Fetzer takes ballistics 101!

[Glenn Viklund]

I almost laughed when I read that.

I think I would have chosen an "authority" that did not use the term "perhaps" in defining the velocities.

So your example is giving us his "guess" as to what the velocity range is.

I prefer to accept the example from an educational resource.

Even more intriguing is how you know Mike Nelson to be one who "knows his stuff". Do you know him personally?

Do you know Chuck Hawks?

So what possible basis could you define your opinion of the man, other than the fact that he agrees with Jim Fetzer, who has proven time and again to be a complete imbecile when dealing with ballistics?

Normally I would take a man's word for recommending another persons opinion. In this case, and with your gross and obvious lack of honor, and ability, I have so ask.

HOW DO YOU KNOW MIKE NELSON "KNOWS HIS STUFF"?

By the way Jim, the Nelson article was not about velocity at all, it was about trajectory and the arch as it pertains to long distance shooting.

You really should run your mouth only about things you actually know about.....but then....

It would get might quiet around here.....

Indeed very quiet. But then, lack of knowledge has never stopped him before, so I doubt it. He's an expert in finding obscure support of his standings.

[Mike Williams]

I almost laughed when I read that. I think I would have chosen an "authority" that did not use the term "perhaps" in defining the velocities. So your example is giving us his "guess" as to what the velocity range is. I prefer to accept the example from an educational resource.

Even more intriguing is how you know Mike Nelson to be one who "knows his stuff". Do you know him personally? Do you know Chuck Hawks?

So what possible basis could you define your opinion of the man, other than the fact that he agrees with Jim Fetzer, who has proven time and again to be a complete imbecile when dealing with ballistics? Normally I would take a man's word for recommending another persons opinion. In this case, and with your gross and obvious lack of honor, and ability, I have so ask.

HOW DO YOU KNOW MIKE NELSON "KNOWS HIS STUFF"?

By the way Jim, the Nelson article was not about velocity at all, it was about trajectory and the arch as it pertains to long distance shooting.

You really should run your mouth only about things you actually know about.....but then....

It would get might quiet around here.....

Hey Mike,

Just out of curiosity, what's your day job? How do we know you are an expert in ballistics? I'm not doubting it, I just would like to know your qualifications to render judgments on these matters. Is there anyone who can vouch for your expertise?

Thanks--

Greg,

You are a wise man to ask. After all how are we to determine what weight to give someones opinion should we not know what knowledge base that opinion comes from?

To answer you I am an electrical Engineer, at the present. I work on computer based logic systems, as well as physical nuts and bolts electrical issues.

But that is this life.

For a more complete view of my qualifications you may want to read my short Biography. Please bear in mind, this was posted in 2007, before being employed in my present position. I still do some gunsmith work, but time is short these days and I have little time for it.

"I am recently retired from the United States Marine Corp, after 23 years of service; 1984-2007. My military occupational specialty, or Mos, for the last 19 years of my tour was 8541 Scout/Snipers. I have a strong background in ballistics, ammunitions, and weapons. I find this area to be the most interesting. Secondary Mos of 8654 (Dive and Para qualified), and 0321(reconnaissance). I am currently employed as a gunsmith, and specialize in modifying weapons for high degrees of accuracy, and recoil control. I am very new to the study of the assassination of John Kennedy, and find all areas of study interesting. "

I might also add that someone who knows ballistics can spot a "wannabe" a mile away. Those who do not understand the subject matter maybe more confused.

I would also tell you that there are several in the research community that I have known for years, and know me personally.

I hope this answers your question at least in part.

Have a great Sunday!

Mike

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

LEST ANYONE DOUBT THE INCOMPETENCE OF MIKE WILLIAMS

This guy cannot possibly have been a ballistics expert or he would not be peddling nonsense about the Mannlicher-Carcano

And if anyone harbors any doubt, this guy has announced himself as a "lone-nutter". So what is he doing on this forum? It

was obvious to me from the beginning that he was not a former Master Gunnery Sergeant. No NCO of that rank would be

calling everyone who posted "Sir" nor would they be making vacuous posts. He cannot be the person that he claims to be.

Go back and read some of his past posts. They are virtually devoid of content. The guy has nothing of value to contribute.

Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth

By Mike Nelson

Myths and errors regarding the path of a bullet generally come from a lack of understanding of the forces acting on the bullet before, during, and after its path through the barrel. This article will deal with the primary forces on a bullet's trajectory, and it will mention a few of the secondary forces. The approach is directed toward the average reader. There is no attempt to address concerns of the mathematician or physicist, who should either know this material or should read a more technical and comprehensive treatise.

One of the more pervasive myths associated with bullet trajectory is that "bullets always rise right after they leave the barrel." In general, bullets do rise after leaving the barrel, and they immediately begin to drop. This is not a contradiction, and the explanation is not difficult to understand.

Bullets are affected by gravity whether in flight or not, and, when they leave the barrel, they no longer have any physical support, such as the brass, the box, your pocket, the magazine, the chamber, or the barrel, so they begin to fall. In addition, they are traveling through air, so air resistance progressively slows their flight. On most occasions the barrel is slanted upward slightly to compensate for this immediate drop; thus, for all but extreme shots, since the barrel is aimed slightly upward, the bullet does, indeed, rise slightly after it leaves the barrel, but it bullet never rises above the axis of the barrel. (Just like a football generally rises above the player when they throw a pass. The longer the pass, the greater the starting angle, and the higher the "rise" before the ball begins to fall.)

In scientific terms, "thrown" objects, whether by hand, explosion, springs, compressed air, or other forces, are called "projectiles," their path in space is called their "trajectory," and the study of their trajectories is called "ballistics." Those who fail to understand the elementary physics of ballistics often misinterpret the configuration of barrel and the line of sight and assume that something "special" happens to the bullet during its flight. Many things happen, but nothing "special;" bullets fly just like any other projectile and are subject to the same laws of physics.

The following drawings, though not to exact scale, show the typical paths of bullets and the relationship of these paths to the line of sight, whether determined by open sights or optical sights.

Horizontal Shot. If the barrel is horizontal to the surface of the earth when fired, the bullet never rises above the barrel, and gravity causes an immediate descent.

Typical Alignment. Generally, for what we consider a "horizontal" shot, the sight alignment places the barrel in a slightly upward tilt, and the bullet starts its arc, rises slightly above the level of the muzzle, but never above the axis of the barrel, reaches a peak, then descends. Figure 2 is the graph of a centerfire rifle cartridge that stays within a 6 inch circle for a distance of about 210 yards. Sighted in at approximately 170 yards, this round is approximately 3 inches high at 100 yards and three inches low at approximately 210 yards. You must, of course, always check trajectory data for your particular rifle and cartridge combination.

Velocity. The velocity is a factor in determining energy on impact and the horizontal velocity determines how far the bullet travels before it hits the ground. The above illustrations apply to all ballistic projectiles whether bullets, rocks, or ping pong balls.

Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps, such as 22 LR, most pistols, and older rifle cartridges, must follow a rather high arc in order to reach a target 100 yards away. In fact, most of these slower cartridges are only useful to about 50 yards, perhaps 75 yards for some in the upper end of this range.

High Velocity Bullets. Bullets at 2600 fps and up, such as the .223, 22-250, .243/6mm, .270, .308, 30-06, follow a much lower arc to reach a target, and their useful range can be upward of 200 yards. These are often referred to as "flatter" trajectories. With higher velocities, these bullets go much further before gravity and air resistance cause them to fall below the initial line of sight.

Since the barrel is generally directed at an angle to the line of sight, sighting directly upward or directly downward results in a trajectory that deviates even more from the line of sight than the typical, relatively level shot. Still, the effects of gravity and air resistance are the same as far as the bullet is concerned, it is just that the trajectory at such a steep angle is more divergent from the line of sight.

Secondary Ballistics Phenomena. In general, bullets follow a parabolic arc. In reality, that arc is modified significantly by air resistance, which slows the bullet during flight and effects a shortening of the arc down range. That is why the highest point of the usable portion of the trajectory is not the midpoint of that trajectory. Bullet shape and the spin from rifling also influence the trajectory slightly by reducing air resistance and stabilizing bullet orientation. That is why a 500 grain rifle bullet, for example, has a much better trajectory than a 500 grain ball from a smooth bore, all other things being equal.

Fact or Myth. So, does a bullet rise after it leaves the muzzle? One says, "yes." Another says, "no." Who is correct? Both could be correct because of different meanings associated with the word, "rise." They might argue incessantly, but their argument will not change the physical aspects of the path of the bullet. If they would concentrate on discussing the physical events, they would eventually conclude that they were each using the word, "rise," differently or that one of them did not understand elementary ballistics.

Thought Question. When sighted in for a typical hunting or target situation, what is the path of the bullet in relation to the sight picture if the rifle is aimed directly up or down

I almost laughed when I read that. I think I would have chosen an "authority" that did not use the term "perhaps" in defining the velocities. So your example is giving us his "guess" as to what the velocity range is. I prefer to accept the example from an educational resource.

Even more intriguing is how you know Mike Nelson to be one who "knows his stuff". Do you know him personally? Do you know Chuck Hawks?

So what possible basis could you define your opinion of the man, other than the fact that he agrees with Jim Fetzer, who has proven time and again to be a complete imbecile when dealing with ballistics? Normally I would take a man's word for recommending another persons opinion. In this case, and with your gross and obvious lack of honor, and ability, I have so ask.

HOW DO YOU KNOW MIKE NELSON "KNOWS HIS STUFF"?

By the way Jim, the Nelson article was not about velocity at all, it was about trajectory and the arch as it pertains to long distance shooting.

You really should run your mouth only about things you actually know about.....but then....

It would get might quiet around here.....

Hey Mike,

Just out of curiosity, what's your day job? How do we know you are an expert in ballistics? I'm not doubting it, I just would like to know your qualifications to render judgments on these matters. Is there anyone who can vouch for your expertise?

Thanks--

Greg,

You are a wise man to ask. After all how are we to determine what weight to give someones opinion should we not know what knowledge base that opinion comes from?

To answer you I am an electrical Engineer, at the present. I work on computer based logic systems, as well as physical nuts and bolts electrical issues.

But that is this life.

