Fetzer takes ballistics 101!

[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.

Additionall, Mike, his book is filled with errors.

Yes Sir, it in fact is. I have never ever in all my years heard of a recreation at Quantico for example. Among other things.

[Greg Burnham]

Yes Sir, it in fact is. I have never ever in all my years heard of a recreation at Quantico for example. Among other things.

How would you know? You said you've never even read it except for bits and pieces! What, you just happened to stumble upon the errors?

[Mike Williams]

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.

Greg,

You might note that Tom Purvis and I have very different views on the shooting event. However, Tom has built his theory on solid ballistic principle. Most have only what they "think" to go on, and often what they "think" is ballistically incorrect. This is where I question their knowledge on the subject matter and rightfully should. Many refuse to see the inaccuracy in their "thinking" simply because to admit that they are incorrect causes them also to have to admit that their theories are incorrect.

When faced with this, I do often ask them their expertise in the subject. I do this for the benefit of those who read the topics and may not know any better. I base my ideas and replies on solid ballistics, is it so much to ask others to do the same rather than just going by what "they believe"?

I do not agree totally with Tom, and yet, have to say that his conclusions are well based and built on substance and ballistic principle and not just errant thinking.

So if it seems like I challenge someones ballistic knowledge it is only because I know what they are proclaiming is incorrect. I see no wrong in this, as some may not know the difference, and they deserve accurate and correct evaluations presented to them.

I hope you can appreciate my position in this.

Mike

[Greg Burnham]

I have not read it cover to cover, but I have read enough pieces to know there are issues. There are also some other things in the book I do agree with. Such as his position that the South Knoll would have been an excellent spot, I would agree with that, Ive seen the area and have to say that would have been my pick.

I do not need to be intimately familiar with the inner workings of a clock to be able to tell what time it is.

I too would prefer either a stationary target or, if not available (or unpredictable), one that was approaching me (getting larger) and descending below my horizontal LOS--particularly if target was in an open car.

Absolutely! The worst shot, and one to avoid, would be the knoll, where an issue would be a passing right to left shot. Although the Snipers nest location was not bad either, I just dont think it was the best choice. However one has to take what one can get lol.

The "key" to the knoll shot would have to be a stationary target. Without a guaranteed FULL stop it is--without a lot of luck--way too uncertain. But, I don't like the TSBD shot for several reasons. First, (assuming that is where I was staged) I wouldn't have passed up my BEST approach shot when target was on Houston Street immediately after straightening up after the turn from Main. The driver has NO escape route and very limited ability to acquire lateral motion! Granted, the angle is not optimal due to the relatively short distance and the fact that it is a moving target, which forces continuous adjustment, reducing the margin of error. However, if one were already positioned there, it seems to be the best opportunity, IMO.

However, waiting for the target to pass and acquire lateral motion down field is not smart--indeed, the target has an open escape route dead (no pun intended) ahead, as well.

Anyway, this is the wrong thread to discuss this subject, my bad.

[Mike Williams]

I have not read it cover to cover, but I have read enough pieces to know there are issues. There are also some other things in the book I do agree with. Such as his position that the South Knoll would have been an excellent spot, I would agree with that, Ive seen the area and have to say that would have been my pick.

I do not need to be intimately familiar with the inner workings of a clock to be able to tell what time it is.

I too would prefer either a stationary target or, if not available (or unpredictable), one that was approaching me (getting larger) and descending below my horizontal LOS--particularly if target was in an open car.

Absolutely! The worst shot, and one to avoid, would be the knoll, where an issue would be a passing right to left shot. Although the Snipers nest location was not bad either, I just dont think it was the best choice. However one has to take what one can get lol.

The "key" to the knoll shot would have to be a stationary target. Without a guaranteed FULL stop it is--without a lot of luck--way too uncertain. But, I don't like the TSBD shot for several reasons. First, (assuming that is where I was staged) I wouldn't have passed up my BEST approach shot when target was on Houston Street immediately after straightening up after the turn from Main. The driver has NO escape route and very limited ability to acquire lateral motion! Granted, the angle is not optimal due to the relatively short distance and the fact that it is a moving target, which forces continuous adjustment, reducing the margin of error. However, if one were already positioned there, it seems to be the best opportunity, IMO.

