# Firearm Myths Vs. Facts.



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

These are some of the Myths I keep hearing over and over.
The firearms equivalent of 'Old Wives Tales'.

Myth: The bullet 'Speeds Up' after it leaves the barrel.

Fact: The bullet will never move faster than when it exits the barrel.
Without pressure behind the bullet, and with resistance to air, the bullet starts to slow the microsecond it leaves the barrel,
And continues to slow with air resistance.

Myth: Short barrels are less 'Accurate'.
Fact: The accuracy of the BARREL ONLY depends on rifling, chambering, and strightness.
Length isn't a factor.

LONGER BARRELS WITH IRON SIGHTS ARE MORE ACCURATE BECAUSE OF SIGHT RADIUS LENGTH.
More distance between front & rear sights will give better accuracy.

With magnified optics mounted on the receiver, there is no difference in accuracy between 'short' & 'long' barrels.

BALLISTIC (BULLET) DROP will change with barrel length.
Typically, longer barrels will produce more muzzle velocity, meaning the bullet will move faster/drop less at any given distance.

Myth: Distance (Bullet Drop) indicators/graduations work on all calibers, barrel length & ammo.
Fact: bullet drop compensation graduations, no matter if its 'Hash' marks on iron sights, or range/drop lines in an optic,
They are ALL dependent on a SPECIFIC muzzle velocity, bullet weight, and bullet air friction efficiency.

Short barrels typically produce less muzzle velocity with 'Standard' ammo,
Slower bullets will drop faster than the graduations.

The same is true with heavier bullets that typically don't reach the muzzle velocity the sight is calibrated for.

The same is also true for bullet shapes that don't cut the air resistance as well, they slow faster, and the bullet won't match the drop compensation marks on/in the sights.

Myth: The larger/heavier the bullet, the more effective it is.
Fact: Bullets are are designed for SPECIFIC applications, and VELOCITY is the largest factor in effectiveness.

Smaller, much faster bullets can do as much, or more damage as big, heavy but SLOW rounds.
Varmint hunters know what a very small, light weight bullet traveling fast will do!
The penetration factor is depending on the construction of the bullet, 
Damage is dependent on the velocity with common bullets.

Myth: There is no such thing as an 'Accurate' rifle off the shelf.
Fact: 99% of the rifles off the shelf are more accurate than the guy behind them.
There ARE some cases of a 'Bad' rifle getting out of the factory,
But CNC machining and automated QC have made most common off the shelf firearms very accurate off the shelf.

Now, the firearm NOT FITTING the shooter is a HUGE ISSUE!
There is no QC on humans, so there are no 'Standard Shooters',
And an uncomfortable, non-fitting firearm will NOT shoot accurately FOR THAT USER.
(The next guy might come along and do much better with the firearm simply because it FITS THEM)

Myth: Gunsmith/tuning is a waste of time on a 'Hunting' rifle.
Fact: Getting the chamber, muzzle crown, headspacing EXACTLY RIGHT will improve accuracy/consistency of any firearm,
Getting the firearm to FIT YOU will increase accuracy, target acquisition.
Faster, natural fittment means faster, more accurate shots, less wounding of game animals, less missing/more meat on the table,

And often, less fatigue at the end of the day...
Remember, use includes CARRYING the firearm, the more comfortable the carry, the less fatigued you are when you shoot, the greater chance of success.

Myth: Cheap (low cost) sights, optics, mounts & rings are 'Just As Accurate' as the higher dollar cost stuff today.
Fact: The 'Cheap' optics have come a long way,
But there is no substitute for high quality optics. PERIOD.
The out of patent designs that are 'Knock Offs' of OLDER high quality optics simply don't have the QC in materials & workmanship.

The difference between 'Cheap' rings & mounts, and high quality rings & mounts is night and day!
90% or more of optic problems are the mounts/rings!
There is no substitute for solid rings/mounts if you intend the sights to shoot stright.

Alignment of the barrel with the receiver is critical,
So is aligning the mounts/rings with the same receiver.
The receiver is the common part for barrel and optics, BOTH have to be square/true with the receiver if you ever intend to shoot ACCURATELY at more than one fixed range.

Feel free to clear up any other myths!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Now, the firearm NOT FITTING the shooter is a HUGE ISSUE!
There is no QC on humans, so there are no 'Standard Shooters',
And an uncomfortable, non-fitting firearm will NOT shoot accurately FOR THAT USER.
(The next guy might come along and do much better with the firearm simply because it FITS THEM)


My favorite one and a reason to have multi guns in a household. Guns need to fit the person and the task. That could mean at least two per household and that can add up.


Kid goes to college guns stay home and over time in the future some old man is made out to be a gun crazy old guy living alone with an arsenal of 12 guns... ( large families here)


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Nice original post.......

Only little tiny thingie that I would add is that the bullet reaches top speed/velocity when all the propellant is burned or the bullet has departed the confines of the barrel, even if the bullet is only 3/4 down the barrel, because of drag once the power is spent.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Kasil, thats not _exactly_ what I had in mind, but you are DEAD RIGHT!

I 'Accumulate' firearms...
Handed down, I didn't pick them or ask for them, but I wound up with them,
and being 'Family' that has passed, I don't feel right about ditching them.
Stupid, I know, they are just metal and wood, in all kinds of conditions, but I keep them anyway.

The second group is firearms that got dropped off for gunsmith work and never claimed.
If a guy can't pay the bill, I won't gouge them, crap happens... Layoffs, emergencies, ect,
I ask them if they 'Intend' to recover the firearms, if so, I store them usually at little or no charge until they get back on their feet...
Sometimes they show back up, sometimes not...

If it's just 'Do Dads & Add Ons', I simply remove my investment and give the firearm back, sell the stuff to someone else that wants it.

If it's smith work/time, I give them the option to wait, or to hand the firearm over to a dealer that will pay me what's owed, then give them what's left over.

You would not believe the stuff that gets left here for YEARS and no one calls back or shows up...

