Fetzer takes ballistics 101!

[Mike Williams]

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

Oh Jim, it does not require much of a technical background. I simply had to take a class on the RS LOGIX5000 by Allen Bradley. Its a computer based logic system using coordinated PLC's and the NETWORX communications systems. Schooling was not that difficult, as my military career also afforded me the opportunity to be trained with some electronic systems used in surveillance, target acquisition, and identification of enemy position. Surely a former Artillery Officer would have known such.

As a side note I do still maintain an end mill, lathe and a few other tools for working on weapons. Its a hobby.

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?

Please Jim, show me where I said Nelson did not know what he was talking about? Can you do that please?

I said no such thing. And were one to read his article and then my explanation they agree perfectly. The only issue I had was with you not Nelson, which should have been plain to see. I asked you why you chose someone who used the term "perhaps" in his description of velocity.

So now if you care to address my original question. HOW do YOU know that Nelson is a reliable source? It is obvious you have very limited knowledge of the subject matter, so tell us Jim with all your expertise, how would you know the difference?

One can also note in Nelsons article that Jim keeps bringing up that there is never once a mention of "medium" velocity rounds.

I used the diagram to illustrate to point I was making, which does seem to agree with exactly what Nelson wrote. So the only point you are trying to make here is his division that 2600 fps is "high" velocity, even though he makes no mention of a "medium" velocity range.

I would suspect that an educational resource would be far more accurate, such as the one I posted at:

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html

Which is as stated:

"Bullet velocity and mass will affect the nature of wounding. Velocity is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)"

So now it appears you have an issue with my use of the term ammunitions.

See:

http://www.sellier-bellot.cz/hunting-rifle....php?product=19

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/.../03/0315_01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiratsuka_Nav...nitions_Arsenal

http://story.argentinastar.com/index.php/c...id/635362/cs/1/

What point exactly were you trying to make with this insignificant quibble?

How can you say:

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

When anyone who knows how to search using Control+F can see plainly that the word MEDIUM is not used anywhere in that article??!

Nice job there "professor" but Ill stick with the definition from the University of Utah Medical Center. I would think a University opinion would suffice, unless of course it was one you were teaching at.

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.

Well considering the University considers 2000+ as high velocity, I would have to consider another definition. Hyper velocity which is defined as approximately 10000+fps.

So with out new term, our ranges are verified as.

Low less than 1000fps

Medium as 1000-2000fps

High as over 2000 up to 10,000FPS

Hyper 10,000 and over.

Seems simple enough to me Jim.

What amazes me is why an Artillery Officer struggles so much with ballistics? Must have been a long time ago. Of course this is what happens when the war in Vietnam was heating up and you ran off to the University of Indiana.

Thanks for being there when the men needed you Captain.

Additionally, I would have to ask. What expertise do you even have in the subject matter at hand?

Fetzer went to Princeton and graduated I think in 1962. [Most of this information can be generated out of his CV on his web site.] He was in NROTC. This meant that in his junior year he went on a midshipman cruise and was subject to a three-year active duty commitment. When his book on the crash of Senator Welstone's plane came under overwhelming attact he claimed he had knowledge of aviation through his naval training. This amounted to a one-hour flight in a training aircraft at Pensacola piloted by a qualified Navy pilot ["Here Jimmy. Now put your hands on the stick and you can fly the plane. Just don't let your feet hit the rudder peddles or mess with the throttle."] Upon reporting for active duty, Fetzer was assigned to an artillery unit. He never was an infantry officer and never was in combat. He spent the next couple of years sitting on Okinawa with his artillery unit and then was transferred to the recruit training center in San Diego. He finished off his service doing statistical studies at the recruit training center.

By 1965 or early 1966, the Marine Corps was hurting for lieutenants and captains as Vietnam was heating up in a very real way. With Vietnam looming, what did Captain Fetzer do? He skedaddled into a mediocre graduate school at the University of Indiana. This has not prevented Fetzer from emphasizing his military career and identity as a Marine officer at every juncture.

