There's been a lot of talk about guns in here lately, and there's something I've always wondered about...

I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot, but this web site about the battleship USS Missouri (which is the one that McArther accepted the Japanese surrender on at the end of WWII)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)

states as follows:

"Missouri's main battery consisted of nine 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns, which could fire 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) armor-piercing shells some 20 mi (32.2 km)."

20 miles! Geez. Obviously, that's a lot farther than any rifle or pistol will shoot.

Is that because:

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff used in regular bullets,
b) or is it because the battleship's cannons are pointed upward to maximize range,
c) or is it that the cannon's barrel is longer so the power in the explosion acts on the projectile for a longer period of time, thereby accelerating the shell more than a bullet
d) or something else entirely.

It just strikes me as odd. I'm thinking that the ratio of lengths between a bullet in a rifle barrel and a shell in a cannon barrel would probably be pretty similar. So, what accounts for the cannon having 20 times the range? Is it just that the gunpowder used in the cannon is 20 times as powerful as than that used in bullets, or is it that the shell stays in it's barrel 20 times longer than a bullet and therefore receives 20 times as much of a push?

"nestork" wrote in message
...

There's been a lot of talk about guns in here lately, and there's
something I've always wondered about...

I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot, but this web
site about the battleship USS Missouri (which is the one that McArther
accepted the Japanese surrender on at the end of WWII)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)

states as follows:

"Missouri's main battery consisted of nine 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7
guns, which could fire 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) armor-piercing shells some 20
mi (32.2 km)."

20 miles! Geez. Obviously, that's a lot farther than any rifle or
pistol will shoot.

Is that because:

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,
b) or is it because the battleship's cannons are pointed upward to
maximize range,
c) or is it that the cannon's barrel is longer so the power in the
explosion acts on the projectile for a longer period of time, thereby
accelerating the shell more than a bullet
d) or something else entirely.

It just strikes me as odd. I'm thinking that the ratio of lengths
between a bullet in a rifle barrel and a shell in a cannon barrel would
probably be pretty similar. So, what accounts for the cannon having 20
times the range? Is it just that the gunpowder used in the cannon is 20
times as powerful as than that used in bullets, or is it that the shell
stays in it's barrel 20 times longer than a bullet and therefore
receives 20 times as much of a push?



ALL of a), b), c) and more
More powder is used, higher pressures are achieved

I think you need to re-shape your question to make it obvious
The amount of pressure you build behind the projectile defines the amount of
force exerted on it.
The weight of the projectile affects how much resistance to acceleration the
projectile has
The length of the barrel affects how long that force is applied
The weight of the projectile affects how long that force is applied to it.

It's a dynamic equation that allows for creative adjustment of how big, how
heavy both the gun and the projectile can be and will be.

nestork wrote:


There's been a lot of talk about guns in here lately, and there's
something I've always wondered about...

I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot, but this web
site about the battleship USS Missouri (which is the one that McArther
accepted the Japanese surrender on at the end of WWII)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)

states as follows:

"Missouri's main battery consisted of nine 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7
guns, which could fire 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) armor-piercing shells some 20
mi (32.2 km)."

20 miles! Geez. Obviously, that's a lot farther than any rifle or
pistol will shoot.

Is that because:

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,
b) or is it because the battleship's cannons are pointed upward to
maximize range,
c) or is it that the cannon's barrel is longer so the power in the
explosion acts on the projectile for a longer period of time, thereby
accelerating the shell more than a bullet
d) or something else entirely.

It just strikes me as odd. I'm thinking that the ratio of lengths
between a bullet in a rifle barrel and a shell in a cannon barrel would
probably be pretty similar. So, what accounts for the cannon having 20
times the range? Is it just that the gunpowder used in the cannon is 20
times as powerful as than that used in bullets, or is it that the shell
stays in it's barrel 20 times longer than a bullet and therefore
receives 20 times as much of a push?

All of the above-- I was on an mountain along the coast of Vietnam in
69. Naval Gunfire used to go overhead on its way to the highlands.
holy crap! Never had the pleasure of seeing one up close-- but
the projectile supposedly weighed in similar to a Volkswagen [bug?
van?]

20 miles is pretty good-- but the German long guns of WWI could shoot
as far as 75 miles-- Google the 'Paris Gun'.

Jim

nestork wrote:
I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot,

Somewhere between a mile and a 3 1/2 miles.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/...toniadis.shtml

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net

nestork wrote in news:nestork.b187e08
@diybanter.com:


There's been a lot of talk about guns in here lately, and there's
something I've always wondered about...

I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot,

A *lot* farther than you think it will. :-) Read on.

but this web
site about the battleship USS Missouri (which is the one that McArther
accepted the Japanese surrender on at the end of WWII)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)

states as follows:

"Missouri's main battery consisted of nine 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7
guns, which could fire 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) armor-piercing shells some 20
mi (32.2 km)."

20 miles! Geez. Obviously, that's a lot farther than any rifle or
pistol will shoot.

No, it isn't.

Is that because:

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,

No. It is more powerful, but that's not the reason for the extremely long range.

b) or is it because the battleship's cannons are pointed upward to
maximize range,

Yes -- but if you do the same thing with a rifle, you'll get the same result: greatly increased
range, compared to firing it with the barrel horizontal.

c) or is it that the cannon's barrel is longer so the power in the
explosion acts on the projectile for a longer period of time, thereby
accelerating the shell more than a bullet

No. The muzzle velocity on those guns is in the neighborhood of 800 m/s, which is actually
15-20% *lower* than that of many common hunting rounds (e.g. typical muzzle velocity for a
30-.06 is around 880 m/s).

d) or something else entirely.

Yes -- because the battleship shells are so large, they are less affected by air resistance
than are rifle bullets. I have a .243 rifle which fires an 85-grain round at a muzzle velocity of
about 1000m/s. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that -- in the absence of air
resistance -- if the barrel is elevated at an angle of 45 degrees, the bullet will travel over 100
kilometers before striking the ground. Obviously that won't happen, because it *is* subject
to air resistance. While the battleship shell is subject to the same air resistance forces as
the bullet, the magnitude of those forces in proportion to a 1200-kilogram shell is obviously
much smaller than in proportion to a 6-gram bullet, and hence their effect on the trajectory of
the shell is correspondingly much smaller.

It just strikes me as odd. I'm thinking that the ratio of lengths
between a bullet in a rifle barrel and a shell in a cannon barrel would
probably be pretty similar.

No, actually, it's not -- the ratio is a *lot* *higher* for a typical hunting rifle than it is for those
cannons.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

With an 800-inch barrel and a 64-inch projectile, the cannons have a ratio similar to that of
most *pistols*.