The third group is the ones I like to look at,
Brass frames, 'Cowboy Guns', unusual/quirky stuff I just like looking at.
Again, usually so damaged or obsolete there is no earthly use for them, but I think they are just cool.
No rhyme or reason, so it's not a 'Collection', just an accumulation.

The fourth group is working firearms I currently use when I have time,
and the 'Little Womans' firearms, the ones she uses occasionally.

Combined, I'm the old crazy gun 'Hoarder' that lives WAY out in the woods...

Funny, I have just as many hand grinders,... grain, meat, cherry pitters, apple peelers, ect as there are firearms around here,
They never call me the antique hand grinder hoarder...


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

I asked for other examples of Myths, not defending a Myth.




Sourdough said:


> Nice original post.......
> 
> Only little tiny thingie that I would add is that the bullet reaches top speed/velocity when all the propellant is burned or the bullet has departed the confines of the barrel, even if the bullet is only 3/4 down the barrel, because of drag once the power is spent.


By your use of the word 'Powder' I have to assume you mean COMMON firearms, using gunpowder as base propellant?
Is this correct?
Considering the left turn and tangents that posts on this forum have taken, I just want to clear that up,
You aren't talking about chemical propulsion 'Guns' in space,
Ion 'Guns' in electronics,
Some freaky thing invented by the CIA, KGB or some little known/unknown inventor? 
Anything like that going on here?

------------------------

This is about COMMON, COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE FIREARMS THAT USE COMMONLY AVAILABLE CARTRIDGES CONTAINING GUNPOWDER.
SO,
With disclaimers in place...

-----

Pressure is a function of heat expansion, not propellant burning.
Burning (oxidation) is a chemical reaction, an exothermic reaction (produces heat when the chemical process is under way),
The HEAT expands gasses, not the actual oxidation process.

When SMALL QUANTITIES of powder combusts in open air, heat dissipates very quickly, and pressure is NOT built up since there is also no containment.
A firecracker can't 'POP' without containment, even though the powder in them burns several dozen times faster than firearm powder.
Without heat there is no expansion, and without containment there is no pressure....
No matter what the burn rate or REASONABLE quantity of powder.

----

Even after the powder has oxidized, the heat remains, produces expansion, and the containment of the barrel causes that expansion to build pressure.


Pressure is a function of VOLUME, 
The greater the volume anything takes up in a given space,
The higher the pressure will rise.

Doesn't matter if it's a pump putting more volume into the same confined, limited space, as in an air compressor/tank,
Or hydraulic pump putting more volume into the same limited volume lines/cylinder,
Or an exothermic chemical reaction creating heat expansion, the rules are the same.

The thermal reaction expanding the gasses will continue after the initial reaction that created the heat has stopped.

SO,
Unless the barrel is so stupid long the gasses cool enough to CONTRACT, the bullet will continue to maintain or pick up speed.

*IF*, as you suggest, the pressure had dropped to a point that barrel friction was causing a slow down of the bullet,
There wouldn't be a muzzle flash or muzzle blast.

I can't think of one single firearm that has ZERO muzzle flash, so there is still powder burning, which renders the argument moot.
We won't even get into the muzzle blast which requires pressures well in excess of the speed of sound when it decompresses at the muzzle.

Even heavily suppressed firearms are easily seen on Infra Red equipment from the super heated stream of gasses exiting the suppressor.
A suppressor will hid muzzle flash and muzzle blast, but you can't hid the super heated gas signature, one reason the military has gone from light amplification night vision/weapons sights to thermal night vision/weapons sights.

-----------

The next 'Proof' would be 'Common Sense'...
Through the evolution of the firearms, I can't think of ANY maker that would use a powder charge so reduced, or a barrel so long that bullet velocity would actually reduce due to internal ballistics.
The entire idea of a bullet is to propel the bullet as fast as is possible for any given parameters of ammunition size/volume,
and in fact, barrels are swinging towards a trend of getting so short they don't produce maximum efficiency/velocity of a given round of ammunition.

Limiting velocity by too short of a barrel is as big of a step backwards as limiting velocity by too long of a barrel...
Form follows function, not the other way around,
Optimum efficiency depends on velocity, So limiting velocity in any way is counter productive.

------------


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

part of the big heavy bullets work better vs lighter faster was a bullet was a technology issue , in the past bullets weren't bonded , and construction was little more than a copper foil over a cast lead core at higher speeds the bullets would fragment rapidly sometimes giving insufficient penetration on game making it heavier and thus slower from the same cartridge would keep it under the point where it would fragment and it could give deep penetration 

another part of it was ballistic coefficient heavy for diameter bullets tend to have a higher BC 
a heavier bullet with higher BC if it has the energy in the first place can carry it to the target as it has less surface area to air for the weight 

another thing was when they go trans sonic , falling below the speed of sound causes disturbance a heavier bullet is less likely to be moved by the change in surface resistance than a lighter bullet provided it is heavy for bore and not just heavy, the newtons law thing

if a 55gr .223 bullet is going 2800fps at the muzzle and a 150gr .308 bullet is moving 2800fps at the the 150gr bullet starts with and ends with more energy unless the BC is so different that the energy savings from the slower lighter round is great enough and the energy loss of the larger heavier bullet is great enough.

we see this in things like a 30-06 150gr bullet going 2750fps and a 139gr 6.5x55 that started at 2600fps some where about 300 yards the savings in energy that the much higher BC of the 6.5 heavy for bore bullet has it actually going faster than the .308 bullet that is heavier and started moving faster but not because one started going faster but because one slowed down that much less than the other.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Sorry but you are wrong, a most extreme example if I fire CB cartridges in my 28.5" barreled CZ-452 "ULTRA-LUX" about half of then will not exit the muzzle. It is a provable fact that after the power is spent, the drag of the rifling slows the bullet. If I fire sub-sonic .22 rimfire ammo it will exit slower from my 28.5" barrel that from my 16" barrel, because all of the power is spent in 8". This is why when reloading you work with different burn rate powers to achieve best results for a "SPECIFIC" bullet and "SPECIFIC" barrel length.

