Talk:Muzzle velocity

"Terminal Velocity"

¿What is the generally accepted terminal velocity for an average human without protective equipment? (IE how great at minimum does an object have to go to kill a person.) Assume a .22 cal (I know the bigger the projectile the slower it can go). 71.34.68.150 (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC) A REDDSON[reply]

A discussion of velocity alone with regard to lethality is meaningless. People have been killed by thrown objects, such as rocks and baseballs. The highest velocity of an object thrown by a human is about 105 miles per hour (154 Feet per second). This is meaningless unless you know another factor of ballistic discussion, which is muzzle energy.Digitallymade (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Resistance

"The velocity of a projectile is highest at the muzzle and drops off steadily due to air resistance."

Question: Given that air resistance decreases as velocity decreases, is it correct to say that projectile velocity drops off steadily? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.146.9 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not accurate. In a vacuum there would be no reduction of muzzle velocity of a projectile. In gas, the faster a projectile is traveling initially, the faster it will be slowed. This is also true in liquid. Liquid resistance rises with the speed of impact.

The bullet retrieval tanks used by Police Laboratories to retrieve fired bullets are no longer than about 15 feet. Because of the increased density of water compared to air even the fastest and most powerful cartridges bullets are halted without damage in this short distance. ^[1] Digitallymade (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://cyber-national.com/forensics/

Powder vs. Velocity

I have got a question. Asume that youhave a barrel that can stand a great pressure. Does twice amount of gun powder give a twice of muzzle velocity.

---

No, because the velocity in meters per second is equal to the square root of 2 times the joules of force divided by the mass of the object in kilograms or more specifically, v = (2E/m)^(1/2) where v is the velocity in meters per second, E is the force in joules and m is the mass in kilograms. Shining Arcanine 04:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¿What's that mean in feet per second and mass in lbs/oz?71.34.68.150 (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)A REDDSON[reply]

There is a rule of thumb that you get 1/4th the powder increase as velocity. IE 100% more powder, 25% more velocity. This is simply a handy estimate, and not a law of physics. Arthurrh 00:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed limit of chemical propellants

Could anyone explain why there is such a limit lying around ~2km/s with chemical propellants? As I know for now, if we would have a barrel to withstand a huge pressure, we could launch projectiles, example, with TNT, up to 6-7km/s. So, what's the secret of the limit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgermeine (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definition of propellent versus explosive depends on speed. So, 2 km/s *may* be the limit of propellents until you get to explosives (and those have different properties/behaviors). --UnneededAplomb (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is easier to see in the case of rocket engines. When you burn fuel oxidizer, there is some amount of energy per unit mass. That energy then heats up the combustion products, which then exit the nozzle. If all the energy goes into kinetic energy of the outgoing gas, it has a maximum velocity. In the case of a rocket, all the energy, ideally, goes into the gas. For rocket engines, this is described as specific impulse. That is, the thrust divided by the rate of consumption of fuel oxidizer. If fuel oxidizer is measured as weight, or as mass times standard gravity, then Isp has units of seconds, in SI or traditional unit systems. Isp times standard gravity gives a velocity. For a gun, some energy goes into the projectile. I am not sure what Isp is for TNT. Gah4 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Authoring

"... projectile mass and barrel length must be found if both safety and optimal performance is to be found."

Who writes these things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.218.24 (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unpaid volunteers. Often the first version is rough. Wikipedia depends on people such as yourself to correct the bad writing. Don't just insert comments! Change it! Nick Beeson (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement

There is not a single word about how muzzle velocity is measured. 82.130.29.52 (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of influencing factors

Well, I put the {{prose}} tag there... PwnerELITE (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.30-06 Springfield

Hi,

some time ago, I saw someone wonder on youtube why the game Call of Duty: World at War would portray the M1919 dismembering and a M1 Garand not. If this game portrays correctly: at the time, I thought it might have to with the velocity, now when I check both articles it is says that both weapons have equal barrel length, effective range and muzzle velocity. So, perhaps someone can answer these questions Mallerd (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO that may be because of the rapid succession of shots delivered by the M1919 Machine Gun. Mr. Browning himself is reportedly known to show it's ability to chop down trees with his invention to boost sales. If it can chop down a tree it may also be able to dismember. Pepysshack (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I can't find sources for a lot of this stuff - maybe I'm just not very good at finding sources/don't know where to look for this topic; can someone help? Anyone here spend a lot of time on gun-related websites? I've done what litte I can, but we need someone who actually knows the difference between an M-16 and an Uzi 2birds1stone (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muzzle velocity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced myths?

Currently the article contains "Longer barrels provide more opportunity to rotate the bullet before it leaves the gun." etc. So far as I am aware unless the rifling has gain-twist/progressive the maximum rotation speed/stabilization is attained almost immediately after engaging with the rifling and a barrel of any length could simply have the last ~projectile length of the barrel rifled with no loss in stabilization; the main reasons for full length rifling being ease of manufacture, more to wear and better obturation from the leade. I didn't notice a source for the article's claim but I also cannot find any proper sources regarding a minimum rifling length affecting accuracy so I'm leaving this here in the hopes someone more engaged with Wikipedia can edit things. 70.24.54.171 (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made comparisons between muzzle velocities and escape velocities are bad

> Some high-velocity small arms have muzzle velocities higher than the escape velocities of some Solar System bodies such as Pluto and Ceres [..]

> While traditional cartridges cannot generally achieve a Lunar escape velocity [..]

This information is fluff. The average reader might find the trivia amusing, but it doesn't help as a comparison to make it better to understand. Who can relate to whether shooting with small arms in the sky makes bullets not come back on a given astronomical body? Vektorweg (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://cyber-national.com/forensics/

[1]