So, what accounts for the cannon having 20
times the range?

It *doesn't* have "20 times the range." What makes you think that a rifle can shoot only one
mile?

Is it just that the gunpowder used in the cannon is 20
times as powerful as than that used in bullets,

It's not.

or is it that the shell
stays in it's barrel 20 times longer than a bullet

It doesn't.

and therefore
receives 20 times as much of a push?

It doesn't.

It's all about angle of elevation, and the fact that battleship shells weigh two hundred
thousand times as much as rifle bullets and consequently aren't affected nearly as much by
air resistance.

dadiOH wrote:
nestork wrote:
I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot,

Somewhere between a mile and a 3 1/2 miles.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/...toniadis.shtml

Hi,
During my time in 'Nam in the mid-late --60's I used to visit Marine
sniper school, there I witnessed instructor one of original sniper
during WW2 hitting at a target 500 meters away, he was aiming it at
higher angle pretty well into the air. Canuck JTF sniper in Afghanistan
confirmed kill at more that 2000yards. All law of simple physics. Read
about Dr Bull who was assassinated by Israeli rumor
was he tried to build monster canons for Saddam Hussein. Same as
long range missiles.

nestork wrote:
There's been a lot of talk about guns in here lately, and there's
something I've always wondered about...

I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot, but this
web site about the battleship USS Missouri (which is the one that
McArther accepted the Japanese surrender on at the end of WWII)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)

states as follows:

"Missouri's main battery consisted of nine 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark
7 guns, which could fire 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) armor-piercing shells
some 20 mi (32.2 km)."

20 miles! Geez. Obviously, that's a lot farther than any rifle or
pistol will shoot.

Is that because:

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,
b) or is it because the battleship's cannons are pointed upward to
maximize range,
c) or is it that the cannon's barrel is longer so the power in the
explosion acts on the projectile for a longer period of time, thereby
accelerating the shell more than a bullet
d) or something else entirely.

It just strikes me as odd. I'm thinking that the ratio of lengths
between a bullet in a rifle barrel and a shell in a cannon barrel
would probably be pretty similar. So, what accounts for the cannon
having 20 times the range? Is it just that the gunpowder used in the
cannon is 20 times as powerful as than that used in bullets, or is it
that the shell stays in it's barrel 20 times longer than a bullet and
therefore receives 20 times as much of a push?

Here's a bullets journal, taken from a Jack Reacher novel:

First thing out of the barrel of Reacher's Barrett was a blast of hot gas.
The powder in the cartridge exploded in a fraction of a millionth of a
second and expanded to a super-heated bubble. That bubble of gas hurled the
bullet down the barrel and forced ahead of it and around it to explode out
into the atmosphere. Most of it was smashed sideways by the muzzle brake in
a perfectly balanced radial pattern, like a doughnut, so that the recoil
moved the barrel straight back against Reacher's shoulder without deflecting
it either sideways or up or down. Meanwhile, behind it, the bullet was
starting to spin inside the barrel as the rifling grooves grabbed at it.

Then the gas ahead of the bullet was heating the oxygen in the air to the
point where the air caught fire. There was a brief flash of flame and the
bullet burst out through the exact center of it, spearing through the burned
air at nineteen hundred miles an hour. A thousandth of a second later, it
was six feet away, and its sound was bravely chasing after it, three times
slower.

The bullet took five hundredths of a second to cross the [parade ground], by
which time the sound of its shot had just passed Reacher's ears and cleared
the ridge of the roof. The bullet had a hand-polished copper jacket and it
was flying straight and true, but by the time it had passed soundlessly over
McGrath's head it had slowed a little. And the air was moving it. It was
moving it right to left as the gentle mountain breeze tugged imperceptibly
at it. Half a second into its travel, the bullet had covered thirteen
hundred feet and it had moved seven inches to the left.

And it had dropped seven inches. Gravity had pulled it in. The more gravity
pulled, the more the bullet slowed. The more it slowed, the more gravity
deflected it. It speared onward in a perfect graceful curve. A whole second
after leaving the barrel, it was nine hundred yards into its journey. Way
past McGrath's running figure, but still over the trees, still three hundred
yards short of its target. Another sixth of a second later, it was clear of
the trees and alongside the office building. Now it was a slow bullet. It
had pulled four feet left and five feet down. It passed well clear of Holly
and was twenty feet past her before she heard the hiss in the air. The sound
of the shot was still to come.

Reacher's bullet hit Borken in the head a full second and a third after he
fired it. It entered the front of his forehead and was out of the back of
his skull three ten-thousandths of a second later. In and out without really
slowing much more at all, because Borken's skull and brains were nothing to
a two-ounce lead projectile with a needle point and a polished metal jacket.
The bullet was well over the endless forest beyond before the pressure wave
built up in Borken's skull and exploded it.

Reacher was watching it through his scope. Heart in his mouth. A full second
and a third is a long time to wait. He watched Borken's skull explode like
it had been burst from the inside with a sledgehammer. It came apart like a
diagram. Reacher saw curved shards of bone bursting outward and red mist
blooming.

Nestork wrote a post without making coherent use of the subject line.

Nestork's post - FAIL.

On Dec 20, 7:37*am, Doug Miller
wrote:
nestork wrote in news:nestork.b187e08
@diybanter.com:



There's been a lot of talk about guns in here lately, and there's
something I've always wondered about...

I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot,

A *lot* farther than you think it will. :-) Read on.

but this web
site about the battleship USS Missouri (which is the one that McArther
accepted the Japanese surrender on at the end of WWII)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)

states as follows:

"Missouri's main battery consisted of nine 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7
guns, which could fire 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) armor-piercing shells some 20
mi (32.2 km)."

20 miles! *Geez. *Obviously, that's a lot farther than any rifle or
pistol will shoot.

No, it isn't.

Is that because:

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,

No. It is more powerful, but that's not the reason for the extremely long range.

b) or is it because the battleship's cannons are pointed upward to
maximize range,

Yes -- but if you do the same thing with a rifle, you'll get the same result: greatly increased
range, compared to firing it with the barrel horizontal.

c) or is it that the cannon's barrel is longer so the power in the
explosion acts on the projectile for a longer period of time, thereby
accelerating the shell more than a bullet

No. The muzzle velocity on those guns is in the neighborhood of 800 m/s, which is actually
15-20% *lower* than that of many common hunting rounds (e.g. typical muzzle velocity for a
30-.06 is around 880 m/s).

d) or something else entirely.