With the 5.56X45 chambered rifle, firing a the XM-855 62 gr. cartridge, it will exit slow from a 24" barrel than a 20" barrel. All of this is simply the reverse of the ballistic of a so-called "Over-Bore". Which is the case with nearly all magnum cartridges.







JeepHammer said:


> Pressure is a function of heat expansion, not propellant burning.
> Unless the barrel is so stupid long the gasses cool enough to CONTRACT, the bullet will continue to pick up speed.
> 
> *IF*, as you suggest, the pressure had dropped to a point that barrel friction was causing a slow down of the bullet,
> ...


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Pressure is a function of heat expansion, not propellant burning.
> Unless the barrel is so stupid long the gasses cool enough to CONTRACT, the bullet will continue to pick up speed..


we do know that 45acp with fast burning powders do suffer from longer barrels they often actually are faster from a 12 inch barrel than from a 16 inch barrel, it isn't that the gasses are not still expanding it is that they are not expanding enough to be a greater force than barrel friction.

but this is a small acceptation and most rounds have sufficient powder burn time to continue accelerating in any reasonable length barrel


----------



## Silvercreek Farmer (Oct 13, 2005)

Fact: A little hole in the right place is much better than a big hole in the wrong place.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by JeepHammer View Post
> Pressure is a function of heat expansion, not propellant burning.
> Unless the barrel is so stupid long the gasses cool enough to CONTRACT, the bullet will continue to pick up speed


Once again you've succeeded in convincing me you really don't know nearly as much as you think you do


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

now for a Myth 

Myth "Muzzle loaders don't go as far as rifles or shotguns "

this could be the case , if you were limiting people to patched round ball but many states are not , specifically Wisconsin , that has some Muzzle loader and Archery only restricted hunt areas because "it's safer" than having rifles or shotguns with slugs.
black powder long range competitions are held out to 900 meters.

what muzzle loading does is reduce the number of people willing to put forth the effort and give them one shot in most cases so that have to make it count.

but for 100+ yard accuracy my I have a muzzle loader that will definitely out shoot my slug gun , they wear the exact same optic 

second myth
"Shotgun slugs are down in the dirt by 200 yards "
going along with the myth about distance and safety people frequently believed because most rifled slugs had lost all accuracy not to far beyond 100-125 yards that they were then in the dirt shortly after that , while they do loose energy fairly quickly once they begin tumbling or fall sub sonic this often happens around the same time , then there is the rifled slug , people often believe that since it is a slug fired from a shotgun and because they feel that the range of a shotgun or their shooting ability leads them to believe that they can't hit anything past 150 yards they thing that slug is in the ground not to far after that , but a miss over the back of a deer can with a rifled barrel and saboted slug be well over 400 yards to the dirt and they retain significant energy more than 1000 fp at 200 yards 

talking with the deputies in my county they said they had a reduction in reports of cars, trucks and outbuildings being shot since the statre went to Rifle except by local ordinance ,because people believe a rifle is capable of a mile and took more care , where as they believed a shotgun slug was down well before it could reach across that field


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

One that makes me laugh is when the news reports a "heavily armed" person was stopped or found to have a few hundred or thousand rounds of something.

My kids have gone to a few cabela's with their grandfather to shop and look at ammo.

They laugh now at the little stories where "so and so had x,y,z # of rounds of x,y,z confiscated."

My boys will chime in sometimes with something like, "what is that like a,b,c number of boxes? Hey ma, we could toss that in your purse without you even having to take anything out. And, the reporter's thinking their reporting the equivalent for 16,000 lbs of meth being seized in a truck at the border. Whatever."


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

OK, another thread completely derailed...

Penetration is a function of weight, velocity & and cross sectional density, with the assumption we are talking the same target material in all cases.

Here is where we loose 99% of anyone reading...

Mass (weight) X Velocity (at the target, not muzzle velocity) = energy delivered to the target.
MxV=E

The penetration depends on Energy & Cross Sectional Density.
Terminal Ballistics.
How the bullet expends the energy INSIDE the target.

Softer materials will 'Mushroom' creating more energy expended in the target,
While harder materials will sail right through and waste energy PAST the target.

Design of the bullet (material density integrity) will determine 'Terminal' ballistics,
Fragment, Mushroom, or retain a point and exit the target.

If you don't have ENERGY in the first place, the bullet doesn't do much of anything...

--------

At what point did you guys NOT learn to read?
I wrote the bullet will never move faster than when it EXITS THE MUZZLE.
Bullets DO NOT pick up speed once they exit the barrel.

Now I'm sure some nit wit will bring up gyro jet bullets, rockets, ect,
Those are NOT common firearms...

-------

Now, the CHEMICAL REACTION COMMONLY CALLED 'COMBUSTION' IS AN OXIDATION PROCESS.

The chemical process DOES NOT directly drive the bullet.

With the exception of residual carbon, everything in 'Gun Powder' is reactive with oxygen.
If allowed to sit long enough in a high oxygen enviornment, all the components will oxidize WITHOUT producing any COMMONLY measureable pressure,
And will leave little or no trace behind...

Add an ignition source (Energy) to the mix, and the reaction happens much faster/more violently,
Producing an violent exothermic reaction.

Exothermic means HEAT...

Heat expansion of gasses are contained by the chamber, bullet, and once the bullet starts to move, the chamber & barrel is the containment vessel...
The bullet is the 'Piston',
And just like in an engine, its the heat expansion that drives the piston down the bore.

Since 'Gun Powder' is self oxidizing, it simply doesn't require outside oxygen for the process, unlike an internal combustion engine.

HEAT is energy, exciting the gas molecules onto wider spacing, creating the VOLUME that when contained in a pressure vessel creates pressure.

Pressure is a function of VOLUME,
You simply can NOT CREATE PRESSURE WITHOUT INCREASING VOLUME IN A CONFINED SPACE.

This is simple physics 101... 
But observed effects sometimes don't show you the process that created them...

Some examples,
Air compressors work by pushing more VOLUME into a confined space to build pressure.

Hydraulic systems work by pushing VOLUME into a confined space creating pressure.

