04 January 2013

Firearm Lethality: Concluding thoughts, for now.

When I started the Firearm Lethality series I wanted to cover a broad range of topics without going too deep into any single one of them.  Most good education programs are like this, getting the big facts and figures straight before delving deeper into specifics.  This broad coverage of a topic gives the "critical mass of knowledge" needed to understand the more detailed and harder to grasp aspects of a subject.

However, I am not a teacher.  None of this has been anything other than me trying to put what I know in some form other than my memories, sharing knowledge as opposed to instructing anyone.  I've tried to keep the physics equations to a minimum, I edited out the chemistry showing the transition from solid to gas, and only briefly touched on anatomy.  My higher education is in biochemistry, so I actually feel most confident in commenting on the chemistry portion of guns, although physics and anatomy are the two most important subjects.

So for the first time in this blog's history, is there anything someone thinks I should cover in greater depth or something that I may have overlooked? 

In my experience getting a large number of page views (for me anyways) and few comments means that people generally agreed with what they read and felt no need to add to what I wrote.  The moment I write something in error, or is understood to be in error people chime in quickly (with very good reason, there is enough falsehood and untruth going around that I don't want to add to the sum of garbage).

Conversely, if I write something that is controversial due to established cultural norms I do not lack for comments.  When I wrote about women in combat (my opinion is still that we need them, but we don't need them in the Infantry) or growing the diversity of the pro-freedom movement several comments indicated I would lose readership.  On the contrary I gained subscribers and my page view per day remained normal.

If there is nothing that anyone wants to follow down a rabbit hole, I'll put this series to bed until I'm inspired to pick it up.  If anyone wants to go deeper, the comments are open.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Off the chain! This has to be one of the most helpful series for a newbie reloader to a seasoned shooter (or math geek). Yet again AM, planting a flag where no man has gone before. By not trying to reinvent the wheel you've managed to compile a crib sheet that many skill levels can access. Bravo, any addendum would be exactly that, kernels from the table for the weapon wonk and nothing more

Stronglieutenant

Anonymous said...

I asked the question on the prior post, so is it down range energy that makes heavier bullets buck wind down range?

Reason I'm asking is that I have a Ruger Varmint in .223 1-12twist that I lightly contemplated changing barrels so heavier bullets could be stabilized more reliably.

I probably won't go to that expense since I know I'm good to about 450yds on small varmints and I think I can hit the 5"*10" target that I might have to hit in the future with BTips, and I'm not worried about expansion and fragging. RRS

AM said...

Energy has more to do with velocity than mass, E = .M x VV. As you can see velocity is the major factor in energy.

Wind bucking has to do with aerodynamic efficiency and time of flight. Light bullets can be launched faster, but if all else is equal they also slow down quicker. Heavier bullets are longer for caliber, and if the profiles are the same will have a more efficient aerodynamic design.

Velocity is a diminishing asset, BC is forever, to quote German Salazar. Remember all bullets are effected by wind, some just less than others.

Just Stop said...

Very informative. I am read them repeatedly.

Exl said...

I'd like to see more FC7 and more articles on intelligence gathering. Other than that I'm more than content with what you are publishing.

Anonymous said...

I just found the site so am not sure if you've covered the way to read wind and calculate it's effect on the bullet. Reading Mirage, grass, bushes, full value, half value winds...Things a Sniper knows with a spotter and a hunter who has taken a 500 yd shot at a Bull Elk across a canyon knows. And of course it's different depending on the round being launched....

AM said...

Anon, I actually haven't covered shooting in the wind much, that is the one skill that I haven't figured out a good way to practice without actually going to a range and shooting in the wind.

But I'm working on it.