Yes -- because the battleship shells are so large, they are less affected by air resistance
than are rifle bullets. I have a .243 rifle which fires an 85-grain round at a muzzle velocity of
about 1000m/s. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that -- in the absence of air
resistance -- if the barrel is elevated at an angle of 45 degrees, the bullet will travel over 100
kilometers before striking the ground. Obviously that won't happen, because it *is* subject
to air resistance. While the battleship shell is subject to the same air resistance forces as
the bullet, the magnitude of those forces in proportion to a 1200-kilogram shell is obviously
much smaller than in proportion to a 6-gram bullet, and hence their effect on the trajectory of
the shell is correspondingly much smaller.



It just strikes me as odd. *I'm thinking that the ratio of lengths
between a bullet in a rifle barrel and a shell in a cannon barrel would
probably be pretty similar.

No, actually, it's not -- the ratio is a *lot* *higher* for a typical hunting rifle than it is for those
cannons.http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

With an 800-inch barrel and a 64-inch projectile, the cannons have a ratio similar to that of
most *pistols*.

So, what accounts for the cannon having 20
times the range?

It *doesn't* have "20 times the range." What makes you think that a rifle can shoot only one
mile?

Is it just that the gunpowder used in the cannon is 20
times as powerful as than that used in bullets,

It's not.

or is it that the shell
stays in it's barrel 20 times longer than a bullet

It doesn't.

and therefore
receives 20 times as much of a push?

It doesn't.

It's all about angle of elevation, and the fact that battleship shells weigh two hundred
thousand times as much as rifle bullets and consequently aren't affected nearly as much by
air resistance.

If the cannonball is larger, it must be more affected by air
resistance so something is wrong with your conclusions. Now, if the
ratio of diameter to weight is different, then maybe what is
postulated could be true.

"nestork" wrote in message
...

There's been a lot of talk about guns in here lately, and there's
something I've always wondered about...
It just strikes me as odd. I'm thinking that the ratio of lengths
between a bullet in a rifle barrel and a shell in a cannon barrel would
probably be pretty similar. So, what accounts for the cannon having 20
times the range? Is it just that the gunpowder used in the cannon is 20
times as powerful as than that used in bullets, or is it that the shell
stays in it's barrel 20 times longer than a bullet and therefore
receives 20 times as much of a push?

It all has to do with the mass (weight) of the bullet. The battle ship guns
and rifles shoot the bullets at about the same speed. Simple example is to
take a ping pong ball and throw it. Then take a pool ball and throw it.
You can throw each one about the same speed. Because the pool ball is
heavier, it travels the most. You can also take a grain of sand and the
pool ball. This may be more of the relationship of the cannon and rifle.
The sand grain will not travel as far. It is too light. It is small enough
the air resistance is very much less than the pool ball so that takes the
air resistance out of the picture.

Hand gun bullets have about 1/3 the speed of the other bullets. This is
mainly because of the barrel length. Gunpowder can only burn so fast and
the gun can only take so much pressure. Even if the handgun could be made
strong enough to handle the pressusre, it would be so heavy that no one
would want to carry it around. It would also have so much recoil that it
would hirt too much to shoot it.

"hr(bob) " wrote in news:e2255331-85a6-40d8-8f91-
:

If the cannonball is larger, it must be more affected by air
resistance

So you think a cannonball is more affected by air resistance than a BB ???

so something is wrong with your conclusions.

No, something is wrong with your reasoning. The *total* force of air resistance acting on the
larger object is of course greater, but _in proportion to its mass_ it's much smaller.

Now, if the
ratio of diameter to weight is different, then maybe what is
postulated could be true.

You are overlooking the fact that the effect of air resistance is proportional to the surface
area of the object, whereas its momentum is proportional to its mass and thus (if it is of
approximately uniform density) to its volume -- hence the larger the object (assuming
constant density) the *lower* the *proportional* effect of air resistance.

And *of course* the ratio of diameter to mass (not weight) is different.

Consider two solid spheres, one 1 cm in diameter, the other 2 cm in diameter. Since volume
is proportional to the *cube* of the radius, the volume of the second is 8 times that of the first,
and if they are made of the same material, the ratio of their masses is also 8:1, while the
ratio of the diameters is 2:1. I'll leave it to you to calculate the ratio of the surface areas.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Here's a bullets journal, taken from a Jack Reacher novel:

[snip]
And it had dropped seven inches. Gravity had pulled it in. The more gravity
pulled, the more the bullet slowed.

Ummmm, no. Gravity does *not* cause the bullet's horizontal velocity to decrease.

The more it slowed, the more gravity deflected it.

Ummmm, no. The longer it was in flight, the more gravity deflected it. Vertical motion due to
gravity depends only on the length of time that it's been in motion, and is *not* affected in the
least by horizontal velocity. A bullet fired from a gun parallel to the ground, and a bullet
*dropped* from the same height, will strike the ground at the same instant.

On Dec 20, 12:46*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
nestork wrote:

There's been a lot of talk about guns in here lately, and there's
something I've always wondered about...

I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot, but this web
site about the battleship USS Missouri (which is the one that McArther
accepted the Japanese surrender on at the end of WWII)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)

states as follows:

"Missouri's main battery consisted of nine 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7
guns, which could fire 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) armor-piercing shells some 20
mi (32.2 km)."

20 miles! *Geez. *Obviously, that's a lot farther than any rifle or
pistol will shoot.

Is that because:

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,
b) or is it because the battleship's cannons are pointed upward to
maximize range,
c) or is it that the cannon's barrel is longer so the power in the
explosion acts on the projectile for a longer period of time, thereby
accelerating the shell more than a bullet
d) or something else entirely.

It just strikes me as odd. *I'm thinking that the ratio of lengths
between a bullet in a rifle barrel and a shell in a cannon barrel would
probably be pretty similar. *So, what accounts for the cannon having 20
times the range? *Is it just that the gunpowder used in the cannon is 20
times as powerful as than that used in bullets, or is it that the shell
stays in it's barrel 20 times longer than a bullet and therefore
receives 20 times as much of a push?

All of the above-- *I was on an mountain along the coast of Vietnam in
69. * * Naval Gunfire used to go overhead on its way to the highlands..
holy crap! * * * Never had the pleasure of seeing one up close-- but
the projectile supposedly weighed in similar to a Volkswagen [bug?
van?]

20 miles is pretty good-- but the German long guns of WWI could shoot
as far as 75 miles-- Google the 'Paris Gun'.

