- #1
rasanders22
- 8
- 0
or the same speed than if it had a counter-clockwise spin?
It can travel faster slower or at same speed with a non spining bullet.
However if we have two bullets of same speed, one spinning and one non spinning, then the spinning one carries more energy and thus can have more devastating impact on collision with other bodies. Simply put, a spinning bullet behaves not only as a fast moving body but also like a drill.
I think the spinning (rifling) is to help the bullet trace as straight a line as possible as it is less affected by differences in mass, surface and temperature across the bullet. It may help it to cut through the air (in particualr perhaps air currents). One would have thought though, that if the bullet did not spin, it would actually go faster for the same explosive force (as energy would be used to push the bullet only and not to make it spin or overcome the extra drag caused by the rifling in the barrel).
The direction of the spin could make a difference given the direction of the asir currents against it I guess, but as these change (probably several time in a single flight) it would not be a reason to reverse the rifling.
Does a bullet fired with a clockwise spin travel faster or slower...
...or the same speed than if it had a counter-clockwise spin?
The same. Why?
I think it's up to you to suggest "why not?", perhaps.
Isn't the point of the rifling, to give better range? Surely a tumbling bullet would be less aerodynamic and slow down quicker. A ball, of the same mass would be wider and experience more drag than a bullet shaped projectile so a spinning bullet is the best buy.
I wonder whether the gas seal whilst in the barrel is better, too.
But clockwise or counter clockwise? Nah - no difference - unless we are considering the rotation of the Earth . . . . . . ..
And your 'naff' air gun could just have been 'naff' in many ways. Far eastern import when that meant cheap and cheerful - not like today.
Perhaps the galactic rotation should be invoked...
I'm 21, it was brand new top of the line a few years back and anything but "naff" (not a far eastern import for one). The phrase "not like today" doesn't apply to me. I had two, one was a single shot rifle (rifled) and the other was a semi-automatic. The single shot could hit the target perfectly everytime, but the semi-automatic - due to the law surrounding it - wasn't allow to be rifled, and when you shot it you couldn't hit bugger all. When the C02 cartridge ran down you could actually watch the pellets veering off.
Is not the modern profile of a bullet vastly more aerodynamic than a round ball?
would not the bullet have more speed due to less aero drag than the ball and thus have more impact ( is both weighed the same). Or am i a victim of out dated thinking?
That was no air gun - it was a popgun, my boy!!!![]()
It fired a .22 pellet 100 yards and (when on target) could drop a hare in one shot. That's one hell of a "popgun".
Different circumstances call for either maximum momentum or maximum energy. Sometimes a shotgun is what you need.
Sounds quite pokey but totally spoiled by the regulations.
I think it's up to you to suggest "why not?", perhaps.
Isn't the point of the rifling, to give better range? Surely a tumbling bullet would be less aerodynamic and slow down quicker. A ball, of the same mass would be wider and experience more drag than a bullet shaped projectile so a spinning bullet is the best buy.
I wonder whether the gas seal whilst in the barrel is better, too.
but it also causes the bullet to meet less air resistance when traveling.
OK, this has been bothering me for a while and I must ask - why does it encounter less air resistance?
The short answer is it is aerodynamicIf it wasn't spinning, it would be prone to tumbling. Just image throwing a football (US) properly with spin, versus throwing it spinning end over end. The nose of the bullet (or football) sort of pushes the air around it.
I suppose the same reason nails are pointy at the end instead of flat, when you pound it into wood the wood splits at the point of the nail.
The much longer answer.......
http://waterocket.explorer.free.fr/aerodynamics.htm" [Broken]
It's not the spinning, it's that the spinning keeps the bullet straight and hence more aerodynamic. If it didn't spin it would tumble instead of fly straight.
I fully understand that, but that doesn't mean it reduces air resistance.
The air resistance a spinning bullet undergoes is equal to that of a non-spinning bullet. It's not until the bullet is tumbling that this changes. So the gyroscopic forces prevent the tumbling occurring.
However, the air resistance each encounters up to that point is identical. It's only that one reacts and the other is able to resist.
I'm not seeing it as reducing air resistance, more that it has an increased ability to withstand it.
As soon as a non spinning bullet emerges, it will tend to yaw / pitch and that will introduce more drag. I can't imagine that tumbling can take very long to occur. SO, albeit as a consequence of not spinning, the drag will end up much higher so the range will suffer - as well as producing the Magnus effect.
I don't understand your last sentence. You don't "withstand" air resistance (except by using an engine), all you can do is to reduce it by a suitable orientation in flight.
Yes, but people seem to confuse the ability of a small bullet going faster with it's ability to "stop" someone. One of the reasons for hollow point 9mm ammo is to give greater stopping power to the weapon.