Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/9/2003 9:41:17 PM EDT
On the big ammo Q&A page, it says that whether a projectile is yawing or not in the air has nothing to do with how immediately it tumbles and fragments in the body. I don't understand how this could be so. I understand that the amount of friction that air and flesh create on projectile rotation speed is incomparable, but, doesn't it seem plausable that a more highly stabalized projectile is going to take at least a few more centimeters to tumble and then break???
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 6:52:19 AM EDT
There's no relationship between rotational stability and the bullet yawing when it hits a denser medium. I have some articles by Dr. Fackler coming on line within the next day or so which will give you enough reading material to keep you busy and should answer your question more fully.
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 7:34:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By strongmad: doesn't it seem plausable that a more highly stabalized projectile is going to take at least a few more centimeters to tumble and then break???
View Quote
You will never stabilize that projectile enough to make a difference. You need to have a REALLY high spin to stabilize it. Here is another twist. According to Honady the 75gr TAP round actually works a little better (extended fragmentation range) with more spin (and more stabilization). Hows that for a contradiction?
Link Posted: 7/14/2003 7:41:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Forest:
Originally Posted By strongmad: doesn't it seem plausable that a more highly stabalized projectile is going to take at least a few more centimeters to tumble and then break???
View Quote
You will never stabilize that projectile enough to make a difference. You need to have a REALLY high spin to stabilize it. Here is another twist. According to Honady the 75gr TAP round actually works a little better (extended fragmentation range) with more spin (and more stabilization). Hows that for a contradiction?
View Quote
I think that is because with more stability the rounds maintain more forward velocity over longer ranges. (Angle of attack remains closer to 0 and therefore less wind resistance).
Link Posted: 7/14/2003 10:19:39 AM EDT
Yep. It's sad but even today you still hear gazillions of people making reference to how the 1/12 twist M16's created more severe wounds than current 1/7 twists. I guess old habits (and stories) really are hard to break. What is for sure is that a 1/7 twist isn't sufficient to stabilize a projectile to the point as to prevent it from yawing/tumbling. In order to do that it would require something on the order of 1/1 twist or faster....and even then I'm not sure it would work. -Charging Handle
Link Posted: 7/14/2003 10:27:39 AM EDT
I read somewhere that in order to stabilize a bullet in flesh a barrel would need close to 20 turns [i]per inch[/i]!
Link Posted: 7/14/2003 12:46:57 PM EDT
I wouldn't doubt that statement at all Torf. Imagine the spin you could put on a bullet with that sorta twist rate! [:D]
Top Top