Jim

There are theorotical limitations on how far any simple gun can fire.
The longest range gun was the V3 cannon (Tausendfuss) with mulitple
charges. Range of over 100miles.
German, designed to bombard London from France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon

I was bombed by the RAF using blockbuster bombs and put out of action
before it could be used.
But you can go and see what's left of it.

On Dec 20, 2:28*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
dadiOH wrote:
nestork wrote:
I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot,

Somewhere between a mile and a 3 1/2 miles.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/...toniadis.shtml

Hi,
During my time in 'Nam in the mid-late --60's I used to visit Marine
sniper school, there I witnessed instructor one of original sniper
during WW2 hitting at a target 500 meters away, he was aiming it at
higher angle pretty well into the air. *Canuck JTF sniper in Afghanistan
confirmed kill at more that 2000yards. All law of simple physics. Read
about Dr Bull who was assassinated by Israeli rumor
was he tried to build monster canons for Saddam Hussein. Same as
long range missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest....29_or_greater

On Dec 20, 2:39*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
nestork wrote:
There's been a lot of talk about guns in here lately, and there's
something I've always wondered about...

I don't know how far a regular pistol or rifle will shoot, but this
web site about the battleship USS Missouri (which is the one that
McArther accepted the Japanese surrender on at the end of WWII)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)

states as follows:

"Missouri's main battery consisted of nine 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark
7 guns, which could fire 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) armor-piercing shells
some 20 mi (32.2 km)."

20 miles! *Geez. *Obviously, that's a lot farther than any rifle or
pistol will shoot.

Is that because:

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,
b) or is it because the battleship's cannons are pointed upward to
maximize range,
c) or is it that the cannon's barrel is longer so the power in the
explosion acts on the projectile for a longer period of time, thereby
accelerating the shell more than a bullet
d) or something else entirely.

It just strikes me as odd. *I'm thinking that the ratio of lengths
between a bullet in a rifle barrel and a shell in a cannon barrel
would probably be pretty similar. *So, what accounts for the cannon
having 20 times the range? *Is it just that the gunpowder used in the
cannon is 20 times as powerful as than that used in bullets, or is it
that the shell stays in it's barrel 20 times longer than a bullet and
therefore receives 20 times as much of a push?

Here's a bullets journal, taken from a Jack Reacher novel:

First thing out of the barrel of Reacher's Barrett was a blast of hot gas..
The powder in the cartridge exploded in a fraction of a millionth of a
second and expanded to a super-heated bubble. That bubble of gas hurled the
bullet down the barrel and forced ahead of it and around it to explode out
into the atmosphere. Most of it was smashed sideways by the muzzle brake in
a perfectly balanced radial pattern, like a doughnut, so that the recoil
moved the barrel straight back against Reacher's shoulder without deflecting
it either sideways or up or down. Meanwhile, behind it, the bullet was
starting to spin inside the barrel as the rifling grooves grabbed at it.

Then the gas ahead of the bullet was heating the oxygen in the air to the
point where the air caught fire. There was a brief flash of flame and the
bullet burst out through the exact center of it, spearing through the burned
air at nineteen hundred miles an hour. A thousandth of a second later, it
was six feet away, and its sound was bravely chasing after it, three times
slower.

The bullet took five hundredths of a second to cross the [parade ground], by
which time the sound of its shot had just passed Reacher's ears and cleared
the ridge of the roof. The bullet had a hand-polished copper jacket and it
was flying straight and true, but by the time it had passed soundlessly over
McGrath's head it had slowed a little. And the air was moving it. It was
moving it right to left as the gentle mountain breeze tugged imperceptibly
at it. Half a second into its travel, the bullet had covered thirteen
hundred feet and it had moved seven inches to the left.

And it had dropped seven inches. Gravity had pulled it in. The more gravity
pulled, the more the bullet slowed. The more it slowed, the more gravity
deflected it. It speared onward in a perfect graceful curve. A whole second
after leaving the barrel, it was nine hundred yards into its journey. Way
past McGrath's running figure, but still over the trees, still three hundred
yards short of its target. Another sixth of a second later, it was clear of
the trees and alongside the office building. Now it was a slow bullet. It
had pulled four feet left and five feet down. It passed well clear of Holly
and was twenty feet past her before she heard the hiss in the air. The sound
of the shot was still to come.

Reacher's bullet hit Borken in the head a full second and a third after he
fired it. It entered the front of his forehead and was out of the back of
his skull three ten-thousandths of a second later. In and out without really
slowing much more at all, because Borken's skull and brains were nothing to
a two-ounce lead projectile with a needle point and a polished metal jacket.
The bullet was well over the endless forest beyond before the pressure wave
built up in Borken's skull and exploded it.

Reacher was watching it through his scope. Heart in his mouth. A full second
and a third is a long time to wait. He watched Borken's skull explode like
it had been burst from the inside with a sledgehammer. It came apart like a
diagram. Reacher saw curved shards of bone bursting outward and red mist
blooming.

What a load of crap.
And air doesn't burn.

On Dec 20, 4:23*pm, Doug Miller
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote innews:3oudnenLALdLv07NnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink. com:



Here's a bullets journal, taken from a Jack Reacher novel:

[snip]
And it had dropped seven inches. Gravity had pulled it in. The more gravity
pulled, the more the bullet slowed.

Ummmm, no. Gravity does *not* cause the bullet's horizontal velocity to decrease.

The more it slowed, the more gravity deflected it.

Ummmm, no. The longer it was in flight, the more gravity deflected it. Vertical motion due to
gravity depends only on the length of time that it's been in motion, and is *not* affected in the
least by horizontal velocity. A bullet fired from a gun parallel to the ground, and a bullet
*dropped* from the same height, will strike the ground at the same instant.

"harry" wrote in message
...

There are theorotical limitations on how far any simple gun can fire.
The longest range gun was the V3 cannon (Tausendfuss) with mulitple
charges. Range of over 100miles.
German, designed to bombard London from France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon

I was bombed by the RAF using blockbuster bombs and put out of action
before it could be used. But you can go and see what's left of it.

The largest cannon I have ever heard of was Gerald Bull's HARP on
the island of Barbados in the 1960s, constructed from two USN
battleship gun barrels fitted end to end:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_...search_Program
The original HARP idea (approx. 1960) was that it would be cheaper to launch
satellites (then usually orbiting at 100 to 500 miles altitude) from
reuseable
guns rather than rockets expended in use: but Bull never got into orbit,
(The
maximum altitude mentioned here is 66 km.)