Fetzer has claimed again and again that he is an academic marvel, that few professors in the history of Western Education have ever equalled his accomplishments. The truth is rather different. He could not get into a first rate graduate school. His first job was at a third-rate university, The University of Kentucky, and he was canned a few years later. For the next ten years, he subsisted on a series of temporary (Visiting Assistant or Associate Professor) jobs at dismal places like the University of Cincinnatti or the University of South Florida. For over ten years no one would pick him up and give him a permanent job. Finally, the University of Minnesota at Duluth picked him up. At this eighth-rate institution he had no real graduate students and contented himself teaching "critical thinking"... a course sometimes taught in high school and more often in two year junior colleges.

He attempts to use his career as a Marine officer in a similar way when the true history of that career poses a single question: Why did you skedaddle from the Marine Corps when the Corps really needed you?

One more thing. It is not incorrect to add an s to ammunition, however in your opener, my name is WILLIAMS not WILLIAM. Please do pay closer attention.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Mike Williams

[John Dolva]

William. On a side issue, could you comment on how much the rifle can be tilted (not up down but left right) and still be within the range considered accurate, for various distances? (in a five shot for example?)

[Mike Williams]

William. On a side issue, could you comment on how much the rifle can be tilted (not up down but left right) and still be within the range considered accurate, for various distances? (in a five shot for example?)

"William"

Good stuff buddy lol!

I am unclear as to what you are asking. My apologies but are you asking me if the rifle can be rotated and still be accurate?

Mike

[Glenn Viklund]

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

Oh Jim, it does not require much of a technical background. I simply had to take a class on the RS LOGIX5000 by Allen Bradley. Its a computer based logic system using coordinated PLC's and the NETWORX communications systems. Schooling was not that difficult, as my military career also afforded me the opportunity to be trained with some electronic systems used in surveillance, target acquisition, and identification of enemy position. Surely a former Artillery Officer would have known such.

As a side note I do still maintain an end mill, lathe and a few other tools for working on weapons. Its a hobby.

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?

Please Jim, show me where I said Nelson did not know what he was talking about? Can you do that please?

I said no such thing. And were one to read his article and then my explanation they agree perfectly. The only issue I had was with you not Nelson, which should have been plain to see. I asked you why you chose someone who used the term "perhaps" in his description of velocity.

So now if you care to address my original question. HOW do YOU know that Nelson is a reliable source? It is obvious you have very limited knowledge of the subject matter, so tell us Jim with all your expertise, how would you know the difference?

One can also note in Nelsons article that Jim keeps bringing up that there is never once a mention of "medium" velocity rounds.

I used the diagram to illustrate to point I was making, which does seem to agree with exactly what Nelson wrote. So the only point you are trying to make here is his division that 2600 fps is "high" velocity, even though he makes no mention of a "medium" velocity range.

I would suspect that an educational resource would be far more accurate, such as the one I posted at:

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html

Which is as stated:

"Bullet velocity and mass will affect the nature of wounding. Velocity is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)"

So now it appears you have an issue with my use of the term ammunitions.

See:

http://www.sellier-bellot.cz/hunting-rifle....php?product=19

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/.../03/0315_01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiratsuka_Nav...nitions_Arsenal

http://story.argentinastar.com/index.php/c...id/635362/cs/1/

What point exactly were you trying to make with this insignificant quibble?

How can you say:

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

When anyone who knows how to search using Control+F can see plainly that the word MEDIUM is not used anywhere in that article??!

Nice job there "professor" but Ill stick with the definition from the University of Utah Medical Center. I would think a University opinion would suffice, unless of course it was one you were teaching at.

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.

Well considering the University considers 2000+ as high velocity, I would have to consider another definition. Hyper velocity which is defined as approximately 10000+fps.

So with out new term, our ranges are verified as.

Low less than 1000fps

Medium as 1000-2000fps

High as over 2000 up to 10,000FPS

Hyper 10,000 and over.

Seems simple enough to me Jim.

What amazes me is why an Artillery Officer struggles so much with ballistics? Must have been a long time ago. Of course this is what happens when the war in Vietnam was heating up and you ran off to the University of Indiana.

Thanks for being there when the men needed you Captain.

Additionally, I would have to ask. What expertise do you even have in the subject matter at hand?