For a more complete view of my qualifications you may want to read my short Biography. Please bear in mind, this was posted in 2007, before being employed in my present position. I still do some gunsmith work, but time is short these days and I have little time for it.

"I am recently retired from the United States Marine Corp, after 23 years of service; 1984-2007. My military occupational specialty, or Mos, for the last 19 years of my tour was 8541 Scout/Snipers. I have a strong background in ballistics, ammunitions, and weapons. I find this area to be the most interesting. Secondary Mos of 8654 (Dive and Para qualified), and 0321(reconnaissance). I am currently employed as a gunsmith, and specialize in modifying weapons for high degrees of accuracy, and recoil control. I am very new to the study of the assassination of John Kennedy, and find all areas of study interesting. "

I might also add that someone who knows ballistics can spot a "wannabe" a mile away. Those who do not understand the subject matter maybe more confused.

I would also tell you that there are several in the research community that I have known for years, and know me personally.

I hope this answers your question at least in part.

Have a great Sunday!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

LEST ANYONE DOUBT THE INCOMPETENCE OF MIKE WILLIAMS

This guy cannot possibly have been a ballistics expert or he would not be peddling nonsense about the Mannlicher-Carcano

And if anyone harbors any doubt, this guy has announced himself as a "lone-nutter". So what is he doing on this forum? It

was obvious to me from the beginning that he was not a former Master Gunnery Sergeant. No NCO of that rank would be

calling everyone who posted "Sir" nor would they be making vacuous posts. He cannot be the person that he claims to be.

Go back and read some of his past posts. They are virtually devoid of content. The guy has nothing of value to contribute.

Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth

By Mike Nelson

Myths and errors regarding the path of a bullet generally come from a lack of understanding of the forces acting on the bullet before, during, and after its path through the barrel. This article will deal with the primary forces on a bullet's trajectory, and it will mention a few of the secondary forces. The approach is directed toward the average reader. There is no attempt to address concerns of the mathematician or physicist, who should either know this material or should read a more technical and comprehensive treatise.

One of the more pervasive myths associated with bullet trajectory is that "bullets always rise right after they leave the barrel." In general, bullets do rise after leaving the barrel, and they immediately begin to drop. This is not a contradiction, and the explanation is not difficult to understand.

Bullets are affected by gravity whether in flight or not, and, when they leave the barrel, they no longer have any physical support, such as the brass, the box, your pocket, the magazine, the chamber, or the barrel, so they begin to fall. In addition, they are traveling through air, so air resistance progressively slows their flight. On most occasions the barrel is slanted upward slightly to compensate for this immediate drop; thus, for all but extreme shots, since the barrel is aimed slightly upward, the bullet does, indeed, rise slightly after it leaves the barrel, but it bullet never rises above the axis of the barrel. (Just like a football generally rises above the player when they throw a pass. The longer the pass, the greater the starting angle, and the higher the "rise" before the ball begins to fall.)

In scientific terms, "thrown" objects, whether by hand, explosion, springs, compressed air, or other forces, are called "projectiles," their path in space is called their "trajectory," and the study of their trajectories is called "ballistics." Those who fail to understand the elementary physics of ballistics often misinterpret the configuration of barrel and the line of sight and assume that something "special" happens to the bullet during its flight. Many things happen, but nothing "special;" bullets fly just like any other projectile and are subject to the same laws of physics.

The following drawings, though not to exact scale, show the typical paths of bullets and the relationship of these paths to the line of sight, whether determined by open sights or optical sights.

Horizontal Shot. If the barrel is horizontal to the surface of the earth when fired, the bullet never rises above the barrel, and gravity causes an immediate descent.

Typical Alignment. Generally, for what we consider a "horizontal" shot, the sight alignment places the barrel in a slightly upward tilt, and the bullet starts its arc, rises slightly above the level of the muzzle, but never above the axis of the barrel, reaches a peak, then descends. Figure 2 is the graph of a centerfire rifle cartridge that stays within a 6 inch circle for a distance of about 210 yards. Sighted in at approximately 170 yards, this round is approximately 3 inches high at 100 yards and three inches low at approximately 210 yards. You must, of course, always check trajectory data for your particular rifle and cartridge combination.

Velocity. The velocity is a factor in determining energy on impact and the horizontal velocity determines how far the bullet travels before it hits the ground. The above illustrations apply to all ballistic projectiles whether bullets, rocks, or ping pong balls.

Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps, such as 22 LR, most pistols, and older rifle cartridges, must follow a rather high arc in order to reach a target 100 yards away. In fact, most of these slower cartridges are only useful to about 50 yards, perhaps 75 yards for some in the upper end of this range.

High Velocity Bullets. Bullets at 2600 fps and up, such as the .223, 22-250, .243/6mm, .270, .308, 30-06, follow a much lower arc to reach a target, and their useful range can be upward of 200 yards. These are often referred to as "flatter" trajectories. With higher velocities, these bullets go much further before gravity and air resistance cause them to fall below the initial line of sight.

Since the barrel is generally directed at an angle to the line of sight, sighting directly upward or directly downward results in a trajectory that deviates even more from the line of sight than the typical, relatively level shot. Still, the effects of gravity and air resistance are the same as far as the bullet is concerned, it is just that the trajectory at such a steep angle is more divergent from the line of sight.