These are mechanical examples,

A thermal expansion example would be steam,
Heated water (Heat = Energy) imparted to water creates steam,
Water molecules are excited by the added THERMAL energy and expand to roughly 1,700 times their VOLUME...

The MASS hasn't changed, its still the same amount/weight of water,
Yet it takes up 1,700 times as much space.

Contain that VOLUME EXPANSION in a closed vessel, and you build EXTREME PRESSURE.

That's why we call them 'Pressure Vessels',
They are, by design, containment for VOLUME TO BUILD PRESSURE.

Notice I didn't write 'COMPRESSION'...
Compression is a MECHANICAL function, not a thermal expansion function...


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

You guys are EXHAUSTING!
You can't stay on topic, and no matter what disclaimers, you all INSIST on taking right angle tangents...

Sourdough, 
Why in the world would you use a cartridge NOT recommended for the firearm you are trying to shoot it through,
If for no other reason than safety?
Bullets NOT intended for the firearm are NOT COMMON, and in no way can be used as an 'EXAMPLE OF COMMON FIREARMS' when you are actually plugging the barrel!

I guess by that reasoning I could say I left the powder out of a cartridge and say it was because squibs are 'Common'...

Commonly available means just that,
SAAMI specification ammunition for the sake of argument,
And the proper ammunition for the COMMON firearm.

-------

Pete,
The example of using super fast burning powder intended for increasingly stupid short handgun barrels,
Hand loading that powder into cases, 
The. DELIBRATELY sticking that powder optimized for short barrels into carbine length barrels is hardly 'Common'...

My favorite 'Super Hot' powder says right on the web site its 'Optimized' for 8" barrels or less,
And we wouldn't need it at all if the current crop of stupid short barrel pistols didnt powder burn your knuckles with actual 'Common' ammo...

I'm not crazy about 1" or 2" large bore barrels,
I'm even less crazy about powders that just dust the bottom of the cases.
WAY too much potential for disaster with a powder charge that is so small/light you can't determine an overcharge or double charge with common eyeball or charge checkers...

I shoot the super hot/low volume powders, but I don't care much for loading them since no charge bar powder thrower will get consistently in the 'Safe' zone, I have to measure/dump every charge by hand...

Kind of defeats the purpose of having a high volume auto progressive loader, wouldn't you say?

I won't shoot it at all in my sub caliber carbine.
Just entirely too hard on the bolt cycling and no consistancy in muzzle velocity.
The old standby favorites give consistancy, higher muzzle velocity in longer barrels and work/cycle in everything.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Gibbsgirl,
No kidding! A brick of .22 rimfire is a big difference from .308 loaded in magazines!

Its like the 'Estimated' street value they always give,
There is no way an ounce of anything is worth $4 million,
Unless you are talking tyolnol at hospital prices!
The hospital charged me $76 EACH for plain generic tyolnol a while back!

They find an ounce of dope in an 18 wheeler,
Does that mean the dope weighed 80,000 pounds?
Heck of a wrapper!


----------



## MisterG (Jun 29, 2015)

Not following instructions properly or in this case not using the correct components for the intended application is one of the reasons we get myth vs fact. People making it up as they go and making up the facts to vet the process. :smack
If you aren't going to use the correct tools for the job, why are you going to argue that your tools are better for getting the job done.


----------



## MisterG (Jun 29, 2015)

Myth: I know everything, just ask me.
Fact: I learn new things every day.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

A great thread, in theory, but I think it is a little ambitious to try to put all of the misconceptions related to firearms in one place. There are so many of them that the thread could go on for hundreds of pages, but, also, often they are not as black/white as some people would think. Many of the "myths" start with at least a kernel of truth, so some of them can't be "busted" cleanly.

This thread really should have been titled "Myths vs. the World According to JeepHammer's opinions, over-simplification, and misinformation." 

But, for the sake of participation, I'll correct some of the misinformation that JeepHammer has posted above as "fact".



JeepHammer said:


> Myth: The bullet 'Speeds Up' after it leaves the barrel.
> 
> Fact: The bullet will never move faster than when it exits the barrel.
> Without pressure behind the bullet, and with resistance to air, the bullet starts to slow the microsecond it leaves the barrel,
> And continues to slow with air resistance.


Technically, not true. I'd never heard anyone actually claim this, so I wasn't even aware that it was even a _myth_, but it's not entirely factual to say that it slows down the moment it leaves the barrel. As the bullet is leaving the barrel, it encounters a reduction in friction inversely proportional to its contact patch with the barrel, and accelerates. 

Resistance from the air actually decreases slightly outside the barrel, as the bullet is still interacting air inside the barrel, but it is a column of air that has to be compressed in a forward wave, rather than being able to displace it radially.

At the moment the expanding gases meet atmospheric, they undergo a brief acceleration due to the thermal gradient. In that moment when the gases rush out the muzzle, faster than the bullet is travelling, they actually shove the bullet forward to increase vent relief. The change in velocity is likely in the tenths of a FPS, but, since we're dispensing with a question no one ever asked, its worth the time to answer it truthfully: the bullet does have a moment of acceleration (not counting gravity) the moment it leaves the muzzle. THEN it starts to decelerate. 




JeepHammer said:


> Myth: Short barrels are less 'Accurate'.
> Fact: *The accuracy of the BARREL ONLY depends on rifling, chambering, and strightness.
> Length isn't a factor.*
> LONGER BARRELS WITH IRON SIGHTS ARE MORE ACCURATE BECAUSE OF SIGHT RADIUS LENGTH.
> ...


Legitimate myth, non-factual answer.
There are a great many factors that establish the inherent accuracy of a barrel, other than "rifling, chambering, and strightness". Actually, length IS a factor. Straightness is not a factor in that, if the bore is concentric, and all other factors are favorable, and the sighting system is able to reconcile the POA/POI, a bent barrel is no less inherently accurate than a straight one.

Regarding length, a shorter barrel is inherently MORE accurate than a long one. Notwithstanding sight-radius or transonic range, when everything else is equal, a shorter barrel has dampened harmonics compared to a longer one. Within the transonic range of a given load, the shorter and heavier the barrel is, the more accuracy potential it has. 