Fetzer went to Princeton and graduated I think in 1962. [Most of this information can be generated out of his CV on his web site.] He was in NROTC. This meant that in his junior year he went on a midshipman cruise and was subject to a three-year active duty commitment. When his book on the crash of Senator Welstone's plane came under overwhelming attact he claimed he had knowledge of aviation through his naval training. This amounted to a one-hour flight in a training aircraft at Pensacola piloted by a qualified Navy pilot ["Here Jimmy. Now put your hands on the stick and you can fly the plane. Just don't let your feet hit the rudder peddles or mess with the throttle."] Upon reporting for active duty, Fetzer was assigned to an artillery unit. He never was an infantry officer and never was in combat. He spent the next couple of years sitting on Okinawa with his artillery unit and then was transferred to the recruit training center in San Diego. He finished off his service doing statistical studies at the recruit training center.

By 1965 or early 1966, the Marine Corps was hurting for lieutenants and captains as Vietnam was heating up in a very real way. With Vietnam looming, what did Captain Fetzer do? He skedaddled into a mediocre graduate school at the University of Indiana. This has not prevented Fetzer from emphasizing his military career and identity as a Marine officer at every juncture.

Fetzer has claimed again and again that he is an academic marvel, that few professors in the history of Western Education have ever equalled his accomplishments. The truth is rather different. He could not get into a first rate graduate school. His first job was at a third-rate university, The University of Kentucky, and he was canned a few years later. For the next ten years, he subsisted on a series of temporary (Visiting Assistant or Associate Professor) jobs at dismal places like the University of Cincinnatti or the University of South Florida. For over ten years no one would pick him up and give him a permanent job. Finally, the University of Minnesota at Duluth picked him up. At this eighth-rate institution he had no real graduate students and contented himself teaching "critical thinking"... a course sometimes taught in high school and more often in two year junior colleges.

He attempts to use his career as a Marine officer in a similar way when the true history of that career poses a single question: Why did you skedaddle from the Marine Corps when the Corps really needed you?

One more thing. It is not incorrect to add an s to ammunition, however in your opener, my name is WILLIAMS not WILLIAM. Please do pay closer attention.

Now that's the way to describe a distinguished career! I would just add that you forgot Fetzer's high IQ, which he has kindly pointed out several times.

Thanks for a truly good laugh!

[Mike Williams]

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

Oh Jim, it does not require much of a technical background. I simply had to take a class on the RS LOGIX5000 by Allen Bradley. Its a computer based logic system using coordinated PLC's and the NETWORX communications systems. Schooling was not that difficult, as my military career also afforded me the opportunity to be trained with some electronic systems used in surveillance, target acquisition, and identification of enemy position. Surely a former Artillery Officer would have known such.

As a side note I do still maintain an end mill, lathe and a few other tools for working on weapons. Its a hobby.

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?

Please Jim, show me where I said Nelson did not know what he was talking about? Can you do that please?

I said no such thing. And were one to read his article and then my explanation they agree perfectly. The only issue I had was with you not Nelson, which should have been plain to see. I asked you why you chose someone who used the term "perhaps" in his description of velocity.

So now if you care to address my original question. HOW do YOU know that Nelson is a reliable source? It is obvious you have very limited knowledge of the subject matter, so tell us Jim with all your expertise, how would you know the difference?

One can also note in Nelsons article that Jim keeps bringing up that there is never once a mention of "medium" velocity rounds.

I used the diagram to illustrate to point I was making, which does seem to agree with exactly what Nelson wrote. So the only point you are trying to make here is his division that 2600 fps is "high" velocity, even though he makes no mention of a "medium" velocity range.

I would suspect that an educational resource would be far more accurate, such as the one I posted at:

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNBLST.html

Which is as stated:

"Bullet velocity and mass will affect the nature of wounding. Velocity is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)"

So now it appears you have an issue with my use of the term ammunitions.

See:

http://www.sellier-bellot.cz/hunting-rifle....php?product=19

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/.../03/0315_01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiratsuka_Nav...nitions_Arsenal

http://story.argentinastar.com/index.php/c...id/635362/cs/1/

What point exactly were you trying to make with this insignificant quibble?