Secondary Ballistics Phenomena. In general, bullets follow a parabolic arc. In reality, that arc is modified significantly by air resistance, which slows the bullet during flight and effects a shortening of the arc down range. That is why the highest point of the usable portion of the trajectory is not the midpoint of that trajectory. Bullet shape and the spin from rifling also influence the trajectory slightly by reducing air resistance and stabilizing bullet orientation. That is why a 500 grain rifle bullet, for example, has a much better trajectory than a 500 grain ball from a smooth bore, all other things being equal.

Fact or Myth. So, does a bullet rise after it leaves the muzzle? One says, "yes." Another says, "no." Who is correct? Both could be correct because of different meanings associated with the word, "rise." They might argue incessantly, but their argument will not change the physical aspects of the path of the bullet. If they would concentrate on discussing the physical events, they would eventually conclude that they were each using the word, "rise," differently or that one of them did not understand elementary ballistics.

Thought Question. When sighted in for a typical hunting or target situation, what is the path of the bullet in relation to the sight picture if the rifle is aimed directly up or down

I almost laughed when I read that. I think I would have chosen an "authority" that did not use the term "perhaps" in defining the velocities. So your example is giving us his "guess" as to what the velocity range is. I prefer to accept the example from an educational resource.

Even more intriguing is how you know Mike Nelson to be one who "knows his stuff". Do you know him personally? Do you know Chuck Hawks?

So what possible basis could you define your opinion of the man, other than the fact that he agrees with Jim Fetzer, who has proven time and again to be a complete imbecile when dealing with ballistics? Normally I would take a man's word for recommending another persons opinion. In this case, and with your gross and obvious lack of honor, and ability, I have so ask.

HOW DO YOU KNOW MIKE NELSON "KNOWS HIS STUFF"?

By the way Jim, the Nelson article was not about velocity at all, it was about trajectory and the arch as it pertains to long distance shooting.

You really should run your mouth only about things you actually know about.....but then....

It would get might quiet around here.....

Hey Mike,

Just out of curiosity, what's your day job? How do we know you are an expert in ballistics? I'm not doubting it, I just would like to know your qualifications to render judgments on these matters. Is there anyone who can vouch for your expertise?

Thanks--

Greg,

You are a wise man to ask. After all how are we to determine what weight to give someones opinion should we not know what knowledge base that opinion comes from?

To answer you I am an electrical Engineer, at the present. I work on computer based logic systems, as well as physical nuts and bolts electrical issues.

But that is this life.

For a more complete view of my qualifications you may want to read my short Biography. Please bear in mind, this was posted in 2007, before being employed in my present position. I still do some gunsmith work, but time is short these days and I have little time for it.

"I am recently retired from the United States Marine Corp, after 23 years of service; 1984-2007. My military occupational specialty, or Mos, for the last 19 years of my tour was 8541 Scout/Snipers. I have a strong background in ballistics, ammunitions, and weapons. I find this area to be the most interesting. Secondary Mos of 8654 (Dive and Para qualified), and 0321(reconnaissance). I am currently employed as a gunsmith, and specialize in modifying weapons for high degrees of accuracy, and recoil control. I am very new to the study of the assassination of John Kennedy, and find all areas of study interesting. "

I might also add that someone who knows ballistics can spot a "wannabe" a mile away. Those who do not understand the subject matter maybe more confused.

I would also tell you that there are several in the research community that I have known for years, and know me personally.

I hope this answers your question at least in part.

Have a great Sunday!

Mike

Of course as anyone who has an inkling will tell you that it is the muzzle rise created by the sights of a rifle that create an arc in the trajectory.

A rifle barrel held horizontal to the ground, and fired will never allow a projectile to rise above the original height of the muzzle. The projectile will fly in a manner that slowly loses velocity and altitude, until such time that velocity is overcome by gravity, and then we would see a sharp downward path of the projectile.

This is the example of trajectory without sight elevation:

So how do we explain the trajectory arch so common to ballistic analysis?

Quite simply.

The rear sight on a rifle is higher than the front, this is by design. So as we are aligning the rifle we hold the muzzle slightly higher, in accordance with the sights. This allows the muzzle to be slightly angles upward giving the projectile the advantage over gravity and a longer flight path.

Note that one can then sight in a weapon at 15 yards and have an accurate weapon at 200 yards in some cases, as this allows the projectile to break the same horizontal plane on the upward path, that it breaks on the downward path.

Please see for example:

One would notice that at the 2" mark in the left we see the bullet pass this plane on the rise at about 50 yards, and then again on the fall at 160 yards.

This is typical and text book rifle sighting trajectory.

Something any Marine, and certainly a Marine officer should know.

Perhaps Jim has forgotten these basics over the years?

Of course it must also go to note that Jim fails to address my questions in the former post. One can ONLY WONDER why?!?

Edited May 16, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Todd W. Vaughan]

All,

Dr. Vincent J. M. DiMaio, MD, is one of the world’s leading forensic pathologists and authorities on wound ballistics. His book, Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, published in 1985, is perhaps the classic work on the subject and is used as a textbook on the subject.

