Meanwhile in America

[Okeefenokee]

He's an IT slave, Okie. Don't be harsh on him. He didn't have to take calculus and physics for engineers. If he took those at all, they were the survey course versions.

I definitely did not take any kind of physics, except for electrical.

But I do know that where 2 objects are moving the same speed, the one with more mass will hit harder.

The problem is that kinetic energy is the quantity of mass times velocity squared divided by two ([mv^2]/2). If you increased either of the terms but not the other by 10%, an increase in velocity would result in exponentially more kinetic energy than an increase in mass.

Force (mass times acceleration) represents the initial exertion of energy that put the projectile in motion. It really has no immediate bearing on the impact of the projectile. You have to calculate the velocity of the round at any given point in the round's trajectory to figure out what it will do to a target.

Then you have all kinds of strength of materials issues to calculate..

fuuuuuuck. i was drinking last night. forgot to divide by two. i probably shouldn't work from home.

[SuburbanFarmer]

He's an IT slave, Okie. Don't be harsh on him. He didn't have to take calculus and physics for engineers. If he took those at all, they were the survey course versions.

I definitely did not take any kind of physics, except for electrical.

But I do know that where 2 objects are moving the same speed, the one with more mass will hit harder.

still doesn't mean that mass means as much as velocity.

for fucks sake man.

you said this,

I'm suggesting that the mass of the bullet probably plays a significant role here, as much as the speed.

which is false, and i explained that to you. did hash have you sign a contract preventing you from ever admitting you are wrong?

Uhh ok. I guess you've nailed that pedantic point into the dirt.

TC stated that a gun with lower velocity does more damage than another. I said it probably has to do with the caliber (mass) of the bullet.

Then you launched into an explanation of muzzle velocity, even though the exit speed of the round is an effect of the force applied to the bullet. So, unless guns possess magical properties beyond inspiring idiotic power fantasies, that force applied is directly proportional to the force received at the other end.

More force = more acceleration of the bullet, inversely proportional to the mass of the bullet. And since I'm reasonably sure that guns are made to apply maximum force, within the limits of the materials, we can assume that the force is the same.

But you're an engineer, so you've already got this thought through, right?

[Ex-California]

When the bullet leaves the barrel, its acceleration stops.

Using the equation for force, F = MA, the force is zero. The bullet is in free fall with nothing but inertia to carry it before it hits the ground.

It's kinetic energy which matters then, which is why rail guns exist. Tiny bullet at high speed has more energy than big bullet at low speed.

Which is exactly why a bullet from a gun can cause more damage than a rock being thrown by hand.

[Okeefenokee]

I definitely did not take any kind of physics, except for electrical.

But I do know that where 2 objects are moving the same speed, the one with more mass will hit harder.

still doesn't mean that mass means as much as velocity.

for fucks sake man.

you said this,

I'm suggesting that the mass of the bullet probably plays a significant role here, as much as the speed.

which is false, and i explained that to you. did hash have you sign a contract preventing you from ever admitting you are wrong?

Uhh ok. I guess you've nailed that pedantic point into the dirt.

TC stated that a gun with lower velocity does more damage than another. I said it probably has to do with the caliber (mass) of the bullet.

Then you launched into an explanation of muzzle velocity, even though the exit speed of the round is an effect of the force applied to the bullet. So, unless guns possess magical properties beyond inspiring idiotic power fantasies, that force applied is directly proportional to the force received at the other end.

More force = more acceleration of the bullet, inversely proportional to the mass of the bullet. And since I'm reasonably sure that guns are made to apply maximum force, within the limits of the materials, we can assume that the force is the same.

But you're an engineer, so you've already got this thought through, right?

how much did hash pay you to never admit you don't know what you're talking about?

and TC is IT too.

the force in the gun doesn't change the mass. it changes the velocity.

because it's the velocity that matters more

for the fifteenth fucking time.

[SuburbanFarmer]

still doesn't mean that mass means as much as velocity.

for fucks sake man.

you said this,



which is false, and i explained that to you. did hash have you sign a contract preventing you from ever admitting you are wrong?

Uhh ok. I guess you've nailed that pedantic point into the dirt.

TC stated that a gun with lower velocity does more damage than another. I said it probably has to do with the caliber (mass) of the bullet.

Then you launched into an explanation of muzzle velocity, even though the exit speed of the round is an effect of the force applied to the bullet. So, unless guns possess magical properties beyond inspiring idiotic power fantasies, that force applied is directly proportional to the force received at the other end.

More force = more acceleration of the bullet, inversely proportional to the mass of the bullet. And since I'm reasonably sure that guns are made to apply maximum force, within the limits of the materials, we can assume that the force is the same.