Bull was a fascinating individual, the youngest Toronto PhD ever (at 21) in
his day, employed as a military researcher by the Canadian Defence
Research Board, funded partly by the US Army gun research branch,
and eased out because he seemed more interested in space research
than weapons. Twenty years later he was active in 105 mm. artillery and
ammunition supply, eventually assassinated in mysterious circumstances.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On 12/20/2012 9:39 AM, HeyBub wrote:


Reacher was watching it through his scope. Heart in his mouth. A full second
and a third is a long time to wait. He watched Borken's skull explode like
it had been burst from the inside with a sledgehammer. It came apart like a
diagram. Reacher saw curved shards of bone bursting outward and red mist
blooming.



It certainly is a fanciful "heybub" style story but rather inaccurate.

"nestork" wrote

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,

The powder was special, and they used a pile of it about the size of a VW
beetle.

Steve

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:23:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

Here's a bullets journal, taken from a Jack Reacher novel:

[snip]
And it had dropped seven inches. Gravity had pulled it in. The more gravity
pulled, the more the bullet slowed.

Ummmm, no. Gravity does *not* cause the bullet's horizontal velocity to decrease.

The more it slowed, the more gravity deflected it.

Ummmm, no. The longer it was in flight, the more gravity deflected it. Vertical motion due to
gravity depends only on the length of time that it's been in motion, and is *not* affected in the
least by horizontal velocity. A bullet fired from a gun parallel to the ground, and a bullet
*dropped* from the same height, will strike the ground at the same instant.

Hey, you spoiled the story!
Read your example above of how gravity works on a bullet many years
ago, and never saw a better one since. Because no more need be said.

OK, I read through all the posts. Thanks guys.

I guess the analogy between throwing a ping pong ball and throwing a golf ball speaks loudest to me. Both would start out with the same initial velocity and both would encounter the same amount of air resistance, but the smaller mass of the ping pong ball would be more affected by that air resistance, and slow down much faster.

BUT, if that's true, then it would also apply to objects smaller than a bullet. I'm thinking that there are different size pellets in shot gun shells. Some shot gun shells have lots of tiny pellets, whereas other have a fewer number of large pellets. In both cases, however, the pellets are made of lead (I think) and so the difference in density between the pellets and the surrounding air would be identical. Does anyone know if the shells with fewer large pellets have a longer range than those with lots of small pellets? If air resistance is the key, then it would stand to reason that they would. Larger, heavier pellets should be less affected by air resistance, and therefore slow down less and travel further.

nestork wrote in news:nestork.b197b28
@diybanter.com:


OK, I read through all the posts. Thanks guys.

I guess the analogy between throwing a ping pong ball and throwing a
golf ball speaks loudest to me. Both would start out with the same
initial velocity and both would encounter the same amount of air
resistance, but the smaller mass of the ping pong ball would be more
affected by that air resistance, and slow down much faster.

BUT, if that's true, then it would also apply to objects smaller than a
bullet. I'm thinking that there are different size pellets in shot gun
shells.

Correct. Different sizes for different purposes.

Some shot gun shells have lots of tiny pellets, whereas other
have a fewer number of large pellets. In both cases, however, the
pellets are made of lead (I think)

Depends on what you're hunting. The ammunition used for squirrel, rabbit, grouse,
pheasant, or dove is normally lead pellets, whereas non-toxic shot (steel or copper, for
instance) is required when hunting waterfowl.

and so the difference in density
between the pellets and the surrounding air would be identical. Does
anyone know if the shells with fewer large pellets have a longer range
than those with lots of small pellets?

Indeed they do.

If air resistance is the key,
then it would stand to reason that they would. Larger, heavier pellets
should be less affected by air resistance, and therefore slow down less
and travel further.

That is exactly what happens.

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message

20 miles is pretty good-- but the German long guns of WWI could shoot
as far as 75 miles-- Google the 'Paris Gun'.

Pippa Middleton Involved In Paris Gun Scandal
http://www.cinemablend.com/pop/Pippa...dal-41456.html

Oh, you meant this Paris Gun

People who like The Paris Gun also like Rudolf Wiebe, Boo Hooray, Tom &
Foley Not many people have scrobbled The Paris Gun recently.
http://www.last.fm/music/The+Paris+Gun

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

What is "scrobbling" you might ask?

Scrobbling a song means that when you listen to it, the name of the song is
sent to Last.fm and added to your music profile.

I think I've got it! (-:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun

As a military weapon, the Paris Gun was not a great success: the payload
was minuscule, the barrel required frequent replacement and its accuracy was
only good enough for city-sized targets . . . The gun was capable of
hurling a 94 kilogram (210 lb) shell to a range of 130 kilometers (81 mi)
and a maximum altitude of 40 kilometers (25 miles, 131,000 ft) - the
greatest height reached by a human-made projectile until the first
successful V-2 flight test in October 1942. At the start of its 170-second
trajectory, each shell from the Paris Gun reached a speed of 1,600 meters
per second (5,250 ft/s) . . . Since it was based on a naval weapon, the gun
was manned by a crew of 80 Imperial Navy sailors under the command of
Vice-Admiral Rogge, chief of the Ordnance branch of the Admiralty. It was
surrounded by several batteries of standard army artillery to create a
"noise-screen" chorus around the big gun so that it could not be located by
French and British spotters . . . The projectile reached so high that it was
the first human-made object to reach the stratosphere . . . The Paris gun
was used to shell Paris at a range of 120 km (75 mi). The distance was so
far that the Coriolis effect - the rotation of the Earth - was substantial
enough to affect trajectory calculations.

Fascinating!

--
Bobby G.

On Dec 20, 4:58*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

There are theorotical limitations on how far any simple gun can fire.
The longest range gun was the V3 cannon (Tausendfuss) with mulitple
charges. Range of over 100miles.
German, designed to bombard London from France

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon

I was bombed by the RAF using blockbuster bombs and put out of action
before it could be used. *But you can go and see what's left of it.

The largest cannon I have ever heard of was Gerald Bull's HARP on
the island of Barbados in the 1960s, constructed from two USN
battleship gun barrels fitted end to end:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_...search_Program
The original HARP idea (approx. 1960) was that it would be cheaper to launch
satellites (then usually orbiting at 100 to 500 miles altitude) from
reuseable
guns rather than rockets expended in use: *but Bull never got into orbit,
(The
maximum altitude mentioned here is 66 km.)

Bull was a fascinating individual, the youngest Toronto PhD ever (at 21) in
his day, employed as a military researcher by the Canadian Defence
Research Board, funded partly by the US Army gun research branch,
and eased out because he seemed more interested in space research
than weapons. * Twenty years later he was active in 105 mm. artillery and
ammunition supply, eventually assassinated in mysterious circumstances.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Interesting story that.
I read somewhere that the idea of a satellite gun is not actually
possible. There is a top limit to muzzle velocity that cannot be
exceeded and is not sufficient to launch a satellite.
Though a rail gun might.

