What Deer Calibre For First Deer Rifle.

[Born Hunter 17,783]

 

The effects of gravity are the same whether you have a ballistic house brick or a pee shooter.

 

If a large calibre/high energy round ricochets it's generally more dangerous than a small calibre/low energy round. The risk of ricochet though is a different matter.

 

The Home Office are just playing a numbers game. The less people with high power firearms the less chance of accidents. There's nothing logical or fair about it. As far as I'm concerned if someone is considered safe with a rimmy then they are safe with a CF. f**k all the pre-req's and just introduce a simple safe handling certificate and let everybody that has been vetted and passed the safe handling course have whatever they want.

 

 

Not strictly true. Gravity is a constant, but a heavier round with more drag will drop quicker.

 

However, the a heavier round is also probably in many instances a fired from a more powerful cartridge and thus whilst it has more drag and so sheds energy faster, it also carriers more velocity and energy to start with and so takes longer to shed that energy and so flies further. That's why a .223 travels further than a .22 LR despite gravity being a constant.

 

 

 

In the context it was intended, it IS strictly true. The comment was quite clearly directed at Hydro's "...as is the resistance from gravity and air of the larger projectile versus the smaller." which seemed to imply the effects of gravity differ depending on the size of the projectile. It was just ambiguous wording, which we cleared up very amicably.

 

The weight of a projectile has little bearing on it's drag (it will however effect the rate of deceleration via the ballistic coefficient), that is not what causes it to drop more quickly! In fact most projectiles we deal with will drop at almost exactly the same rate. Drop a 22 with a 30 and tell me if there is any difference in the time it takes them to hit the ground... Yes, I'm well aware that in the presence of air there will be a measurable difference depending on both objects vertical axis ballistic coefficients (assuming they are not equal) but in the real word it's f**k all significant.

 

For all intents and purposes the drop we deal with is solely a function of time in flight. The only way bullet weight effects this is through improving or worsening the ballistic coefficient. ie a heavier bullet is ballistically superior to a lighter bullet, not the other way around as you seem to say! This of course assumes all other things are equal, most importantly, muzzle velocity, however we know that for the same cartridge, an increase in bullet weight will cause a drop in muzzle velocity. This is partly caused by conservation of energy laws. This is possibly where you have the false impression that weight has caused increased drag and so increased drop.... it hasn't. The increase in time of flight has caused the increase in drop, which has been caused by the reduced muzzle velocity.

 

If you doubt any of this, I can quote the Ballistic Coefficient and Drag Coefficient equations and you can show me where DC is in any way dependant on mass and BC is inversely proportional to mass...... neither is true.

 

Edited June 22, 2015 by Born Hunter

[Deker 3,478]

 

This should be interesting alsone given born hunter is a physicist I would be shocked if he needed lessons in ballistics from you

 

Definately not then. But equally, I don't think I've said anything that contradicts the laws of physics. If an object in motion carries more energy than a similar object in motion with less energy, then it takes longer to slow down unless the forces of friction are so great as to negate the difference. I'm sure BH can correct me with the correct equation for all of this, but I believe the basic premice is true. If something is travelling faster and has more energy it takes longer to slow down.

 

 

 

This should be interesting alsone given born hunter is a physicist I would be shocked if he needed lessons in ballistics from you

 

 

...and misquoted me!

 

 

Not sure I in any way misquoted you Deker. You Said "There is no such thing, there is only a shot where all reasonable care/precautions have been taken. A safe shot is a safe shot until something goes wrong" and I said

 

"I agree with........Dekers a couple above that a safe shot is a safe shot, with the one caveat that there's no such thing as absolute safety". Not seeing any misquote there.

 

 

Read the post, don't extract a phrase out of context ...I was responding to a post and a specific comment in it which I highlighted...... A safe shot is a safe

 

I replied by pointing out There is no such thing and went on to say why....

 

I never said a safe shot is a safe shot, quite the opposite.

[Alsone 789]

Deker with the greatest respect, you need to google the word "Caveat" then all will become clear.

[Deker 3,478]

You need to read my post and all will be clear. You miss quoted me, end of. That has nothing to do with caveat.

[Alsone 789]

There's no misquote Deker it's quite clear.

[Deker 3,478]

There's no misquote Deker it's quite clear.

 

You have a very different pair of eyes to me!

[Alsone 789]

Maybe. Substitute "proviso" or "exception" for caveat (the meaning of caveat) and maybe you'll see it differently.

 

What I said in essence, avoiding the word caveat, is that a safe shot is a safe shot with the exception / proviso that there is no such thing as absolute safety.

[SportingShooter 0]

I dare say the original question has long been answered and before long this thread will be a dictionary,

 

I think we can leave it there