But you're an engineer, so you've already got this thought through, right?

how much did hash pay you to never admit you don't know what you're talking about?

and TC is IT too.

the force in the gun doesn't change the mass. it changes the velocity.

because it's the velocity that matters more

for the fifteenth fucking time.

I admitted from the beginning that I'm not expert on guns, but since
You feel the need to make an issue of it, and I'm bored to shit....

We can assume that the total force applied will be the same between most guns, correct? It's limited by the steel and such used to make the barrel, and one does not simply sell weaker guns in America.

Therefore, the only difference between the hitting power of the gun would be the size of the round (and barrel). We can expect some variance in force with different calibers, as a larger tube might withstand less total force applied, but they probably don't vary that much.


Obviously, you could make the barrel thicker, but that probably doesn't work great with small arms.

So, total force being equal, and assuming that TC is correct that a gun with a lower muzzle velocity hits harder than one with a higher velocity, then the only variable left is the mass of the bullet.

Because again, muzzle velocity is the effect of the force applied to accelerate the round. F=MA has just as much to do with the guns power as the velocity.

[Smitty-48]

With the .50 cal pistol round (12.7x41mm), there are different slugs, but they weigh roughly in the 300gr range, with the .50 cal machinegun round (12.7x99mm) the weight is about double that, 600gr range, the pistol slugs deliver 3000-3500 joules, the machinegun round slugs; 13000+ joules, the velocity is about twice as fast with the machinegun rounds.

.50 cal pistol; 300gr; 1500 ft/s; 3500J

.50 cal machinegun; 600gr; 3000 ft/s; 13000J

[Speaker to Animals]

Smitty, does coriolus effect play into long range shots? I.e., do you have to compensate for it when shooting moreeast or west than north and south?

[Smitty-48]

Smitty, does coriolus effect play into long range shots? I.e., do you have to compensate for it when shooting moreeast or west than north and south?

Yep, definitely, rotation of the earth gets fed into the equation.

The primary technological advantage now, is the dedicated ballistic calculator, the rifles haven't changed much, the scopes are pretty much the same, the key upgrade now, is speed, what you used to have to do on paper, you can now just feed into the computer with a dedicated application.

[Smitty-48]

Should note tho; can't speak for the Americans, but on the Canadian Sniper Course, they make you do everything analogue, to ensure that you can execute the mission without the kit, before they let you start using the kit, to wit, you can still fail the course on judging distance, laser rangefinders can't save you.

They basically run an analogue sniper course, with a mini course within the course on how to use the aids to speed up the process, and on the FTX, you will have to execute both with and without.

[The Conservative]

still doesn't mean that mass means as much as velocity.

for fucks sake man.

you said this,



which is false, and i explained that to you. did hash have you sign a contract preventing you from ever admitting you are wrong?

Uhh ok. I guess you've nailed that pedantic point into the dirt.

TC stated that a gun with lower velocity does more damage than another. I said it probably has to do with the caliber (mass) of the bullet.

Then you launched into an explanation of muzzle velocity, even though the exit speed of the round is an effect of the force applied to the bullet. So, unless guns possess magical properties beyond inspiring idiotic power fantasies, that force applied is directly proportional to the force received at the other end.

More force = more acceleration of the bullet, inversely proportional to the mass of the bullet. And since I'm reasonably sure that guns are made to apply maximum force, within the limits of the materials, we can assume that the force is the same.

But you're an engineer, so you've already got this thought through, right?

how much did hash pay you to never admit you don't know what you're talking about?

and TC is IT too.

the force in the gun doesn't change the mass. it changes the velocity.

because it's the velocity that matters more now much grain of gunpowder in each shell casing.

for the fifteenth fucking time.

Yeah, I'm IT, except not so much any more. I'm a Director of IT and Infrastructure.

I've done my time in the fields and trenches.

On bullet point with velocity/weight/damage ratios, the difference is force between bullets are not equal, force is dependent of grain of gunpowder grain count, mass of the bullet itself and the shape, and depending in accuracy, the length of the barrel.

But if we are looking at straight force, we need to take a few things into consideration.

1. Distance to the target or are we measuring straight from the end of the barrel.

2. Grain count of gunpowder.

3. Length of the barrel since there is actually a distance in where maximum force is achieved. Too long and you loose force, too short and you don't allow enough force for maximum impact ability because you don't allow all the gunpowder to burn.

4. Weight and shape of the bullet. This if anything is most important because this will adjust 1-3 one way or another.

There are a lot of variances on how to answer this. The only way you could is if you get the shape and weight of the actual bullet equal, as well as barrel length, can we actually talk force ratios for the baseline would be equal.

The difference between the two would be grain count of gunpowder, which would truly dictate the bullet force.

If that makes any sense.

And mass only changes the closer you get to the speed of light, which we aren't even close to doing, so that's a moot point. Or the bullet hits something.