On page 141 he writes:

“Before discussing rifle wounds from high-velocity centerfire cartridges, one has to decide what a high-velocity centerfire rifle cartridge is. For the purpose of this discussion, it is defined as any cartridge with a centrally located primer intended to be fired in a rifle of caliber .17 or greater whose bullet is propelled at a velocity of more than 2000 ft/sec.”

The Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm Carcano centerfire round, when fired from the C2766 Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano carbine, has a muzzle velocity measured at an average of 2160 ft/sec.

Quite obviously it qualifies as a high-velocity weapon/cartridge.

Todd

LEST ANYONE DOUBT THE INCOMPETENCE OF MIKE WILLIAMS

This guy cannot possibly have been a ballistics expert or he would not be peddling nonsense about the Mannlicher-Carcano

And if anyone harbors any doubt, this guy has announced himself as a "lone-nutter". So what is he doing on this forum? It

was obvious to me from the beginning that he was not a former Master Gunnery Sergeant. No NCO of that rank would be

calling everyone who posted "Sir" nor would they be making vacuous posts. He cannot be the person that he claims to be.

Go back and read some of his past posts. They are virtually devoid of content. The guy has nothing of value to contribute.

Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth

By Mike Nelson

Myths and errors regarding the path of a bullet generally come from a lack of understanding of the forces acting on the bullet before, during, and after its path through the barrel. This article will deal with the primary forces on a bullet's trajectory, and it will mention a few of the secondary forces. The approach is directed toward the average reader. There is no attempt to address concerns of the mathematician or physicist, who should either know this material or should read a more technical and comprehensive treatise.

One of the more pervasive myths associated with bullet trajectory is that "bullets always rise right after they leave the barrel." In general, bullets do rise after leaving the barrel, and they immediately begin to drop. This is not a contradiction, and the explanation is not difficult to understand.

Bullets are affected by gravity whether in flight or not, and, when they leave the barrel, they no longer have any physical support, such as the brass, the box, your pocket, the magazine, the chamber, or the barrel, so they begin to fall. In addition, they are traveling through air, so air resistance progressively slows their flight. On most occasions the barrel is slanted upward slightly to compensate for this immediate drop; thus, for all but extreme shots, since the barrel is aimed slightly upward, the bullet does, indeed, rise slightly after it leaves the barrel, but it bullet never rises above the axis of the barrel. (Just like a football generally rises above the player when they throw a pass. The longer the pass, the greater the starting angle, and the higher the "rise" before the ball begins to fall.)

In scientific terms, "thrown" objects, whether by hand, explosion, springs, compressed air, or other forces, are called "projectiles," their path in space is called their "trajectory," and the study of their trajectories is called "ballistics." Those who fail to understand the elementary physics of ballistics often misinterpret the configuration of barrel and the line of sight and assume that something "special" happens to the bullet during its flight. Many things happen, but nothing "special;" bullets fly just like any other projectile and are subject to the same laws of physics.

The following drawings, though not to exact scale, show the typical paths of bullets and the relationship of these paths to the line of sight, whether determined by open sights or optical sights.

Horizontal Shot. If the barrel is horizontal to the surface of the earth when fired, the bullet never rises above the barrel, and gravity causes an immediate descent.

Typical Alignment. Generally, for what we consider a "horizontal" shot, the sight alignment places the barrel in a slightly upward tilt, and the bullet starts its arc, rises slightly above the level of the muzzle, but never above the axis of the barrel, reaches a peak, then descends. Figure 2 is the graph of a centerfire rifle cartridge that stays within a 6 inch circle for a distance of about 210 yards. Sighted in at approximately 170 yards, this round is approximately 3 inches high at 100 yards and three inches low at approximately 210 yards. You must, of course, always check trajectory data for your particular rifle and cartridge combination.

Velocity. The velocity is a factor in determining energy on impact and the horizontal velocity determines how far the bullet travels before it hits the ground. The above illustrations apply to all ballistic projectiles whether bullets, rocks, or ping pong balls.

Low Velocity Bullets. Bullets at nominally 800 fps to perhaps 1600 fps, such as 22 LR, most pistols, and older rifle cartridges, must follow a rather high arc in order to reach a target 100 yards away. In fact, most of these slower cartridges are only useful to about 50 yards, perhaps 75 yards for some in the upper end of this range.

High Velocity Bullets. Bullets at 2600 fps and up, such as the .223, 22-250, .243/6mm, .270, .308, 30-06, follow a much lower arc to reach a target, and their useful range can be upward of 200 yards. These are often referred to as "flatter" trajectories. With higher velocities, these bullets go much further before gravity and air resistance cause them to fall below the initial line of sight.

Since the barrel is generally directed at an angle to the line of sight, sighting directly upward or directly downward results in a trajectory that deviates even more from the line of sight than the typical, relatively level shot. Still, the effects of gravity and air resistance are the same as far as the bullet is concerned, it is just that the trajectory at such a steep angle is more divergent from the line of sight.

Secondary Ballistics Phenomena. In general, bullets follow a parabolic arc. In reality, that arc is modified significantly by air resistance, which slows the bullet during flight and effects a shortening of the arc down range. That is why the highest point of the usable portion of the trajectory is not the midpoint of that trajectory. Bullet shape and the spin from rifling also influence the trajectory slightly by reducing air resistance and stabilizing bullet orientation. That is why a 500 grain rifle bullet, for example, has a much better trajectory than a 500 grain ball from a smooth bore, all other things being equal.