How can you say:

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

When anyone who knows how to search using Control+F can see plainly that the word MEDIUM is not used anywhere in that article??!

Nice job there "professor" but Ill stick with the definition from the University of Utah Medical Center. I would think a University opinion would suffice, unless of course it was one you were teaching at.

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.

Well considering the University considers 2000+ as high velocity, I would have to consider another definition. Hyper velocity which is defined as approximately 10000+fps.

So with out new term, our ranges are verified as.

Low less than 1000fps

Medium as 1000-2000fps

High as over 2000 up to 10,000FPS

Hyper 10,000 and over.

Seems simple enough to me Jim.

What amazes me is why an Artillery Officer struggles so much with ballistics? Must have been a long time ago. Of course this is what happens when the war in Vietnam was heating up and you ran off to the University of Indiana.

Thanks for being there when the men needed you Captain.

Additionally, I would have to ask. What expertise do you even have in the subject matter at hand?

Fetzer went to Princeton and graduated I think in 1962. [Most of this information can be generated out of his CV on his web site.] He was in NROTC. This meant that in his junior year he went on a midshipman cruise and was subject to a three-year active duty commitment. When his book on the crash of Senator Welstone's plane came under overwhelming attact he claimed he had knowledge of aviation through his naval training. This amounted to a one-hour flight in a training aircraft at Pensacola piloted by a qualified Navy pilot ["Here Jimmy. Now put your hands on the stick and you can fly the plane. Just don't let your feet hit the rudder peddles or mess with the throttle."] Upon reporting for active duty, Fetzer was assigned to an artillery unit. He never was an infantry officer and never was in combat. He spent the next couple of years sitting on Okinawa with his artillery unit and then was transferred to the recruit training center in San Diego. He finished off his service doing statistical studies at the recruit training center.

By 1965 or early 1966, the Marine Corps was hurting for lieutenants and captains as Vietnam was heating up in a very real way. With Vietnam looming, what did Captain Fetzer do? He skedaddled into a mediocre graduate school at the University of Indiana. This has not prevented Fetzer from emphasizing his military career and identity as a Marine officer at every juncture.

Fetzer has claimed again and again that he is an academic marvel, that few professors in the history of Western Education have ever equalled his accomplishments. The truth is rather different. He could not get into a first rate graduate school. His first job was at a third-rate university, The University of Kentucky, and he was canned a few years later. For the next ten years, he subsisted on a series of temporary (Visiting Assistant or Associate Professor) jobs at dismal places like the University of Cincinnatti or the University of South Florida. For over ten years no one would pick him up and give him a permanent job. Finally, the University of Minnesota at Duluth picked him up. At this eighth-rate institution he had no real graduate students and contented himself teaching "critical thinking"... a course sometimes taught in high school and more often in two year junior colleges.

He attempts to use his career as a Marine officer in a similar way when the true history of that career poses a single question: Why did you skedaddle from the Marine Corps when the Corps really needed you?

One more thing. It is not incorrect to add an s to ammunition, however in your opener, my name is WILLIAMS not WILLIAM. Please do pay closer attention.

Now that's the way to describe a distinguished career! I would just add that you forgot Fetzer's high IQ, which he has kindly pointed out several times.

Thanks for a truly good laugh!

Im glad you enjoyed that, but you really should thank JIM, he deserves a laugh. Besides all I did was unveil the obvious, with a bit of help!

I hope things have been good for you my friend!

Mike

Edited May 17, 2010 by Mike Williams

[John Dolva]

William. On a side issue, could you comment on how much the rifle can be tilted (not up down but left right) and still be within the range considered accurate, for various distances? (in a five shot for example?)

"William"

Good stuff buddy lol!

I am unclear as to what you are asking. My apologies but are you asking me if the rifle can be rotated and still be accurate?

Mike

S..t, Sorry Mike, I was pondering a previous thought about a post by BK, it all got jumbled up in there somewhere. Yes, rotated is prob a better word, rotated on its axis so when sighting the rifle the more it's rotated the built in barrel lift would send it off left with a drift to the right and rotated clockwise arc right with attendant right drift plane. Look sorry about the name thingy, purely unintended, I'm actually very good at missing metal ducks in tivolis with a dodgy airgun, this is just a Q that you being here can further my knowledge. Over say three ranges, how many degrees of rotation (approx of course, before there is a significant accuracy drop. (I imagine in certain conditiotions a very slight anti clockwise rotation could contribute to accuracy because of the spin/planing motion drift.) Anyway, I hope you understand and will answer.