On Dec 20, 10:05*pm, nestork wrote:
OK, I read through all the posts. *Thanks guys.

I guess the analogy between throwing a ping pong ball and throwing a
golf ball speaks loudest to me. *Both would start out with the same
initial velocity and both would encounter the same amount of air
resistance, but the smaller mass of the ping pong ball would be more
affected by that air resistance, and slow down much faster.

BUT, if that's true, then it would also apply to objects smaller than a
bullet. *I'm thinking that there are different size pellets in shot gun
shells. *Some shot gun shells have lots of tiny pellets, whereas other
have a fewer number of large pellets. *In both cases, however, the
pellets are made of lead (I think) and so the difference in density
between the pellets and the surrounding air would be identical. *Does
anyone know if the shells with fewer large pellets have a longer range
than those with lots of small pellets? *If air resistance is the key,
then it would stand to reason that they would. *Larger, heavier pellets
should be less affected by air resistance, and therefore slow down less
and travel further.

--
nestork

This is the reason why depleted uranium is used in projectiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplete...ium#Ammunition

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:01:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 20, 4:58*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

There are theorotical limitations on how far any simple gun can fire.
The longest range gun was the V3 cannon (Tausendfuss) with mulitple
charges. Range of over 100miles.
German, designed to bombard London from France

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon

I was bombed by the RAF using blockbuster bombs and put out of action
before it could be used. *But you can go and see what's left of it.

The largest cannon I have ever heard of was Gerald Bull's HARP on
the island of Barbados in the 1960s, constructed from two USN
battleship gun barrels fitted end to end:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_...search_Program
The original HARP idea (approx. 1960) was that it would be cheaper to launch
satellites (then usually orbiting at 100 to 500 miles altitude) from
reuseable
guns rather than rockets expended in use: *but Bull never got into orbit,
(The
maximum altitude mentioned here is 66 km.)

Bull was a fascinating individual, the youngest Toronto PhD ever (at 21) in
his day, employed as a military researcher by the Canadian Defence
Research Board, funded partly by the US Army gun research branch,
and eased out because he seemed more interested in space research
than weapons. * Twenty years later he was active in 105 mm. artillery and
ammunition supply, eventually assassinated in mysterious circumstances.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Interesting story that.
I read somewhere that the idea of a satellite gun is not actually
possible. There is a top limit to muzzle velocity that cannot be
exceeded and is not sufficient to launch a satellite.
Though a rail gun might.

A satellite gun isn't possible, even if you could get enough velocity.
An orbit must include the point of the last change in velocity. In the
case of a bullet, it's at the end of the barrel so the orbit would
include this point. The next orbit the would be satellite would
intersect the ground somewhere next to the gun (where the gun was).

On 12/21/2012 9:23 AM, z wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:01:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 20, 4:58 pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

There are theorotical limitations on how far any simple gun can fire.
The longest range gun was the V3 cannon (Tausendfuss) with mulitple
charges. Range of over 100miles.
German, designed to bombard London from France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon

I was bombed by the RAF using blockbuster bombs and put out of action
before it could be used. But you can go and see what's left of it.

The largest cannon I have ever heard of was Gerald Bull's HARP on
the island of Barbados in the 1960s, constructed from two USN
battleship gun barrels fitted end to end:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_...search_Program
The original HARP idea (approx. 1960) was that it would be cheaper to launch
satellites (then usually orbiting at 100 to 500 miles altitude) from
reuseable
guns rather than rockets expended in use: but Bull never got into orbit,
(The
maximum altitude mentioned here is 66 km.)

Bull was a fascinating individual, the youngest Toronto PhD ever (at 21) in
his day, employed as a military researcher by the Canadian Defence
Research Board, funded partly by the US Army gun research branch,
and eased out because he seemed more interested in space research
than weapons. Twenty years later he was active in 105 mm. artillery and
ammunition supply, eventually assassinated in mysterious circumstances.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Interesting story that.
I read somewhere that the idea of a satellite gun is not actually
possible. There is a top limit to muzzle velocity that cannot be
exceeded and is not sufficient to launch a satellite.
Though a rail gun might.

A satellite gun isn't possible, even if you could get enough velocity.
An orbit must include the point of the last change in velocity. In the
case of a bullet, it's at the end of the barrel so the orbit would
include this point. The next orbit the would be satellite would
intersect the ground somewhere next to the gun (where the gun was).


Ever heard of a recoilless rifle? "Every action has an opposite and
equal reaction" I believe any "space projectile weapon" would have to
operate with the same principles as a recoilless gun. ^_^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle

TDD

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:53:39 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 9:23 AM, z wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:01:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 20, 4:58 pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

There are theorotical limitations on how far any simple gun can fire.
The longest range gun was the V3 cannon (Tausendfuss) with mulitple
charges. Range of over 100miles.
German, designed to bombard London from France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon

I was bombed by the RAF using blockbuster bombs and put out of action
before it could be used. But you can go and see what's left of it.

The largest cannon I have ever heard of was Gerald Bull's HARP on
the island of Barbados in the 1960s, constructed from two USN
battleship gun barrels fitted end to end:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_...search_Program
The original HARP idea (approx. 1960) was that it would be cheaper to launch
satellites (then usually orbiting at 100 to 500 miles altitude) from
reuseable
guns rather than rockets expended in use: but Bull never got into orbit,
(The
maximum altitude mentioned here is 66 km.)

Bull was a fascinating individual, the youngest Toronto PhD ever (at 21) in
his day, employed as a military researcher by the Canadian Defence
Research Board, funded partly by the US Army gun research branch,
and eased out because he seemed more interested in space research
than weapons. Twenty years later he was active in 105 mm. artillery and
ammunition supply, eventually assassinated in mysterious circumstances.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Interesting story that.
I read somewhere that the idea of a satellite gun is not actually
possible. There is a top limit to muzzle velocity that cannot be
exceeded and is not sufficient to launch a satellite.
Though a rail gun might.

A satellite gun isn't possible, even if you could get enough velocity.
An orbit must include the point of the last change in velocity. In the
case of a bullet, it's at the end of the barrel so the orbit would
include this point. The next orbit the would be satellite would
intersect the ground somewhere next to the gun (where the gun was).


Ever heard of a recoilless rifle? "Every action has an opposite and
equal reaction" I believe any "space projectile weapon" would have to
operate with the same principles as a recoilless gun. ^_^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle

If you're saying that a rocket can launch a satellite, then yes, I
suppose it can. ;-) However, the same principle applies; the orbit
must contain the last point of delta-V.