Fact or Myth. So, does a bullet rise after it leaves the muzzle? One says, "yes." Another says, "no." Who is correct? Both could be correct because of different meanings associated with the word, "rise." They might argue incessantly, but their argument will not change the physical aspects of the path of the bullet. If they would concentrate on discussing the physical events, they would eventually conclude that they were each using the word, "rise," differently or that one of them did not understand elementary ballistics.

Thought Question. When sighted in for a typical hunting or target situation, what is the path of the bullet in relation to the sight picture if the rifle is aimed directly up or down

I almost laughed when I read that. I think I would have chosen an "authority" that did not use the term "perhaps" in defining the velocities. So your example is giving us his "guess" as to what the velocity range is. I prefer to accept the example from an educational resource.

Even more intriguing is how you know Mike Nelson to be one who "knows his stuff". Do you know him personally? Do you know Chuck Hawks?

So what possible basis could you define your opinion of the man, other than the fact that he agrees with Jim Fetzer, who has proven time and again to be a complete imbecile when dealing with ballistics? Normally I would take a man's word for recommending another persons opinion. In this case, and with your gross and obvious lack of honor, and ability, I have so ask.

HOW DO YOU KNOW MIKE NELSON "KNOWS HIS STUFF"?

By the way Jim, the Nelson article was not about velocity at all, it was about trajectory and the arch as it pertains to long distance shooting.

You really should run your mouth only about things you actually know about.....but then....

It would get might quiet around here.....

Hey Mike,

Just out of curiosity, what's your day job? How do we know you are an expert in ballistics? I'm not doubting it, I just would like to know your qualifications to render judgments on these matters. Is there anyone who can vouch for your expertise?

Thanks--

Greg,

You are a wise man to ask. After all how are we to determine what weight to give someones opinion should we not know what knowledge base that opinion comes from?

To answer you I am an electrical Engineer, at the present. I work on computer based logic systems, as well as physical nuts and bolts electrical issues.

But that is this life.

For a more complete view of my qualifications you may want to read my short Biography. Please bear in mind, this was posted in 2007, before being employed in my present position. I still do some gunsmith work, but time is short these days and I have little time for it.

"I am recently retired from the United States Marine Corp, after 23 years of service; 1984-2007. My military occupational specialty, or Mos, for the last 19 years of my tour was 8541 Scout/Snipers. I have a strong background in ballistics, ammunitions, and weapons. I find this area to be the most interesting. Secondary Mos of 8654 (Dive and Para qualified), and 0321(reconnaissance). I am currently employed as a gunsmith, and specialize in modifying weapons for high degrees of accuracy, and recoil control. I am very new to the study of the assassination of John Kennedy, and find all areas of study interesting. "

I might also add that someone who knows ballistics can spot a "wannabe" a mile away. Those who do not understand the subject matter maybe more confused.

I would also tell you that there are several in the research community that I have known for years, and know me personally.

I hope this answers your question at least in part.

Have a great Sunday!

Mike

[Greg Burnham]

Mike, do you know Lt. Col.Craig Roberts, USA, Ret.? He's the author of: "Kill Zone: A Sniper looks at Dealey Plaza"? Have you read the book?

Hey Mike,

[snip] I might also add that someone who knows ballistics can spot a "wannabe" a mile away. Those who do not understand the subject matter maybe more confused.

I would also tell you that there are several in the research community that I have known for years, and know me personally.[snip]

Edited May 16, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Pat Speer]

All,

Dr. Vincent J. M. DiMaio, MD, is one of the world’s leading forensic pathologists and authorities on wound ballistics. His book, Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, published in 1985, is perhaps the classic work on the subject and is used as a textbook on the subject.

On page 141 he writes:

“Before discussing rifle wounds from high-velocity centerfire cartridges, one has to decide what a high-velocity centerfire rifle cartridge is. For the purpose of this discussion, it is defined as any cartridge with a centrally located primer intended to be fired in a rifle of caliber .17 or greater whose bullet is propelled at a velocity of more than 2000 ft/sec.”

The Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm Carcano centerfire round, when fired from the C2766 Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano carbine, has a muzzle velocity measured at an average of 2160 ft/sec.

Quite obviously it qualifies as a high-velocity weapon/cartridge.

Todd

Todd, your basic point is correct. The definition of high-velocity--even today--is inconsistent, and the M/C rifle is still considered a "high-velocity" rifle by most DOCTORS.

But Jim is also correct in that many ballistics experts--such as apparently this guy Nelson--argue that the divide should be higher, and that there should be three classes. Low--subsonic; Medium--supersonic but below 2600 or 2400 FPS (as I believe I've read elsewhere); and High--over 2600 or 2400 FPS. Jim is also correct in that this makes sense, given the widely divergent velocity of the rifles discussed.

Where he is wrong, however, is implying this divide was something Dr. Humes would have known about, and taken into account in his autopsy report. My initial challenge to Fetzer--find us a pre-assassination article on wound ballistics in which WWII-era rifles are called medium velocity weapons--remains un-met.

