right, and understand enough physics (particularly Newtons first and second laws) to continue this conversation, and stop depending on links that you do not understand... then let me know that you have grown up and are ready to talk like a grown-up, instead of some dumb kid with an ego problem.
Conversations are not made of links.
Just like you schooled me on the chemistry of smokeless powders, huh? You're a regular freekin riot, catshooter. You're a pathetically egotistical curmudgeon who lives to magnify himself by belittling others from behind a keyboard and little else.
I've provided references supporting the existence of over stabilization---increasingly credible ones at that---and all you can do is insult? You have a background in academia (supposedly), and you can't produce a reference that supports your assertions? You've insisted that ALL stabilized bullets fly as depicted in the Ninsteil graphic showing overstabilization I posted months ago. I've supplied proof that this is recognized by those in the military who actually fire artillery as OVERSTABILIZATION. Its real whether you have the capacity to comprehend it or not.
If there's any participant who does not understand physics, sir, it would be YOU. A simple fellow with a only a Bachelors gets this stuff and you don't??? I think you DO but your ego is just too big for you to manage.
I think you ought to just stick to eye exams or whatever the [beeep] it is you DO know.
You need to understand something that so far you do not understand - you can not have a discussion about something that YOU do not understand, by scrounging around the internet like a rat, trying to prove something that you don't understand. You don't even understand the link you posted.
When you (that's Y-O-U) get the language down right, and understand enough physics (particularly Newtons first and second laws) to continue this conversation, and stop depending on links that you do not understand... then let me know that you have grown up and are ready to talk like a grown-up, instead of some dumb kid with an ego problem.
Conversations are not made of links.
Just like you schooled me on the chemistry of smokeless powders, huh? You're a regular freekin riot, catshooter. You're a pathetically egotistical curmudgeon who lives to magnify himself by belittling others from behind a keyboard and little else.
I've provided references supporting the existence of over stabilization---increasingly credible ones at that---and all you can do is insult? You have a background in academia (supposedly), and you can't produce a reference that supports your assertions? You've insisted that ALL stabilized bullets fly as depicted in the Ninsteil graphic showing overstabilization I posted months ago. I've supplied proof that this is recognized by those in the military who actually fire artillery as OVERSTABILIZATION. Its real whether you have the capacity to comprehend it or not.
If there's any participant who does not understand physics, sir, it would be YOU. A simple fellow with a only a Bachelors gets this stuff and you don't??? I think you DO but your ego is just too big for you to manage.
I think you ought to just stick to eye exams or whatever the [beeep] it is you DO know.
RiverRider
New member
Oh, I guess you're right. Catshooter knows far more about ballistics and artillery than the Canadian military. My mistake.
Smokeless
New member
Originally Posted By: RiverRiderOh, I guess you're right. Catshooter knows far more about ballistics and artillery than the Canadian military. My mistake.
Well..... to follow your inter web links, one would find that Canadian artillery shells can "over stabilize". I can find no other object that can be over stabilized. Not bullets, planets, moons or American artillery. Must be a local thing on the northern inter web. Most of your link reads to me as theory mixed with fact. Kinda like someone thinking out loud.
Objects can be over spun. Not over stabilized.
Well..... to follow your inter web links, one would find that Canadian artillery shells can "over stabilize". I can find no other object that can be over stabilized. Not bullets, planets, moons or American artillery. Must be a local thing on the northern inter web. Most of your link reads to me as theory mixed with fact. Kinda like someone thinking out loud.
Objects can be over spun. Not over stabilized.
NorTex250
New member
I've been following this train wreck and I'm no expert in ballistics but I do know I haven't seen cat belittle anyone who didn't beg for it and I think you and the Canadian artillery personnel have about the same experience with ballistics.
Mostly links and books.
Nothing against our fine Canadian members.
Mostly links and books.
Nothing against our fine Canadian members.
midwestpredator
Active member
Originally Posted By: FurhunterOriginally Posted By: SmokelessI may start a new thread......"Tales from the Web".
Chupa could appreciate that.
Just start two of them with the same content but slightly different titles.
Chupa could appreciate that.
Just start two of them with the same content but slightly different titles.
Smokeless
New member
Originally Posted By: FurhunterOriginally Posted By: SmokelessI may start a new thread......"Tales from the Web".
Chupa could appreciate that.
Just start two of them with the same content but slightly different titles.
Even switching between the two, it would be more entertaining and informative than this.
Chupa could appreciate that.
Just start two of them with the same content but slightly different titles.
Even switching between the two, it would be more entertaining and informative than this.
Jack Roberts
Moderator - Deceased
This has gone on enough, done now.
Jack
Jack
- Status