Re: [GZG] Slightly OT - Hypothetical weapon question

At 1:56 PM -0500 10/29/08, Bill Brush wrote:
>
>I guess I don't consider this a "ballistics" question, so I fail to
>see how whether or not they're experts on ballistics is relevant.

Bullets going through materials is a ballistics question with a LOT of
materials science issues thrown in for good measure.

>They were testing weapons within the constraints of the myth and
>testing parameters that were reasonable.  I've seen this implied
>disdain of them (the Mythbusters) on a few occasions and I have to say
>I don't "get" it.  They're not experts, they don't purport themselves
>to be experts, but they take questions that have non-obvious answers,
>and test them in a scientific and entertaining manner.  The whole
>point of the show is to entertain while testing things based on the
>scientific method. 

The trick is that I can take ONE load of ammunition or even three or
four of NATO spec .223/5.56x45mm and fire it into a block of ballistic
gelatin and get a clean bullet yaw and tumble. I can take another NATO
spec .223 load and fire into the same batch of ballistic gelatin and
have the bullet yaw and come apart in a near explosive fashion.

The point is, that their tests, are supposed to be the final word and
many people take them as such and when it comes to certain things
they're not.

I've had a guy who builds radar systems which represent Soviet or other
"red force" radar systems from parts and 'other' data for _purposeful_
US military testing. He's looked at some of their shows and disagreed
with their methods. He does this as someone who innately understands the
fundamentals of RF propagation, wave guides, high power systems and
electronics. I'll trust his wisdom on certain subjects a LOT more than I
will the two guys in Mythbusters.

Fundamentally, some of their tests are utter balderdash.

>It's on the DISCOVERY channel, and unlike a lot of
>programming they actually work at discovering answers.  If science
>class in school was half as interesting we'd have a lot more kids
>interested in hard science.
>

I'm not saying it's not interesting, I'm saying that JUST because the
two guys on the Discovery Channel say it's so, doesn't mean it's always
so.

>It would be interesting to see if a gun/bullet/charge combination
>could be found that would penetrate water reliably.  Anyone have a
>pond and a sheet of plywood to test on?

Yeah, in short go with a bullet with denser or more solid Jacket and
lead core construction. Or go with a bullet with a different sectional
density (same thing) AND different ballistic coefficient. The ogive is
going to be in a different place and depending on the way the bullet is
shaped it may not yaw at all. There's a Lot more to making bullets than
just dropping a dollop of lead in a mould that's been coated with
copper.

Look
-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
-		  Data Center Operations Group		       -
-		http://web.turner.com/data_center/	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		     One CNN Center SE0813 E   -
- Internet Technologies   --	     Data Center Operations    -
- Hours 9:30am - 5:30pm Mon - Fri     (8Sdc, 10Sdc IT@3Ndc)    -
- Cellular: 404-545-6205	   ( Suwanee and Manassas DCs) -
- Office: 404-588-6191		    e-mail: Ryan.Gill@cnn.com  -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-	      Emergency Power-off != Door release!	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l