JeepHammer said:


> Myth: The larger/heavier the bullet, the more effective it is.
> Fact: Bullets are are designed for SPECIFIC applications, and VELOCITY is the largest factor in effectiveness.
> 
> Smaller, much faster bullets can do as much, or more damage as big, heavy but SLOW rounds.
> ...


If everything else were equal, a larger, heavier bullet would be more "effective", but "all things" are rarely equal. You are correct that velocity is a weightier factor, in that velocity is squared in the energy equation. That said, I doubt that anyone knowledgeable in terminal ballistics would disagree that, as Silvercreek so poignantly pointed out, if any one "largest factor in effectiveness", it is definitely shot placement. 

That said, terms like "effectiveness" and "damage" are non-empirical, can be defined in so many ways, and are dependent on so many factors, that trying to make any blanket statements regarding a single factor determining the "effectiveness" or "damage" of a given bullet are, no pun intended, full of holes. 

Penetration is affected by weight and velocity, not JUST construction.

Damage is affected by shot placement, target type, construction, etc., not JUST velocity.

Velocity is only the "largest factor in effectiveness" if your metric of effectiveness is how fast the projectile reaches the target.

Kind of a weak myth to begin with, but "facts" like JH provided actually open the door to many more myths being propagated. 




JeepHammer said:


> Myth: Cheap (low cost) sights, optics, mounts & rings are 'Just As Accurate' as the higher dollar cost stuff today.
> Fact: The 'Cheap' optics have come a long way,
> But there is no substitute for high quality optics. PERIOD.
> The out of patent designs that are 'Knock Offs' of OLDER high quality optics simply don't have the QC in materials & workmanship.
> ...



In this case, we're apparently trying to bust a "myth" with opinions. Opinions do not lose their subjectivity when you hide them after a semi-colon following the tag "Fact". I doubt many would disagree that "good" optics are better than "bad" optics, but good, bad, and indifferent are subjective terms, and there is no empirical determination of quality. 

There are plenty of substitutes for high-quality optics. PERIOD.
Being that high-quality is subjective, one shooter may choose an optic that another shooter considers junk, and have perfectly acceptable results with it. It is far from a given that replacing your Vortex with a Schmidt & Bender will make your rifle perform any differently or any better. 

The comment about the out-of-patent knock-offs adds, with conviction, that those same manufacturers "simply don't the QC in materials and workmanship", as if this is something he would know. They are non-corollary factors. Because a manufacturer makes a copy of someone else's design does not reveal a SINGLE THING about their QC processes. It's certainly possible that a copy-cat manufacturer has no reliable QC process, but it is also possible that a copy-cat mfg. is ISO-cert where the parent designer is not. The whole sentence was meaningless, but, I know, sometimes it's just "fun" to say "things".


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Quote edited to remove insults and ego pumping crap...
Start where there is something to be learned & shared...



> Technically, not true. I'd never heard anyone actually claim this, so I wasn't even aware that it was even a _myth_,


Then you have had your head in the sand for a VERY Long time,
Its been around longer, but hit print in the gun magazines in the 70s.
It gained traction since some moron printed it, reprinted it,
And like your 'Ideas' has found its way to the Internet where anyone can pontificate as an 'Expert' with no idea of what they are talking about...

The first time I saw it in print was about Second Chance body armor.
The owner shot himself with a .44 Maginum at point blank range,
Using a firearm/ammunition supplied by the local police department he was demonstrating the body armor to,
And in a review of that stunt by a so called 'Firearms Expert' (magazine writer, expert of nothing apparently)
Claimed the bullet hadn't reached 'Full Speed' since the muzzle was only a couple of inches from the vest.

That stupid story started the myth nation wide when printed,
And I still hear it at least 4 or 5 times a year.

The last time I heard it was at the machine gun shoot in Kentuckey, when a vender was trying to sell ammo that 'Got Up To Speed "Faster" AFTER it exited the muzzle', claiming his ammo was 'Better' for close range shooting'



> but it's not entirely factual to say that it slows down the moment it leaves the barrel. As the bullet is leaving the barrel, it encounters a reduction in friction inversely proportional to its contact patch with the barrel, and accelerates.


OK, you contest, then PROVE IT!
No, actually invent the equipment to prove your point/claims,
Since current equipment/standards don't exist to measure what you are claiming to be actual fact...

This is how myths get prepuated, guys have some goofy idea they "Think" is right, but haven't the education, skill or equipment to PROVE anything.
They just blow off about what they *THINK* as 'FACT'.

You can PROVE FACTS with repeatable scientific results...

----------

You want to REALLY drill down on this, go from 'Theoretical' ideas you *THINK* might, maybe, possibly happen,
The lets do it!

Here are three things that the 'Therotical' NERD can postulate,
But an actual hands on geek knows...

NERD: As the bullet exits the muzzle, friction stops but propulsion continues.

FACT: As bullet exits barrel, Pressure is released in a hemespherical pattern.
Only a very small amount of pressure follows the bullet.

FACT: High speed photography shows a VORTEX IMMEDATELY behind the bullet,
Vortexes ONLY happen when high pressure from the bullet passing through the air column fills the LOW pressure cell behind the bullet.
Low pressure vortes shows a 'VACUUM' IMMEDATELY BEHIND the bullet,
That pretty much rules out the diluted, RAPIDLY cooling over pressure adding any velocity to the bullet if you can CLEARLY see the air movement around the bullet has overpowered the pressure escaping and created a vacuum behind the bullet...

FACT: The industry and military standards for muzzle velocity are 3" from the barrel muzzle.
High speed photography needs 3" of scale marked behind the bullet to have a large enough sample to determine velocity accurately,
While SCIENTIFIC cronographs need at least 3" from the muzzle to seperated muzzle blast debris from the bullet.

FACT: Civilian chronographs (NON-Scientific Grade) recommend between 10' & 25' from the muzzle to seperate muzzle blast from bullet,
AND YET,
10' to 25' is still accepted as 'Muzzle Velocity'....