Edited May 18, 2010 by John Dolva

[Mike Williams]

Fetzer:

And this post is riddled with informal fallacies from special pleading (by citing only evidence

that is favorable to your side) to the straw man (by exaggerating that negative evidence) and ad hominem

arguments (by attacking the messenger rather than his message).

Isn't it lovely to see Jim Fetzer write something like this? The one who has done nothing but breaking these unwritten rules of communication throughout this thread? Your self awareness is truly astonishing, Fetzer. Something out of the ordinary, no doubt.

I also notice that "your creativity was unleashed in 1996". Isn't that a coincidence - as this applies to your favourite protege, Judyth, at about the same point in time? The two of you really have a lot in common, as you have displayed several of her most remarkable characteristics over the course of this thread.

A match made in heaven, as someone said.

Glenn,

I also note and find it amazing that Jim not only is completely ignorant of anything resembling ballistics, but how quickly he was willing to abandon the subject matter. My exposing an accurate assessment of his background seems to have struck a nerve in old Jim, and he points out that I have issues with inadequacy?

I also note that James seems to be a bit off in his assessment that he has never witnessed a serviceman devalue the service of another. Perhaps he has not read some of his own writings about George Bush, who was not only a service man, but the President of the United States!

How much more hypocritical can one get?

You see buddy this is yet another of Fetzers tactics. He can not and has not discredited anything I said about the ballistics in this case, so now he tries to discredit the person making the opinion, myself.

He accomplishes neither.

My best to you my friend!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

William. On a side issue, could you comment on how much the rifle can be tilted (not up down but left right) and still be within the range considered accurate, for various distances? (in a five shot for example?)

"William"

Good stuff buddy lol!

I am unclear as to what you are asking. My apologies but are you asking me if the rifle can be rotated and still be accurate?

Mike

S..t, Sorry Mike, I was pondering a previous thought about a post by BK, it all got jumbled up in there somewhere. Yes, rotated is prob a better word, rotated on its axis so when sighting the rifle the more it's rotated the built in barrel lift would send it off left with a drift to the right and rotated clockwise arc right with attendant right drift plane. Look sorry about the name thingy, purely unintended, I'm actually very good at missing metal ducks in tivolis with a dodgy airgun, this is just a Q that you being here can further my knowledge. Over say three ranges, how many degrees of rotation (approx of course, before there is a significant accuracy drop. (I imagine in certain conditiotions a very slight anti clockwise rotation could contribute to accuracy because of the spin/planing motion drift.) Anyway, I hope you understand and will answer.

Dont worry about the name thing John, I thought you did it on purpose as a bit of humor! No worries there buddy.

Ok so the question is, how would a rotation of the rifle effect accuracy?

It would have great effect.

Let me see if I can explain this.

We know that a rifle that has the barrel held perfectly level, and fired, will not have the projectile rise above the level of the muzzle. This is because gravity takes its toll on all objects. As the projectile loses velocity, it loses ground to gravity and the curve towards Earth of the projectile becomes greater.

This is the example:

Note here that the bullet falls a scant few inches between 0 and 50 yards, and yet falls 10" between 350 and 400 yards.

So now when we add a scope, what we are doing is making a zero reference point, called "shooting a zero". We are aligning the scope to lift the muzzle to cause an arch in the trajectory which makes the bullet strike a known mark, at a known distance.

See this example:

Notice that the trajectory in this case appears to rise and fall. This is because we have elevated the muzzle of the weapon. So where are our sight determinations?

See here:

Note here that this trajectory has a zero of 180 yards. Being that the bullet will cross the exact same plane at 180 yards, that is was at when it left the muzzle. Also note that the impact point at 50 yards is 2" high, just as it is at say 160 yards.

So then how does this answer your question?

We can see that the first point at which the bullet passes a given plane, is on the rise of the bullet, and the second time it passes that same plane, is on the fall of the bullet.