Perhaps it should also be noted that DiMaio is far from unbiased on anything assassination-related. On the KGB Files program he moved the Kennedy dummy into what he had to have known was an inaccurate position in order to get the SBT to align with the sniper's nest. He'd previously told the ARRB there was no need to re-investigate the medical evidence. That such a re-investigation would have totally humiliated his close colleagues Spitz and Baden of course had nothing to do with it.

When one looks back on his history, furthermore, one finds he was a Lattimerite going back to the early 70's.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Mike Williams]

Mike, do you know Lt. Col.Craig Roberts, USA, Ret.? He's the author of: "Kill Zone: A Sniper looks at Dealey Plaza"? Have you read the book?

Hey Mike,

[snip] I might also add that someone who knows ballistics can spot a "wannabe" a mile away. Those who do not understand the subject matter maybe more confused.

I would also tell you that there are several in the research community that I have known for years, and know me personally.[snip]

Greg,

I have read parts of it. Snips here and there. More importantly I have read his resume. Its revealing to say the least.

A couple things of note, is that he never held the official Mos of sniper, and in fact never qualified higher than Sharpshooter (Oswalds Rate) in the USMC.

I found it interesting as well that his MOS was an 0311, basic rifleman.

[Mike Williams]

All,

Dr. Vincent J. M. DiMaio, MD, is one of the world’s leading forensic pathologists and authorities on wound ballistics. His book, Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, published in 1985, is perhaps the classic work on the subject and is used as a textbook on the subject.

On page 141 he writes:

“Before discussing rifle wounds from high-velocity centerfire cartridges, one has to decide what a high-velocity centerfire rifle cartridge is. For the purpose of this discussion, it is defined as any cartridge with a centrally located primer intended to be fired in a rifle of caliber .17 or greater whose bullet is propelled at a velocity of more than 2000 ft/sec.”

The Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm Carcano centerfire round, when fired from the C2766 Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano carbine, has a muzzle velocity measured at an average of 2160 ft/sec.

Quite obviously it qualifies as a high-velocity weapon/cartridge.

Todd

Todd, your basic point is correct. The definition of high-velocity--even today--is inconsistent, and the M/C rifle is still considered a "high-velocity" rifle by most DOCTORS.

But Jim is also correct in that many ballistics experts--such as apparently this guy Nelson--argue that the divide should be higher, and that there should be three classes. Low--subsonic; Medium--supersonic but below 2600 or 2400 FPS (as I believe I've read elsewhere); and High--over 2600 or 2400 FPS. Jim is also correct in that this makes sense, given the widely divergent velocity of the rifles discussed.

Where he is wrong, however, is implying this divide was something Dr. Humes would have known about, and taken into account in his autopsy report. My initial challenge to Fetzer--find us a pre-assassination article on wound ballistics in which WWII-era rifles are called medium velocity weapons--remains un-met.

Perhaps it should also be noted that DiMaio is far from unbiased on anything assassination-related. On the KGB Files program he moved the Kennedy dummy into what he had to have known was an inaccurate position in order to get the SBT to align with the sniper's nest. He'd previously told the ARRB there was no need to re-investigate the medical evidence. That such a re-investigation would have totally humiliated his close colleagues Spitz and Baden of course had nothing to do with it.

When one looks back on his history, furthermore, one finds he was a Lattimerite going back to the early 70's.

Pat,

I once again am forced to tell you you are correct. In 63 what we consider a medium velocity weapon today would well have been in the upper velocity class.

Todd,

Despite our earlier disagreement, thank you for posting fair and accurate evidence.

velocity classifications are certainly subjective.

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

I have read parts of it. Snips here and there. More importantly I have read his resume. Its revealing to say the least.

A couple things of note, is that he never held the official Mos of sniper, and in fact never qualified higher than Sharpshooter (Oswalds Rate) in the USMC.

I found it interesting as well that his MOS was an 0311, basic rifleman.

Craig Roberts retired from the armed forces in 1999 with 30 years total service. He was awarded ten decorations for his Marine Corps service in Vietnam, where he served as a Marine sniper. He was also a career police officer with the Tulsa, Oklahoma, police department. An internationally published writer, he is the author of Combat Medic-Vietnam and Police Sniper, as well as the co-author of One Shot-One Kill, and The Walking Dead.

As a Master Police Officer:

By 1971, a new unit was formed called the "TAC Squad," which was Tulsa's first "SWAT" type special operations team. Roberts was selected for his Vietnam combat experience and his training as a sniper and with explosives. By this time he had attended Bomb Disposal School in Dade County, Florida and was one of three department bomb technicians.

Above: Gunnery Sergeant (Ret.) Carlos Hathcock, one of the Marine Corps best known snipers, and Craig Roberts during training of Tulsa Police Department's Special Operations Team's snipers (1989)

[Mike Williams]

Greg,

I have read parts of it. Snips here and there. More importantly I have read his resume. Its revealing to say the least.

A couple things of note, is that he never held the official Mos of sniper, and in fact never qualified higher than Sharpshooter (Oswalds Rate) in the USMC.

I found it interesting as well that his MOS was an 0311, basic rifleman.

Craig Roberts retired from the armed forces in 1999 with 30 years total service. He was awarded ten decorations for his Marine Corps service in Vietnam, where he served as a Marine sniper. He was also a career police officer with the Tulsa, Oklahoma, police department. An internationally published writer, he is the author of Combat Medic-Vietnam and Police Sniper, as well as the co-author of One Shot-One Kill, and The Walking Dead.