On 12/21/2012 10:39 AM, z wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:53:39 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 9:23 AM, z wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:01:28 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 20, 4:58 pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

There are theorotical limitations on how far any simple gun can fire.
The longest range gun was the V3 cannon (Tausendfuss) with mulitple
charges. Range of over 100miles.
German, designed to bombard London from France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon

I was bombed by the RAF using blockbuster bombs and put out of action
before it could be used. But you can go and see what's left of it.

The largest cannon I have ever heard of was Gerald Bull's HARP on
the island of Barbados in the 1960s, constructed from two USN
battleship gun barrels fitted end to end:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_...search_Program
The original HARP idea (approx. 1960) was that it would be cheaper to launch
satellites (then usually orbiting at 100 to 500 miles altitude) from
reuseable
guns rather than rockets expended in use: but Bull never got into orbit,
(The
maximum altitude mentioned here is 66 km.)

Bull was a fascinating individual, the youngest Toronto PhD ever (at 21) in
his day, employed as a military researcher by the Canadian Defence
Research Board, funded partly by the US Army gun research branch,
and eased out because he seemed more interested in space research
than weapons. Twenty years later he was active in 105 mm. artillery and
ammunition supply, eventually assassinated in mysterious circumstances.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Interesting story that.
I read somewhere that the idea of a satellite gun is not actually
possible. There is a top limit to muzzle velocity that cannot be
exceeded and is not sufficient to launch a satellite.
Though a rail gun might.

A satellite gun isn't possible, even if you could get enough velocity.
An orbit must include the point of the last change in velocity. In the
case of a bullet, it's at the end of the barrel so the orbit would
include this point. The next orbit the would be satellite would
intersect the ground somewhere next to the gun (where the gun was).


Ever heard of a recoilless rifle? "Every action has an opposite and
equal reaction" I believe any "space projectile weapon" would have to
operate with the same principles as a recoilless gun. ^_^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle

If you're saying that a rocket can launch a satellite, then yes, I
suppose it can. ;-) However, the same principle applies; the orbit
must contain the last point of delta-V.



DUH!, I was under the impression you were discussing firing a gun in
space from a satellite. Premature postification and text skimming error. ^_^

TDD

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 04:08:02 +0000, nestork
wrote:

"Missouri's main battery consisted of nine 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7
guns, which could fire 2,700 lb (1,200 kg) armor-piercing shells some 20
mi (32.2 km)."

20 miles! Geez. Obviously, that's a lot farther than any rifle or
pistol will shoot.

Some photos inside the Mark 7 16-inch/50-caliber gun turret.

- Breech

- Projectiles

- Silk Propellant/ Black Powder bags

(page bottom)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-7.htm

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:26:58 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"nestork" wrote

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,

The powder was special, and they used a pile of it about the size of a VW
beetle.

Steve


The powder is special, but not a pile that size :-\

Related story of howitzer powder.

"NEW ORLEANS – State police say they have begun a criminal
investigation of a northwestern Louisiana company after finding about
6 million pounds of explosive material stored illegally on the site of
a former Army munitions plant.

"...Capt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman, identified the product
as M6 propellant, used in howitzers and other artillery. The pellets
are largely compressed nitrocellulose, also known as guncotton.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/03/louisiana-town-evacuated-after-police-find-6-million-pounds-illegally-stored/#ixzz2E0pWCWzI

BANG

On 12/21/2012 5:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:26:58 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"nestork" wrote

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,

The powder was special, and they used a pile of it about the size of a VW
beetle.

Steve


The powder is special, but not a pile that size :-\

Related story of howitzer powder.

"NEW ORLEANS – State police say they have begun a criminal
investigation of a northwestern Louisiana company after finding about
6 million pounds of explosive material stored illegally on the site of
a former Army munitions plant.

"...Capt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman, identified the product
as M6 propellant, used in howitzers and other artillery. The pellets
are largely compressed nitrocellulose, also known as guncotton.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/03/louisiana-town-evacuated-after-police-find-6-million-pounds-illegally-stored/#ixzz2E0pWCWzI

BANG


When I was a young mad scientist growing up on the farm, I had a
chemistry set and of course I had to make some gun cotton. When
it was set on fire it just burned very fast in open air but when
packed in a closed container and set off it would explode. I can
imagine that the M6 Propellant will burn rather than explode if
unconfined, it would be quite a fire. O_o

TDD

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:09:34 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:26:58 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"nestork" wrote

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,

The powder was special, and they used a pile of it about the size of a VW
beetle.

Steve


The powder is special, but not a pile that size :-\

Related story of howitzer powder.

"NEW ORLEANS – State police say they have begun a criminal
investigation of a northwestern Louisiana company after finding about
6 million pounds of explosive material stored illegally on the site of
a former Army munitions plant.

"...Capt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman, identified the product
as M6 propellant, used in howitzers and other artillery. The pellets
are largely compressed nitrocellulose, also known as guncotton.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/03/louisiana-town-evacuated-after-police-find-6-million-pounds-illegally-stored/#ixzz2E0pWCWzI

BANG


When I was a young mad scientist growing up on the farm, I had a
chemistry set and of course I had to make some gun cotton. When
it was set on fire it just burned very fast in open air but when
packed in a closed container and set off it would explode. I can
imagine that the M6 Propellant will burn rather than explode if
unconfined, it would be quite a fire. O_o

TDD

I'd like to see 6 million pounds of it burn. What a sight.

On 12/21/2012 8:57 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:09:34 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:26:58 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"nestork" wrote

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,

The powder was special, and they used a pile of it about the size of a VW
beetle.

Steve


The powder is special, but not a pile that size :-\

Related story of howitzer powder.

"NEW ORLEANS – State police say they have begun a criminal
investigation of a northwestern Louisiana company after finding about
6 million pounds of explosive material stored illegally on the site of
a former Army munitions plant.

"...Capt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman, identified the product
as M6 propellant, used in howitzers and other artillery. The pellets
are largely compressed nitrocellulose, also known as guncotton.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/03/louisiana-town-evacuated-after-police-find-6-million-pounds-illegally-stored/#ixzz2E0pWCWzI

BANG


When I was a young mad scientist growing up on the farm, I had a
chemistry set and of course I had to make some gun cotton. When
it was set on fire it just burned very fast in open air but when
packed in a closed container and set off it would explode. I can
imagine that the M6 Propellant will burn rather than explode if
unconfined, it would be quite a fire. O_o

TDD

I'd like to see 6 million pounds of it burn. What a sight.