The rise of the bullet is directly attributed to the scope/barrel relationship, while the fall of the bullet is related to the ballistic nature of the round. So basically we are counting on the upward angle of the muzzle to give us our upward trajectory, and we are relying on gravity to being a known bullet of a known weight, and known velocity back to that same plane down range.

This being the case, lets rotate that rifle.

Say we are now shooting at 90* rightward rotation of the rifle.

Our bullet now will be heading off to the right, because of the barrel scope relationship. However downrange gravity will be pulling our projectile down and away from our known arc, and trajectory path as it relates to the changed sight picture of our target.

In short. Rotating the rifle will not change the initial relationship between scope and barrel, therefore if using this example and firing with a 180 yard zero, we would still be accurate as the bullet passed the initial plane of the scope, but beyond that we would strike the target far right.

I hope this makes sense to you. If not let me know and I can spend a bit of time and make some better suited graphics to perhaps show the point far better than I can explain it.

Mike

[John Dolva]

Right, I think I get it, Mike. So if stepping back towards straightup, instead of 90 degrees, lets say 5 degrees rotation. The bullet will end up to the right, but what's the rotation within the distances which the purported shots were fired downwards taking into acoount all ballistic factors, coefficient, altitude, wind, humidity, whatever. rotation that is the most that can be made and expect a bullseye.

[Mike Williams]

Right, I think I get it, Mike. So if stepping back towards straightup, instead of 90 degrees, lets say 5 degrees rotation. The bullet will end up to the right, but what's the rotation within the distances which the purported shots were fired downwards taking into acoount all ballistic factors, coefficient, altitude, wind, humidity, whatever. rotation that is the most that can be made and expect a bullseye.

John,

This would be dependent upon what range the scope was sighted.

As we can see the scope barrel relationship determined the meeting point of the projectile and cross-hairs. If we have no way of knowing what range the scope was set up for, then we can not determine the rising point of the bullet on the rise of the arc.

What we can say and know specifically is that at any rotation there would only be accurate at the very point that the rise of the projectile met the cross-hairs due to barrel scope relationship.

In short, firing with a rifle in a rotated position would be very difficult.

Mike

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Medium velocity is between high and low, so defining them both, as Mike Nelson has done, implicitly defines "medium velocity" as between 1600 pfs and 2600 pfs, as I would have supposed anyone who was not cognitively impaired could have figured out for themselves. Notice, too, that he has offered no original observations of his own but only repeated two diagrams from Nelson's article.

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.

Mike Williams' definition of "high velocity" (from 2,000 to 10,000 fps) is absurd, since it obfuscates the kinds of

distinctions Mike Nelson has explained. That he cites Nelson and does not deny his competence impugns Mike

Williams' competence, because he is endorsing an incoherent account, which he reinforces by reprinting those

diagrams from his article. No competent ballistics expert would support the official account of Oswald as the

"lone assassin" unless he had an incentive. Here is a sample of research from a bona fide ballistics expert:

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH

Volume 3, Number 2 (2005)

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2.html

IN MEMORIAM:

VERNON JOHN RITCHSON 1952–2005

JOHN RITCHSON / Biographical Sketch and Final Comments

"One of the areas Mr. Burke and the rest of the lone-nutters are real short on is

authoritative cites in the relevant areas being discussed. Rather, their agenda

appears to be one of debasement and denigration as exemplified by their refer-

ences to me as a faker, fraud, cowardly dog, and buffoon, all in a sophomoric

attempt to trivialize and obfuscate the importance of my and other researchers’

work in this case. These sort of tactics represent the last resort of those who

know in their hearts the essential weakness of their case and are thus reduced

to ad hominem, having failed to produce any real rebuttal. For the record, I am

constantly garnering feedback and opinions from qualified professionals in the

field of firearms ballistics to absolutely minimize any possibility of error before I

even post an article." These observations, I think, apply equally to Mike Williams.

JOHN RITCHSON / Introduction to the Ballistics Evidence

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he presented an introduction to the physics underlying the science of bal-

listics, and explained in simple terms why the Warren Commission failed

in this area of its investigation. John Ritchson died just prior to the publica-

tion of this issue of Assassination Research.]