*SO, TELL ME AGAIN HOW YOU CAN MEASURE THE 
'INCREASE' IN MUZZLE VELOCITY TO PROVE YOUR THEROY?*

-------



> Resistance from the air actually decreases slightly outside the barrel, as the bullet is still interacting air inside the barrel, but it is a column of air that has to be compressed in a forward wave, rather than being able to displace it radially.


Wrong again...

Air in front of the bullet is INTERNAL BALLISTICS, 
Zero sum total effect on the bullet in the bore,
And the most important FACT you overlooked,
The discussion was about EXTERNAL BALLISTICS, 
*AFTER The bullet exits the barrel.*

Nice try at confusion, but no dice...

'Radial' isn't the correct term either, radial is 2nd dementional,
The correct term for pressure diffusion is 'Global' or 'Hemispherical'.

Pressure doesn't defuse in a 'Raidial' pattern, or you would get an ever expanding smoke ring.

Pressure hits open atmosphere, it defuses 'Globally', in all directions.

You also forgot to mention the thermodynamics involved.
Compressed gasses loose heat rapidly as they expand,
They heat when compressed, shedding energy.
They cool rapidly when released and expand, absorbing thermal energy to expand.
(How your Air Conditioner works, air compressors also)

The thermal energy is quickly disapates at the muzzled by the expansion process,
Taking much of the force out of the muzzle blast, and more rapidly dissapateing muzzle blast pressure.

You really don't get physics...



> At the moment the expanding gases meet atmospheric, they undergo a brief acceleration due to the thermal gradient.


Absloutely crap.
Upon exiting the muzzle?
BEFORE they exit the muzzle, the millisecond the bullet allows access to outside amosphere, the PRESSURE DECREASES!

Pressure is already decreasing BEFORE the bullet exits...
There is still plenty to drive the bullet,
But the BARREL has heated, expanding, allowing leakage past the bullet.

The barrel itself has absorbed as much heat as it can easily transfer, reducing pressure,

THERMAL CONVERSION OF ENERGY, the gasses expanding with contact to atmospheric pressure allows for HUGE energy losses.
Although still 'HOT' to the touch, 
Thermal energy moves at the speed of light,
You are talking about phsyical force pressure,
The thermal energy transfer happens just under the speed of light,
And thermal energy is what's driving the bullet...

You would have to be pretty thick not to get thermal energy transfer is MUCH faster than a 'Gas' column that is a byproduct of that thermal energy.

OR,
You don't understand the physics of what's going on in the slightest,
You see the after effects, and don't understand the causes that produced the effect...



> In that moment when the gases rush out the muzzle, faster than the bullet is travelling,


There it is!
That's the problem right there!

You are *Assuming* the 'Gasses' are the fastest thing going on here!

The thermal energy, HEAT, is the fastest thing moving things here,
And since it moves at roughly the speed of light (some light spectrums move faster than others, while others penetrate deeper, like bullets, something else you fail on the physics of...)
The HEAT, THERMAL ENERGY is the fastest thing moving here,
So fast in fact it doesn't even know the muzzle, bullet or anything else is there...

The THERMAL ENERGY doesn't care about your gas colum, the bullet, or anything else,
Its just looking for the fastest way to equalize with the outside LOW thermal mass.
Thermal energy doesn't care about direction, it travels 'Globally', in all directions at once, and equalizes with atmospheric conditions.

You just don't seem to understand the enourmous energy losses (Thermal) at the muzzle...

I'm out of time currently, but I'll point out where this guy is all wet when I get time later on.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Cool story, bro, but the only thing that you've proved is that you spent more time feeling indignant that someone would question your authoritative opinion than reading and considering what I wrote.

I caveated fully that the post-muzzle acceleration would be marginal, and would end VERY quickly, but the idea is far from theoretical. There IS a moment when the pressure in the barrel is free to atmosphere, but is still higher behind the bullet than the resistance in front of it.

If that was not true, then cylinder-gapped revolvers would not work. If pressure vented _instantaneously_, then the moment the base of the bullet cleared the cylinder gap, it would be stopped by resistance of the air in the barrel, not to mention the resistance of the rifling throat in the forcing cone engraving the bullet. As soon as the gap between the bullet base and the cylinder face reached 0.0000001", the bullet would stop. 

What does that mean, practically, to us as shooters? Not a damned thing.

What does the fact say, that you are so eager to argue against self-evident reality, just because it goes in the face of something you said? Plenty.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> What does that mean, practically, to us as shooters? Not a damned thing.


That sums up this whole thread. 

At the physics level, I'm a low information shooter. I found a gun that fits my hands. I learned to carry concealed and the relevant laws. I took and continue to take a bunch of classes to draw, aim, and shoot smooth, fast, accurately, and safely. I also learned and continue to practice target ID and when not to draw, not to aim, and/or not to shoot. 

The blather that JH wants to argue about just doesn't matter to me. If pressed into a convo, I would probably use a whole lot of vocabulary wrong in reference to powder, combustion, velocity, etc. But none of that changes my tactics, speed, or accuracy.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> ...If pressed into a convo, I would probably use a whole lot of vocabulary wrong in reference to powder, combustion, velocity, etc. But none of that changes my tactics, speed, or accuracy.


That's all good, and the way it should be. Whether you know the terminology or not, you've contributed to threads here before, leaving some knowledge, and taking some with you.

Until recently, this was about the friendliest and laid-back firearms forum you were going to find on the net. The sub-context of being on HT, meant that most discussions were kept to the realm of "practical", and the peeing-matches rarely, if ever occurred. If someone wanted to go down the rabbit-hole and get technical, because of a new rifle or technique they were working on, the conversation went their cordially and informatively. 

Now, though, we got some cat that wants to take us to school, since he seems to think that being experienced with firearms makes him unique here - on a HOMESTEADING forum. 

He's told Bear that he knows nothing about reloading because he doesn't use a cartridge gauge (a bit of equipment MIA on _most_ reloading benches). Every one of us that carries in C1 is a trigger happy, Rambo-wannabe. And he even told GPC he was going to "Educate" him, after he expressed some positive interest in a rifle-caliber pistol.