But you always have to remember what happened to the crew in the gun
turret of the battleship USS Iowa. O_o

TDD

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:07:39 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 8:57 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:09:34 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:26:58 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"nestork" wrote

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,

The powder was special, and they used a pile of it about the size of a VW
beetle.

Steve


The powder is special, but not a pile that size :-\

Related story of howitzer powder.

"NEW ORLEANS – State police say they have begun a criminal
investigation of a northwestern Louisiana company after finding about
6 million pounds of explosive material stored illegally on the site of
a former Army munitions plant.

"...Capt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman, identified the product
as M6 propellant, used in howitzers and other artillery. The pellets
are largely compressed nitrocellulose, also known as guncotton.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/03/louisiana-town-evacuated-after-police-find-6-million-pounds-illegally-stored/#ixzz2E0pWCWzI

BANG


When I was a young mad scientist growing up on the farm, I had a
chemistry set and of course I had to make some gun cotton. When
it was set on fire it just burned very fast in open air but when
packed in a closed container and set off it would explode. I can
imagine that the M6 Propellant will burn rather than explode if
unconfined, it would be quite a fire. O_o

TDD

I'd like to see 6 million pounds of it burn. What a sight.


But you always have to remember what happened to the crew in the gun
turret of the battleship USS Iowa. O_o

TDD

Fire got into the powder magazine of the turret (IIRC).

It was a sad day in America.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
But you always have to remember what happened to the crew in the gun
turret of the battleship USS Iowa. O_o

TDD

Fire got into the powder magazine of the turret (IIRC).


The magazine is below the turret and only enough powder to load the guns are
actully in the turret at one time. However that still means there could be
several thousand pounds of powder in the turret.

There seemed to be two theories as to the cause of the explosion. Sabatoge
by someone putting something in the powder. Another is what is called over
ramming the charge.

On 12/21/2012 9:53 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:07:39 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 8:57 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:09:34 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:26:58 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"nestork" wrote

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,

The powder was special, and they used a pile of it about the size of a VW
beetle.

Steve


The powder is special, but not a pile that size :-\

Related story of howitzer powder.

"NEW ORLEANS – State police say they have begun a criminal
investigation of a northwestern Louisiana company after finding about
6 million pounds of explosive material stored illegally on the site of
a former Army munitions plant.

"...Capt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman, identified the product
as M6 propellant, used in howitzers and other artillery. The pellets
are largely compressed nitrocellulose, also known as guncotton.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/03/louisiana-town-evacuated-after-police-find-6-million-pounds-illegally-stored/#ixzz2E0pWCWzI

BANG


When I was a young mad scientist growing up on the farm, I had a
chemistry set and of course I had to make some gun cotton. When
it was set on fire it just burned very fast in open air but when
packed in a closed container and set off it would explode. I can
imagine that the M6 Propellant will burn rather than explode if
unconfined, it would be quite a fire. O_o

TDD

I'd like to see 6 million pounds of it burn. What a sight.


But you always have to remember what happened to the crew in the gun
turret of the battleship USS Iowa. O_o

TDD

Fire got into the powder magazine of the turret (IIRC).

It was a sad day in America.


People often forget how dangerous the everyday life of our military
folks is. Sometimes the awful destructive power they wield can get
out of their control with devastating results. O_o

TDD

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:09:40 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
But you always have to remember what happened to the crew in the gun
turret of the battleship USS Iowa. O_o

TDD

Fire got into the powder magazine of the turret (IIRC).


The magazine is below the turret and only enough powder to load the guns are
actully in the turret at one time. However that still means there could be
several thousand pounds of powder in the turret.

There seemed to be two theories as to the cause of the explosion. Sabatoge
by someone putting something in the powder. Another is what is called over
ramming the charge.


"... over ramming the charge." is a valid point.

On 8" guns you can damage powder bags.

Harry:
"This is the reason why depleted uranium is used in projectiles."

I wondered about that, too, and now it makes sense from an air resistance point of view. Instead of making the projectile bigger to have more mass, just make the projectile out of a denser material.


Oren:
Thanks for sharing that link to those pictures with us.

What surprises me is that no one working behind that gun is wearing any hearing protection! I would have expected that anyone not wearing hearing protection in the turret when a gun like that fires would blow out their ear drums and lose 100% of their hearing instantaneously and permanently. I kinda doubt they took off their hearing protection just to take those pictures. Or, maybe it's not actually all that loud in there?

Those two big cylinders on the top of the breach... Are they like giant shock absorbers? When I've seen movies and TV shows showing modern cannons behing fired, something jerks back and then more slowly slides forward again (if I recall correctly) after each firing. I always presumed the whole idea behind that is to use a shock absorber to reduce the peak stress the steel holding that cannon together and in place has to bear. Kinda like the rubber shoulder pad at the butt end of a rifle; allowing the barrel to move backward as the bullet shoots forward might sacrifice a bit of muzzle velocity, but it makes holding the butt end of the rifle against your shoulder "bearable" when you pull the trigger.

On Dec 22, 4:12*am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/21/2012 9:53 PM, Oren wrote:









On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:07:39 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 8:57 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:09:34 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:26:58 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

"nestork" wrote

a) the gunpowder used in those cannons is more powerful than the stuff
used in regular bullets,

The powder was special, and they used a pile of it about the size of a VW
beetle.

Steve

The powder is special, but not *a pile that size :-\

Related story of howitzer powder.

"NEW ORLEANS – *State police say they have begun a criminal
investigation of a northwestern Louisiana company after finding about
6 million pounds of explosive material stored illegally on the site of
a former Army munitions plant.

"...Capt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman, identified the product
as M6 propellant, used in howitzers and other artillery. The pellets
are largely compressed nitrocellulose, also known as guncotton.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/03/louisiana-town-evacuated-after-p...

BANG

When I was a young mad scientist growing up on the farm, I had a
chemistry set and of course I had to make some gun cotton. When
it was set on fire it just burned very fast in open air but when
packed in a closed container and set off it would explode. I can
imagine that the M6 Propellant will burn rather than explode if
unconfined, it would be quite a fire. O_o

TDD

I'd like to see 6 million pounds of it burn. What a sight.

But you always have to remember what happened to the crew in the gun
turret of the battleship USS Iowa. O_o

TDD

Fire got into the powder magazine of the turret (IIRC).

It was a sad day in America.

People often forget how dangerous the everyday life of our military
folks is. Sometimes the awful destructive power they wield can get
out of their control with devastating results. O_o

TDD

Yet they can be defeated by a few goat herds.