Shotgun slugs vs. rifle projectiles
Some interesting ballistics. The calculation is that if each is discharged parallel to the ground, with the projectile ricocheting upon first impact, the shotgun slug will actually travel farther than the rifle bullet.
I do have some doubts... as the study notes, on a ricochet the projectile is generally flying end over end, and thus has high wind resistance. Their calculations indicate that the rifle bullet would go 1400 feet before ground impact, and then 3,400 feet on its ricochet, total distance 4,800 feet, The idea of a ricochet going upwards of a thousand yards seems much to my eye.
Actually, the Pa. Game Commission came up with the same conclusion.
Reacting to legislative pressure, a study was conducted after a tragic accident where a rifle hunter accidently shot and wounded a pregnant about a mile away that he absolutely could not see. This gave rise to a criminal conviction and lawsuit against not only the hunter, but the the landowner.
Posted by: D.Laden at September 2, 2009 02:38 PM
Perhaps it's that gravitational slingshot effect we're always hearing about... how a tiny projectile can strike a large object (the planet) and gain both enough altitude and airspeed to triple its range.
Now, if a bullet rides a train from Albany to Crestline...
Posted by: WP Zeller at September 2, 2009 02:38 PM
A little strange, you say?
Well, let's look at the engineering and science of the experiments. All experiments must be repeatable as to method and results, or their data is not to be relied on.
This is the Picatinny Arsenal, so they must use good science, which they describe....WHERE?
The experimental method is NOT described, is it?
So sorry, Picatinny, the method is not described, so it isn't reliable as data to be quoted.
More than likely, this experiment was NOT performed in reality, but was a virtual demonstration done in an Army CAD computer. We should have been told what the CAD program was, what all the variables were set to, etc, but we're not.
Since nothing is listed, we could also be less than generous and say that Picatinny pulled the data out of their hoo-hoo.
You can say ANYTHING about un-repeatable experimentation, which is less reliable than even anecdotal observation.
Having had the wool pulled over our eyes with this type of phony "science" by the various supporters of the Green Agenda for so long, excuse us if we are skeptical...
Posted by: Rivrdog at September 4, 2009 12:45 AM
Also, the article's author's use of the word "respectfully" (several times, no less), when what he should have used was the word "respectively", does not reflect well on his mastery of the English language.
Posted by: Greg in Allston at September 7, 2009 07:17 PM
Were they perhaps trying to account for the angle of impact? I would expect a shotgun slug from, say, a 12 gauge to fall to earth in much less distance than, say, a .308 bullet. That suggests to me that the slug would strike the ground (assuming flat, identical ground) at a greater angle and thus ricochet higher in the air (the angle of ricochet should be nearly a reflection of the angle of impact.
The rifle slug should strike at a shallower angle and thus reflect at a shallower angle, so it should fall to earth sooner after its ricochet.
Personally I generally shoot down into hillsides in good soft Illinois clay soil, so I don't worry too much about ricochets.
Posted by: Don Gwinn at September 8, 2009 11:08 AM