As a Master Police Officer:

By 1971, a new unit was formed called the "TAC Squad," which was Tulsa's first "SWAT" type special operations team. Roberts was selected for his Vietnam combat experience and his training as a sniper and with explosives. By this time he had attended Bomb Disposal School in Dade County, Florida and was one of three department bomb technicians.

Above: Gunnery Sergeant (Ret.) Carlos Hathcock, one of the Marine Corps best known snipers, and Craig Roberts during training of Tulsa Police Department's Special Operations Team's snipers (1989)

http://www.riflewarrior.com/resume.htm

If you could just show me where he had official Marine Scout Sniper training it would be of interest to me.

Additionally....

"Though not a school-trained full time scout sniper, the experience of sniper duty gave Roberts a new appreciation for military precision marksmen, which culminated years later in co-authoring two books on military sniping and one on police sniping ("One Shot--One Kill," "Crosshairs on the Kill Zone," and "Police Sniper.""

http://www.riflewarrior.com/a_sniper_in_indian_country.htm

[Greg Burnham]

If you could just show me where he had official Marine Scout Sniper training it would be of interest to me.

If you're implying that Craig isn't qualified to render a well informed opinion, I beg to differ. I sense that you are calling his qualifications into question. There are many people who have not been official Marine Scout Snipers but that have other experience which affords them sufficient knowledge to have well informed opinions. Moreover, not everyone who has held a particular position necessarily makes correct judgment calls. It is hard for me to imagine that you are actually placing yourself in a position to judge Lt Colonel Roberts' qualifications. Not only did he rise to the rank of Lt Colonel, sargeant, but he served in Vietnam--in combat, with a Unit referred to as, The Walking Dead, and received the Purple Heart among 10 other combat decorations. He was on the Tulsa Police Department for 27 years and became a training officer for the Tulsa SWAT team's snipers, as well. Are you not willing to concede that he is an expert on the subject?

Edited May 16, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Mike Williams]

If you could just show me where he had official Marine Scout Sniper training it would be of interest to me.

If you're implying that Craig isn't qualified to render a well informed opinion, I beg to differ. I sense that you are calling his qualifications into question. There are many people who have not been official Marine Scout Snipers but that have other experience which affords them sufficient knowledge to have well informed opinions. Moreover, not everyone who has held a particular position necessarily makes correct judgment calls. It is hard for me to imagine that you are actually placing yourself in a position to judge Lt Colonel Roberts' qualifications. Not only did he rise to the rank of Lt Colonel, sargeant, but he served in Vietnam--in combat, with a Unit referred to as, The Walking Dead, and received the Purple Heart among 10 others. He was on the Tulsa Police Department for 27 years and became a training officer for the Tulsa SWAT team's snipers, as well. Are you not willing to concede that he is an expert on the subject, no matter exactly where he gained his knowledge?

Greg,

Not at all so please do not misunderstand. I was and am in effect saying the same thing you are. Roberts has certainly made his place in this field, and I do not mean to imply that he has not. Further, if we are to look at this, Carlos Hathcock was not a trained sniper, by official terms, and yet he was the man who laid the foundation for all such schooling in the Marine Corp! If you think about it it is quite amazing.

I would also add that there are many civilians with the knowledge and experience to render such opinions, that have never served in the military.

Hence we need to give weight based on the substance of what one says, and not just their official accolades.

I think when evaluating an opinion we need to take all things into consideration.

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Not at all so please do not misunderstand. I was and am in effect saying the same thing you are. Roberts has certainly made his place in this field, and I do not mean to imply that he has not. Further, if we are to look at this, Carlos Hathcock was not a trained sniper, by official terms, and yet he was the man who laid the foundation for all such schooling in the Marine Corp! If you think about it it is quite amazing.

I would also add that there are many civilians with the knowledge and experience to render such opinions, that have never served in the military. Hence we need to give weight based on the substance of what one says, and not just their official accolades.

I think when evaluating an opinion we need to take all things into consideration.

So, then--it's illogical for you to say that the conclusions/opinions regarding ballistics that are contrary to your conclusions, are not well founded because those disagreeing with you don't have as much experience as you do. We know this is fallacious because Lt Colonel Roberts disagrees with you on every count of which I am aware. I wish you would refrain from claiming it in the future.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Mike, do you know Lt. Col.Craig Roberts, USA, Ret.? He's the author of: "Kill Zone: A Sniper looks at Dealey Plaza"? Have you read the book?

Hey Mike,

[snip] I might also add that someone who knows ballistics can spot a "wannabe" a mile away. Those who do not understand the subject matter maybe more confused.

I would also tell you that there are several in the research community that I have known for years, and know me personally.[snip]

Greg,

I have read parts of it. Snips here and there. More importantly I have read his resume. Its revealing to say the least.

A couple things of note, is that he never held the official Mos of sniper, and in fact never qualified higher than Sharpshooter (Oswalds Rate) in the USMC.

I found it interesting as well that his MOS was an 0311, basic rifleman.

Additionall, Mike, his book is filled with errors.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan