Definitive answers on external ballistics and overstabilization

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RiverRider

New member
During 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.


https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7GjkGJcjRXGU0xBQnFzb1FGVTg&usp=sharing




Click it and wait patiently.
 
There is a ton of information in this manual that I think everyone who's interested will find fascinating. I know what I'll be reading during my lunch breaks for a while.
 
River Rider, From what I read of the referenced manual, it applied to the 105mm Howitzer...Not sure it's relevant to a small bore rifle...Especially since the data is relative to the curvature of the earth...
 
What!!!! The earth isnt flat!!!!!
scared.gif


"Grab your chit Ma were headin to the bunker."
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Widow maker 223What!!!! The earth isnt flat!!!!!
scared.gif


Of course the world is flat. That round earth stuff was espoused by the same folks that say the 5.56 and the .223 are the same.
 
OT, in a practical sense, you are correct since no one is going to elevate their muzzle 30 degrees to try and hit something six miles away. I think this is the point Litz was trying to make, but he fails to state it clearly. However, the reference affirms that a bullet's rotational axis WILL remain almost perfectly parallel to the bullet's path of flight IF it is stabilized properly, even if the muzzle is elevated beyond what we would consider practical. If it is overstabilized then the bullet can "bellyflop" on impact.
 
This is talking about shooting multiple MILES. It is not relative to rifle shooting. If it were, it would be taught in sniper schools.
 
Originally Posted By: venaticOriginally Posted By: Widow maker 223What!!!! The earth isnt flat!!!!!
scared.gif


Of course the world is flat. That round earth stuff was espoused by the same folks that say the 5.56 and the .223 are the same.

Wheew thats comforting.

"Grab ur chit Ma were headed back to the cabin all is well"
 
Originally Posted By: pahntr760This is talking about shooting multiple MILES. It is not relative to rifle shooting. If it were, it would be taught in sniper schools.

Are you sure it's not? I don't know what the maximum elevation angle would be for extreme ranges like 2000 meters, but as sniper weapons and ammo becomes more capable over time it might one day be significant enough to enter into consideration.

Like I said, just because overstabilization may not be an issue to those of us who shoot 400 yards or less does not mean that it does not exist. I have provided authoritative documentation showing that it DOES exist. You can argue whether or not it matters til the cows come home, and I don't care because I am not saying it's something I have to worry about. This is just knowing for the sake of knowing.
 
It does exist and must be considered in artillery. That's all you have shown. Not rifle shooting. You simply will not launch the rifle bullet at the same parameters one considers for miles and miles of artillery range. This does not support rifle over stabilization.
 
Good grief, pahntr, why are you trying to keep an argument alive? You're arguing semantics here. I don't get it. Can't you just accept the science and knowing for the sake of knowing?
 
You created the argument. Now you want to kill it?

I'm just stating the obvious.

The longest recorded sniper kill in history is nearly 3k meters. You think that round belly flopped in? Like I said, it does not apply to any aspect of realistic rifle shooting.

Maybe if I was unicorn hunting and needed a 3 mile shot, it may...
 
Originally Posted By: pahntr760You created the argument. Now you want to kill it?

I'm just stating the obvious.

The longest recorded sniper kill in history is nearly 3k meters. You think that round belly flopped in? Like I said, it does not apply to any aspect of realistic rifle shooting.

Maybe if I was unicorn hunting and needed a 3 mile shot, it may...


You obviously do not understand.

NO, I do NOT think the three kM kill shot bellyflopped in! Know why? Because the bullet was not overstabilized!

Overstabilization is the product of excessive gyroscopic force which overrides the effect of the center of pressures tendency to tip the bullet. It is the product of too fast a twist for the bullet's length. If the gyroscopic force is balanced (i.e. not excessive) with the effect of the center of pressure then the bullet is NOT overstabilized. I am pretty danged sure that the folks who select weapons and ammunition in the military understand this.

On the three kM kill shot, IF the bullet had been overstabilized, then the bullet may well have bellyflopped to the target. It may well have missed the target altogether because a bullet that's not flying nose first will become more unpredictable.



 
Originally Posted By: RiverRiderOriginally Posted By: pahntr760You created the argument. Now you want to kill it?

I'm just stating the obvious.

The longest recorded sniper kill in history is nearly 3k meters. You think that round belly flopped in? Like I said, it does not apply to any aspect of realistic rifle shooting.

Maybe if I was unicorn hunting and needed a 3 mile shot, it may...


You obviously do not understand.

NO, I do NOT think the three kM kill shot bellyflopped in! Know why? Because the bullet was not overstabilized!

Overstabilization is the product of excessive gyroscopic force which overrides the effect of the center of pressures tendency to tip the bullet. It is the product of too fast a twist for the bullet's length. If the gyroscopic force is balanced (i.e. not excessive) with the effect of the center of pressure then the bullet is NOT overstabilized. I am pretty danged sure that the folks who select weapons and ammunition in the military understand this.

On the three kM kill shot, IF the bullet had been overstabilized, then the bullet may well have bellyflopped to the target. It may well have missed the target altogether because a bullet that's not flying nose first will become more unpredictable.



You are using language, phrases and definitions which do not exist in science, physics, or ballistics.

This is mish-mosh.
 
It must such to be proven wrong with an ego as big as yours, Catshooter. You'd think a guy with a PhD could handle the truth, but what do I know?

tt2.gif


Keep on digging and the hole will just get deeper.
 
You posted on a net bulletin board looking for a definitive answer? Lol. What we have hear is a delusional optimist!
 
So you think a over stabilized bullet is going to tumble on impact
crazy.gif


Either its stabilized or its not, if the bullet weight is matched to the twist and velocity is still high enough to keep it stabilized to the intended target whats the problem.
 
LOL. While searching for the reference I finally did locate, I waded through thousands of opinions and guesses. Yes, fact and truth can be elusive on the net. Egotistical posturing and insults are plentiful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top