JOHN RITCHSON / The Rifle: Critique of the Simmons Testimony

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he dissected and critiqued the Warren Commission testimony of Owen

Simmons, which the Commission relied on crucially in trying to argue that

Lee Harvey Oswald could have fired the shots that killed the President.

John Ritchson died just prior to the publication of this issue of Assassina-

tion Research.]

Among the interesting observations by John Ritchson concerned the two

spent shell casings and the single live round that were "found" at the site

of the alleged "assassin's lair" on the 6th floor of the book depository, namely:

The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber that would

have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped

on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer

factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

It would later be claimed that there was a third spent cartridge that was found

at the same location at the same time, but official "evidence photographs" by

the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.

I recommend anyone who wants to appreciate what a genuine ballistics expert

can contribute to this case should read these articles by John Ritchson and then

compare them with what you are hearing from <DELETED> Mike Williams.

[John Dolva]

OK, so that pretty much defines the space available for the possible positons that the rifle must have been held at to shoot through the window, ...like, one cannot fudge the line of sight.

edit:colloquialism

Edited May 18, 2010 by John Dolva

[Mike Williams]

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT MIKE WILLIAMS' APPARENT COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT

The case for his cognitive impairment accumulates. As I observed, all Marine Corps officers are trained as

infantry officers first and, in my case, in artillery. No Marine I have ever known has denigrated the service

of another. None of us controls where and how long we serve in specific positions. I was in a staff position

at Regimental Headquarters when I resigned my commission and departed for graduate school. Apparently,

not even four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps stems attacks upon someone's patriotism.

He looked like a fake to me from scratch. Medium velocity is between high and low, so defining them both,

as Mike Nelson has done, implicitly defines "medium velocity" as between 1600 pfs and 2600 pfs, as I would

have supposed anyone who was not cognitively impaired could have figured out for themselves. Notice, too,

that he has offered no original observations of his own but only repeated two diagrams from Nelson's article.

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.

Mike Williams' definition of "high velocity" (from 2,000 to 10,000 fps) is absurd, since it obfuscates the kinds of

distinctions Mike Nelson has explained. That he cites Nelson and does not deny his competence impugns Mike

Williams' competence, because he is endorsing an incoherent account, which he reinforces by reprinting those

diagrams from his article. No competent ballistics expert would support the official account of Oswald as the

"lone assassin" unless he had an incentive. Here is a sample of research from a bona fide ballistics expert:

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH

Volume 3, Number 2 (2005)

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2.html

IN MEMORIAM:

VERNON JOHN RITCHSON 1952–2005

JOHN RITCHSON / Biographical Sketch and Final Comments

"One of the areas Mr. Burke and the rest of the lone-nutters are real short on is

authoritative cites in the relevant areas being discussed. Rather, their agenda

appears to be one of debasement and denigration as exemplified by their refer-

ences to me as a faker, fraud, cowardly dog, and buffoon, all in a sophomoric

attempt to trivialize and obfuscate the importance of my and other researchers’

work in this case. These sort of tactics represent the last resort of those who

know in their hearts the essential weakness of their case and are thus reduced

to ad hominem, having failed to produce any real rebuttal. For the record, I am

constantly garnering feedback and opinions from qualified professionals in the

field of firearms ballistics to absolutely minimize any possibility of error before I

even post an article." These observations, I think, apply equally to Mike Williams.

JOHN RITCHSON / Introduction to the Ballistics Evidence

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he presented an introduction to the physics underlying the science of bal-

listics, and explained in simple terms why the Warren Commission failed

in this area of its investigation. John Ritchson died just prior to the publica-

tion of this issue of Assassination Research.]

JOHN RITCHSON / The Rifle: Critique of the Simmons Testimony

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he dissected and critiqued the Warren Commission testimony of Owen

Simmons, which the Commission relied on crucially in trying to argue that

Lee Harvey Oswald could have fired the shots that killed the President.

John Ritchson died just prior to the publication of this issue of Assassina-

tion Research.]