However, waiting for the target to pass and acquire lateral motion down field is not smart--indeed, the target has an open escape route dead (no pun intended) ahead, as well.

Anyway, this is the wrong thread to discuss this subject, my bad.

I would certainly say that is an accurate assessment!

[Ron Ecker]

I have not read it cover to cover, but I have read enough pieces to know there are issues. There are also some other things in the book I do agree with. Such as his position that the South Knoll would have been an excellent spot, I would agree with that, Ive seen the area and have to say that would have been my pick.

Mike,

Perhaps I have an unrevised edition of Kill Zone, but in my copy (there's no copyright date, but it's a 1997 printing) Roberts doesn't even mention the South Knoll. That's the biggest question I had about the book (aside from all the errors already alluded to) when I read it. Roberts says that he went all over Dealey Plaza, and on the Grassy Knoll behind the Picket Fence was "exactly where I would position myself" (p. 13). Among its advantages, he says, was that "the target vehicle would be approaching instead of moving away," and would be "almost flat trajectory."

One might think that he's talking about the South Knoll, but unfortunately he's not.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Ron Ecker

[Mike Williams]

I have not read it cover to cover, but I have read enough pieces to know there are issues. There are also some other things in the book I do agree with. Such as his position that the South Knoll would have been an excellent spot, I would agree with that, Ive seen the area and have to say that would have been my pick.

Mike,

Perhaps I have an unrevised edition of Kill Zone, but in my copy (there's no copyright date, but it's a 1997 printing) Roberts doesn't even mention the South Knoll. That's the biggest question I had about the book (aside from all the errors already alluded to) when I read it. Roberts says that he went all over Dealey Plaza, and on the Grassy Knoll behind the Picket Fence was "exactly where I would position myself" (p. 13). Among its advantages, he says, was that "the target vehicle would be approaching instead of moving away," and would be "almost flat trajectory."

You might think that he's talking about the South Knoll, but unfortunately he's not.

However, when he toured the plaza with Debra Conway, he said exactly that the South Knoll would have been his pick. So either we have A) another inconsistency, or B ) a misunderstanding, as the GK would not be a flat trajectory nor an approaching target. (at least not in the direct sense of things.) I must admit that the picket fence comment certainly seems to rule out the misunderstanding ( B ).

I also have never heard of a recreation at Quantico and certainly not one that Hathcock took part in.

In short I think the man's agenda to sell books overcame his better sense.

How could a professional sniper and marksman say that any shot at 88 yards would be difficult? Ive looked at this shot in the plaza and frankly this statement escapes me. I just can not fathom how anyone could give this opinion as an honest assessment.

My very best to you Sir,

Mike

Edited May 16, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Ron Ecker]

I also have never heard of a recreation at Quantico and certainly not one that Hathcock took part in.

I've also never heard of "U.S. congressmen and senators" being aboard the Cabinet flight to Japan on 11/22/63, nor of more than one code book missing from the plane ("all code books" were missing, "a very serious matter") (Kill Zone, p. 65).

[Mike Williams]

I also have never heard of a recreation at Quantico and certainly not one that Hathcock took part in.

I've also never heard of "U.S. congressmen and senators" being aboard the Cabinet flight to Japan on 11/22/63, nor of more than one code book missing from the plane ("all code books" were missing, "a very serious matter") (Kill Zone, p. 65).

Ron,

Thank you I had not heard those before. I certainly hope the mans rifle accuracy was far better than his literary accuracy.....

Salute,

Mike

[Greg Burnham]

I've also never heard of "U.S. congressmen and senators" being aboard the Cabinet flight to Japan on 11/22/63, nor of more than one code book missing from the plane ("all code books" were missing, "a very serious matter") (Kill Zone, p. 65).

What do you mean "I've also never heard of U.S. congressmen and senators being aboard the Cabinet flight to Japan on 11/22/63" ?? Huh?