We no longer discuss things, we either agree with everything JH says, lock, stock and barrel, or we _argue._

The demeanor of this entire forum has changed in the span of just a couple weeks because of one poster.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And like your 'Ideas' has found its way to the Internet where *anyone can pontificate as an 'Expert' with no idea of what they are talking about.*..


That's the first thing I've seen you say with which I agree totally.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Well........I am putting JeepHammer on "IGNORE" as I have had enough of his Bull Spit. If enough of us put him on "IGNORE" he will end-up talking to himself. At this point I simply think he is a boring & annoying troll. He is clearly way more impressed with himself than most members here are.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Jeep wrote,

_*A thermal expansion example would be steam,
Heated water (Heat = Energy) imparted to water creates steam,
Water molecules are excited by the added THERMAL energy and expand to roughly 1,700 times their VOLUME...

The MASS hasn't changed, its still the same amount/weight of water,
Yet it takes up 1,700 times as much space.*

_Good analogy, wrong conclusion. When you heat water you cause it to change phase from a liquid to a gas. The gas takes up many times the volume of the liquid so the pressure will go way up if the water is contained. When you burn gunpowder you convert the solid powder to a gas producing a great increase in volume. If it's contained, the pressure goes way up and drives the bullet down the barrel. Heat is a byproduct.

_*Since 'Gun Powder' is self oxidizing, it simply doesn't require outside oxygen for the process, unlike an internal combustion engine.

*_The oxygen is bound up in the solid gunpowder. When the gunpowder is burned, it produces gasses, nitrogen, CO, CO2, and others. This is what propels the bullet down the barrel.

_*Pressure is a function of heat expansion, not propellant burning.
Burning (oxidation) is a chemical reaction, an exothermic reaction (produces heat when the chemical process is under way),
The HEAT expands gasses, not the actual oxidation process.
*_
If this were true then the only pressure on a bullet would be from the expansion of the air that was in the cartridge. If you heated a cubic centimeter or so of air from room temperature to several thousand degrees it would not expand enough to even get the bullet part way down the barrel. 

Oly and Sven vanted to conduct a scientific experiment. They got a frog, put him on the counter and said yump and the frog yumped 4 feet. They cut off one leg, put the frog on the counter and said yump and the frog yumped 3 feet. Cut off another leg, 2 feet. Cut off the fourth leg and the frog didn't move. From this experiment their conclusion was that "If you cut all 4 legs off a frog, it goes deaf."


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

Sourdough said:


> Well........I am putting JeepHammer on "IGNORE" as I have had enough of his Bull Spit. If enough of us put him on "IGNORE" he will end-up talking to himself. At this point I simply think he is a boring & annoying troll. He is clearly way more impressed with himself than most members here are.


Already did a couple threads ago. I figure if everyone just stops responding, sooner or later he'll find another underside of a bridge to inhabit. Until then I seriously think he believes he's saving us from ourselves......

Next thing you know he'll be attending some ballistics conference where the subject is the use of cartridge gauges cause the FEDS will have taken notice that reloaders aren't using them. 

You cannot make this chit up.......

And Gunmonkey's right, the "tone" of the subforum has changed. It's kind of reminding me of AR15.com

Chuck


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

AR15.com. Nice!
That's where gun guys go to try to prove something only their wives should care about. 

I have an account there (and a bunch of other related forum), but only because my boss wanted my entire team to have them. Since I took over the team, I've never taken the time to tell my guys they can forget them.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

I am guilty of rubber-necking at a car wreck.

I just had to come in here.

JH, you could be a valued member of the community if you could just contain yourself...at least a little.

You do realize we have other folks here with technical training (even advanced degrees) and many decades of experimentation and study in the ballistics realms?

You don't need to try to impress us.


Tim


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Cool story, bro, but the only thing that you've proved is that you spent more time feeling indignant that someone would question your authoritative opinion than reading and considering what I wrote.


I did read what you wrote,
Picked it apart line by line.
Showed it was patently FALSE.



> I caveated fully that the post-muzzle acceleration would be marginal, and would end VERY quickly, but the idea is far from theoretical. There IS a moment when the pressure in the barrel is free to atmosphere, but is still higher behind the bullet than the resistance in front of it.


Prove it.
Simply find ONE credible source, US Military Ballistic study, something of the like.



> If that was not true, then cylinder-gapped revolvers would not work. If pressure vented _instantaneously_, then the moment the base of the bullet cleared the cylinder gap, it would be stopped by resistance of the air in the barrel


Instainously was never mentioned by me,
I said heat travels nearing the speed of light, discounting for atmospheric insulation.

Now, you explain why the 1986 NRA study on firearms lists two muzzle velocities for handgun rounds with exactly the same length barrels,
One velocity for single shot or locking bolt target pistols,
And one for revolvers...
The cylinder gap looses up to 300 FPS in some rounds...

And that loss is while much of the powder is not yet burned.
Thermal expansion isn't anywhere near maximum...





> , not to mention the resistance of the rifling throat in the forcing cone engraving the bullet. As soon as the gap between the bullet base and the cylinder face reached 0.0000001", the bullet would stop.


I wish I could live in your world!
Life would be so easy!

I live in the real world, where unburned powder gets spewed out the cylinder gap where it stains & pits the frame,
I live in a world where the powder charge often exceeds the length of the barrel and creates a muzzle flash in open atmosphere, dissapateing energy at wavelengths so fast they create light, and not much else... 



> What does that mean, practically, to us as shooters? Not a damned thing.


That means you insulted, belittled, and generally called me everything but 'Right' just to entertain yourself and get your post count padded,
Doing nothing but wasting bandwidth and readers time.
What a jerk move....



> What does the fact say, that you are so eager to argue against self-evident reality, just because it goes in the face of something you said? Plenty.


Wow!
You are the one that argued an esoteric point, you just said so yourself one sentance ago!
You are projecting YOUR problems onto me...

Lets face it, you took offense when I suggested safety over the way you like to do things...
And now you will try to argue anything I write.
This is the 7 or 8th thread you have chimed in on with insults, condesending remarks, ect.

Pull up your big boy pants and get over it!
Not everyone is going to agree with you...
If YOU think that makes you better than anyone else,
That's YOUR problem!

--------------

Now that's over, would you like to cover terminal ballistics or problems with import 'China' optics?
No, wait, since I have you a choice between two clearly defined subjects,
Your choice would be 'Oatmeal' or 'Crabgrass' just to be argumentative...

So, terminal ballistics it is!

Now, your comment about 'Target Material',
That shows a utter lack of concept of what firearms were invented, designed, refined to do...

Normally, I don't have to go over this with someone claiming to be an 'Instructor', or even a firearms enthusiast..
I don't want to put it in print since it might be reprinted and used against the firearms owners in general...

1. The purpose of the invention of firearms is strictly killing something living,
Either for food, or to kill an enemy.

2. Firearms are a 'Stand Off Weapon',
To keep the user out of the range of teeth, claws, ect.
The first stand off weapons were sticks & rocks,
Then spears & swords, then bows & arrows, then catapults,
Finally firearms.

3. A firearm doesn't become a 'Weapon' until its used against a living target.
You, and everyone else concerned about 'Gun Rights' should already know this,
And calling firearms 'Guns' or 'Weapons' is working against yourselves.
The same as calling detachable MAGAZINES 'Clips'.
That's a real good way to get stripper clip fed firearms included in the next useless, waste of time 'Ban' on cosmetics/semantics.

4. Ballistics in Firearms come in 3 parts,
Internal Ballistics, before the bullet exits the muzzle,
External Ballistics, the bullet in flight through the air column being effected by gravity,
Terminal ballistics, the mass, velocity, design & metallurgical makeup,
And how those factors make the billet inside of meat & bone.

The idea of a bullet for paper targets, clay pidgeons, steel targets, ect. is a modern invention,
Since target or practice shooting until very recently in human history was just practice for killing something...
So the entire idea of a 'Paper Target' bullet is moronic on face value...

5. Velocity at the target, Velocity = Energy,
Doesn't matter what the muzzle velocity is,
Doesn't matter what the flight velocity was at any time in flight,
The only velocity that matters in TERMINAL BALLISTICS is at the point of contact with the target.

You all seem to have had a hard time with that concept...
If he velocity isn't there at the target, the forward movement has stopped, and no matter how heavy the bullet was,
What design it was,
What velocity it left the muzzle,
If the velocity is ZERO, the bullet is a paper weight.
If the velocity is very low, the bullet is a slap,
If the velocity is a little higher, it starts to punch through, ect.

Terminal ballistics depends on VELOCITY to enter, and kill the target.

6. Low velocity bullets, at the target, use brute force. (Velocity = Energy)
Since there isn't velocity to make the bullet do anything special,
Mass = Weight, and with low velocity, the best you can hope for is a relatively heavy bullet tears or crushes some vital organ or artery, and your 'Target' dies quickly so either it doesn't shoot back,
Or it doesn't run off and you go hungry....



7. High Velocity Bullets, AT THE TARGET, don't just tear a hole,
Then tear a way through the meat/bone...
High velocity bullets do some pretty freaky stuff...

First comes the 'Yaw' in the wound tract.
The nose of the bullet is lighter, the back heavier,
So the nose slows first, the rear comes around, the bullet turns sideways, often curving the wound tract.

A bullet with a soft point will mushroom, creating a much larger tearing/crushing wound channel, expending more of its energy in the flesh.

A bullet with a hollow point can mushroom very quickly, expending more of its energy even quicker,
And sometimes even fragment, creating a branching wound channels (Plural).

8. Everyone cheats.
The Hague Accords, the Genevia Conventions had all countries agreeing to use full metal jacket bullets instead of 'Fragmenting', 'Frangable', 'Hollow Points' and a few other nasty bullets to "relieve undue suffering in humans"
What a joke! A 'Kinder, Gentler' bullet!

A. The agreement was only for declared wars.
Undeclared wars, enemy combatants, ect could all receive any kind of bullet they could send down range.

B. The US developed the 5.56mm round,
Hyper velocity, so the hypersonic shockwave the bullet created in living tissue is does more damage than the actual projectile does.

The 5.56mm round was designed with a cannelure, when entering tissue above 2,800 FPS the bullet yaws violently, breaking the bullet into two pieces, creating two wound channels.

Below 2,700 FPS the bullet usually doesn't break, but it does yaw violently, creating a curving wound channel...

C. The Warsaw Pact countries adopted the 7.62x39mm round.
Full metal jacket hid a hollow nose that allowed the bullet nose to flatten out on impact and cause the same yaw effect and curved wound channel.

When the AK-74 appeared in 1974, firing the 5.45x39mm round, it had much higher velocity, the hollow nose under the jacket, and would also break creating two wound channels.

D. When some states banned hollow point ammunition,
Makers simply filled the hole in the nose with a flexible rubber type substance.
In rifle ammo, they filled the hollow point with a plastic 'Ballistic Tip'.

Everybody cheats...

Now, if you care to disagree, be sure your facts are in order,
And cite your sources, not just what you 'Think'...

Optics coming, out of time again...


----------



## MisterG (Jun 29, 2015)

Wow, I feel like I'm at a tennis match. You can almost feel the love. 

If I put the cross hairs on the intended target at 300 yards and that target goes down. The facts are there's meat in the freezer. The animal doesn't care what caliber the bullet was or how fast it was going.

I do care that I went to the range and verified that the high speed lead injection was going to go where I wanted it to. 

One click is a 1/4 inch at 100 yards if it's manufactured for the ammo I'm using. Not all optics are created equal. Not all high dollar optics are worth what you pay, but most are. Some low cost optics are worth more than what they cost. If it holds zero and the glass is clear it's a good optic.

The facts are simple, no point in getting a migraine over the minute details.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

before I actually have to moderate anything with this mess , locked


----------