Among the interesting observations by John Ritchson concerned the two

spent shell casings and the single live round that were "found" at the site

of the alleged "assassin's lair" on the 6th floor of the book depository, namely:

The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber that would

have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped

on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer

factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

It would later be claimed that there was a third spent cartridge that was found

at the same location at the same time, but official "evidence photographs" by

the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.

I recommend anyone who wants to appreciate what a genuine ballistics expert

can contribute to this case should read these articles by John Ritchson and then

compare them with what you are hearing from this "lone nutter", Mike Williams.

John,

It wasn't an ideological decision but rather a choice of professions. I never planned a career in the Marine Corps. I was enrolled in the

Navy Regular Program, for which the Navy paid for my tuition, books, and spending money for four years as an undergraduate and, in

return, I agreed to serve four years as a Naval or Marine Corps officer. I took the Marine Corps option. After reflecting on the choice

of a career in the law or in higher eduction, I chose the path to a Ph.D. and academia. I always knew there was nothing I could do as

well as I could philosophy. I had not signed up for a lifetime commitment and I neither abandoned my men or my country, which had,

as it turned out, taken a wrong turn. And I have never seen any performance as shabby as that of this "Mike Williams" on this thread.

My brother, Phil, who also graduated from Princeton, however, was a bona fide conscientious objector. He had decided he would leave

the country if he were forced to fight in a war in which he did not believe. Prior to his appearance before the draft board, he asked me

if I would write on his behalf. I was glad to and explained to the board that I was convinced this was an act of conscience on his part.

I have often thought about how it affected the members of the board to have a letter from an active duty regular Marine Corps officer--

as I recall, I was a Captain at the time--write on behalf of a conscientious objector. By a single vote, Phil received his CO exemption.

So he deserves your praise on principle rather than I. For me, I had fulfilled my obligation and had other goals to pursue, which I did.

Jim

But then what would you expect from one who ran off to the

University of Indiana, at a time when his Country, his men, needed his loyalty the most?

The man is simply revolting.

Jim gains my respect for refusing to serve in Vietnam.

Jim,

Is there a "Navy Irregular Program?"

So you chose your own self serving motivations over that of your men and your Country? Impressive.

O

Jim,

So since you have yet to refute anything I have said, and since you have chosen to completely disregard the information provided from an educational resource in regard to velocities, you now throw another argument into the game by the way of Ritchson.

I hope you fair better at this argument than you have in prior postings. SO far your batting average is 0.

So what do we have here?

The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber that would

have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped

on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer

factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

First off we begin with an inaccurate statement. The Mannlicher-Schoenauer round of the 6.5 x 54mm variety were of course expending projectiles of a diameter of .264:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5x54mm_Mann...-Sch%C3%B6nauer

Whereas the Mannlicher-Carcano fired a .267 dia. projectile. (Frazier):

Mr. FRAZIER - The bullet has parallel sides, with a round nose, is fully jacketed with a copper-alloy coating or metal jacket on the outside of a lead core. Its diameter is 6.65 millimeters. The length--possibly it would be better to put it in inches rather than millimeters The diameter is .267 inches

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Of course this charicteristic distinguishes the seperation between the MC and MS rounds.

The projectiles recovered and tested were the proper diameter and caliber for the 6.5x 52mm configuration.

The argument that was proposed is simply ridiculous. The ammunition and casings recovered were perfectly consistent with the weapon discovered.

So Jim,

Are you going to address any of the prior issues I have put to you, or are you simply going to keep adding ridiculous arguments when you hit a brick wall?

(NOTE)

I do not agree to the conclusions Ritchson makes in his article, but all respect is due him, and I would certainly not want anyone to think I was disrespecting the man. I simply do not agree with his conclusion.

[Mike Williams]

OK, so that pretty much defines the space available for the possible positons that the rifle must have been held at to shoot through the window, ...like, one cannot fudge the line of sight.

edit:colloquialism

John,

I see your thinking here, and yes we do have to limit the rifle to a vertical position to retain accuracy. I would also add that the rotation issue is one shared by scope and iron sights alike.

When we test the nest so to speak we must do so with the rifle in a vertical and proper position.

Mike

[John Dolva]

I agree, Mike.

Now consider this (please ): a faulty scope + a rotation. Can that make a scope not faulty?