This is from your OWN website, and I quote RON ECKER:

==============

THE REASON FOR THE TOKYO TRIP

[...] In June 1961 JFK met in Washington with Japanese Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda, and in a joint statement they announced an agreement "to establish a joint United States-Japan committee on trade and economic affairs at the cabinet level." 14 In a November 8, 1961 press conference, JFK commented on "the success and significance of the first meeting of the Joint United States-Japan Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs," which was held the week before in Japan, and which he described as a "joint Cabinet group." 15 (The acronym for this committee in State Department documents is the Joint ECONCOM.) The second annual meeting was held in Washington on December 3-5, 1962, and the third was to have taken place in Tokyo on November 25-27, 1963. 16

A videotaped greeting from JFK was scheduled to be sent to Japan in the first ever U.S.-Japan satellite telecast on the afternoon of November 22. Instead the Japanese people were introduced to the satellite telecommunications era with news of the assassination. 17 Prime Minister Ikeda went to Washington for JFK's funeral, and President Johnson personally expressed regret that the tragedy had forced postponement of the third annual Joint ECONCOM meeting. Rescheduled, the meeting was held in Tokyo on January 27-28, 1964. 18"

================

You obviously have heard about it. I don't agree with your analysis...

Edited May 16, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Ron Ecker]

Greg,

Please be more specific. I need the specific reference(s) on my own website to congressmen and senators being aboard the Tokyo flight.

Ron

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Please be more specific. I need the specific reference(s) on my own website to congressmen and senators being aboard the Tokyo flight.

Ron

Ron,

I assumed it was your own website, perhaps it wasn't. I should have said it was from an "article" or a "paper" you wrote. You can find it reproduced here:

By Ron Ecker

[Ron Ecker]

Greg,

Yes, I have a copy of my article. And I've looked in vain for a reference in it (or anywhere else except Kill Zone) to congressmen and senators being on the flight. I didn't really think I (or you) would find one.

Ron

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Yes, I have a copy of my article. And I've looked in vain for a reference in it (or anywhere else except Kill Zone) to congressmen and senators being on the flight. I didn't really think I (or you) would find one.

Ron

I apologize, Ron. I thought you were questioning the flight of the Cabinet members themselves. My mistake.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO MIKE WILLIAM WITH A FEW QUESTIONS (THREE, ACTUALLY) OF HIS OWN

Several questions arise in relation to this post. One is, how can someone who claims to have this extensive background in arms

and ballistics shift over to electrical engineering? According to Mike Williams, "I am an electrical Engineer, at the present. I work

on computer based logic systems, as well as physical nuts and bolts electrical issues." That requires a technical background and

as a rule degrees in these subjects. What is his background and where can we verify that he is who he claims to be? If he were

running a "Skeet and Gun Club" or a shop for working on weapons, his story might be more plausible. But that's not the case.

Question 1: These descriptions appear to be inconsistent. What is your actual background and how can it be verified?

So I am very skeptical about his claim to have a background in ballistics, where he even pluralizes "ammunition" and writes it as

"ammunitions", which strikes me as very odd. Moreover, he denigrated Mike Nelson as a reliable source when I cited him about

the distinction between high and low velocity, which remains the most competent presented on this forum. Yet he offers diagrams

to support his position that were taken from Mike Nelson's own paper, http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm, which

the source of one of the best, if not the best, defined distinctions between high, medium, and low velocity, which he discusses:

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.

Question 2. If you question Mike Nelson's background and qualifications, why are you using diagrams taken from his work?

Notice, too, that the diagrams this guy has taken from Mike Nelson's work are for weapons with 3,000-3,200 fps muzzle velocities.

Indeed, there are other with higher muzzle velocities than those, which are discussed, for example, in the article, "The Rifle Barrel"

by Chuck Hawks, http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_barrel.htm, which suggests 2,000 fps weapon is of comparatively low velocity:

The 45th Edition of the Lyman Reloading Handbook also has a table showing Center Fire Rifle Velocity Vs. Barrel Length. Their figures apply to

barrels between 20 and 26 inches in length and agree with the Remington figures. The Lyman table shows the following approximate velocity changes:

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 1000-2000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 5 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 2001-2500 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 10 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 2501-3000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 20 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 3001-3500 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 30 fps.

For rifles with muzzle velocities in the 3501-4000 fps range, the change in velocity for each 1" change in barrel length is 40 fps.

Question 3. If muzzle velocities of 2000 fps are called "high velocity", what do we call those in these four higher fps categories?

The point being that, were the term properly used as Mike Williams has proposed, then, since it is such low velocity relative to the

other four, what would be appropriate for the others? higher high-velocity? even higher high-velocity? His contention is ridiculous.

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 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer