Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

belcffub

(595 posts)
6. Some good science and math on the issue
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 10:27 PM
Jul 2012

from the Ammo Oracle

The importance of rate of twist in wounding is a frequent subject of what we politely call "ballistic myth." Any projectile that has a "center of pressure" forward of the center of gravity will tend to tumble. You can illustrate this to yourself by trying to balance a pencil on your fingertip. Spin, given to the projectile by barrel twist, puts a projectile into a state described as "gyroscopically stable." The projectile might be momentarily disturbed but will return to nose-forward flight quickly. To describe how stable a given projectile is we use the gyroscopic stability factor (Sg). Generally you want a factor of 1.3 or greater for rifle rounds. 1.5-2.0 is a generally accepted value for 5.56 rounds.

For M193 the following variables apply:

axial moment of inertia (A) = 11.82 gm/mm2
transverse moment of inertia (B) = 77.45 gm/mm2
mass (m) = 3.53 grams
reference diameter (d) = 5.69 mm

Using the gyroscopic stability formula: Sg = A2 p2 / (4 B Ma) and assuming sea level we use an air density of 1.2250 kg/m^3 and discover that this this projectile will need on the order of 236,000 rpm for good stability (Sg > 1.3).

At 3200 fps M193 is typically spun up to more like 256,000 (1 : 9" twist) to 330,000 rpm (1 : 7&quot so that Sg approaches 1.9 or 2.0. 1 : 12" rifles will spin rounds at around 192,000 rpm and 1:14" rifles around 165,000 rpm. You can see why 1 : 14" rifles might have had trouble stabilizing M193 rounds.

Clever math types will see that density of the medium traversed (air in this case) has a dramatic effect on the spin required to maintain the Sg (density being in the first term's divisor). This is why cold conditions tend to dip "barely stable" rounds below the stability threshold. Without doing too much calculus it will be seen that an increase of three orders of magnitude (1000) in this variable will be a dramatic one for spin requirements. To balance things spin must be increased to compensate.

Through human flesh (which varies from 980 - 1100 kg/m^3 or about 1000 times the density of air) something on the order of 95,000,000 - 100,000,000 rpm is required to stabilize a projectile at speed. Given these differences it will be seen that the difference between a 1 : 12 or 1 : 14" twist when it hits flesh and a projectile launched from a 1 : 9 or 1 : 7" weapon is so small as to be beyond measuring. But the game isn't over yet.

Gyroscopic stability of 2.0 or so is sufficient for a M193 projectile to recover from an upset quickly, return to nose-forward flight and not be over stabilized. To prevent the upset in the first place, particularly when a sudden and very extreme change in density (and therefore drag and pressure applied to the center of pressure) requires FAR more stability. To grant enough stability force to prevent the upset of a M193 projectile encountering a sudden 1000 fold increase in density a factor of as much as 10 to 50 times (speaking VERY conservatively) the required gyroscopic stability for a steady state flight through a medium of that density would be required. In other words, unless the projectile is spinning at nearly a BILLION rpm it is going to be upset by such a transition. Even at this rpm it is like to be upset somewhat.

In summary, and to take the most extreme case, a M193 projectile spinning at 350,000 rpm (from a 1 : 7" rifle) is going to upset in flesh (yaw) exactly as fast as one spinning at 150,000 rpm (from a 1:14" rifle).


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The .223 A Very Deadly Bullet [View all] TheMastersNemesis Jul 2012 OP
So the excuse of hunting would be bogus SoutherDem Jul 2012 #1
For deer-hunting, you do need a high-powered, lethal bullet. backscatter712 Jul 2012 #5
The 7.62*39 works well too ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #8
Makes sense I guess, I am not a hunter so I don't know, SoutherDem Jul 2012 #9
Some Idaho deer hunters use the .223 jmowreader Jul 2012 #17
The .223 works nice for ... bayareaboy Jul 2012 #25
deer hunters dont commonly use a 30.30 backwoodsbob Jul 2012 #42
Sorry, but the 30-30 is the MOST COMMON deer rifle in Wisconsin (600,000 hunters annually)... Scuba Jul 2012 #51
My 30-30 is just fine in Iowa too. .223 illegal to use in Iowa for deer min cal is .24 n/t IADEMO2004 Jul 2012 #114
How odd that there is such a thing as bow hunting. nt cwydro Jul 2012 #124
Spitting out bullet fragments at the dinner table is part of the meal. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2012 #20
I don't know any hunters who use 100 round clips. hobbit709 Jul 2012 #134
Oh well, who cares. It's an American's right to have any kind of gun/ammunition that exists. enough Jul 2012 #2
No, it's not. In fact a lot of states won't even let you shoot Bambi's mom with it Edweird Jul 2012 #3
I've killed lot's of turkey and a few deer with the 223. ileus Jul 2012 #4
Do you eat the coyote? panader0 Jul 2012 #11
Coyotes are a huge problem for cattle ranchers as well as killing private live stock and chickens rl6214 Jul 2012 #16
I would only do it if Fish and Game recommended it due to overpopulation. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2012 #23
Just sayin---the coyotes were here before the cattle, private live stock or chickens panader0 Jul 2012 #27
Ah yes, those poor, poor cattle ranchers. Doremus Jul 2012 #28
Are you a vegan? rl6214 Jul 2012 #41
This message was self-deleted by its author HangOnKids Jul 2012 #45
Post removed Post removed Jul 2012 #47
This message was self-deleted by its author rl6214 Jul 2012 #63
I don't think I was talking to you rl6214 Jul 2012 #62
This message was self-deleted by its author HangOnKids Jul 2012 #72
What is a gun nut? sav99 Jul 2012 #75
There are gun owners and gun nuts. LastDemocratInSC Jul 2012 #83
Thats interesting. Thanks for answering. sav99 Jul 2012 #92
Why, yes I am, thanks for asking. Doremus Jul 2012 #73
Watching a coyote blithly carry off another of my cats makes me ill and makes my blood boil uppityperson Jul 2012 #80
Leaving your beloved cats to roam wild and complaining about what happens to them? Doremus Jul 2012 #112
Nope. They are inside/outside cats not "roam wild". They eat, drink, sleep, poop inside uppityperson Jul 2012 #113
If your cats are able to wander freely outdoors, Doremus Jul 2012 #116
This message was self-deleted by its author uppityperson Jul 2012 #117
Self deleted as I have no desire to get into a snark fest. Too much bs going on in the world uppityperson Jul 2012 #118
your cats shouldn't be outside tru Jul 2012 #119
Thank you for your concern. Cats eat the mice and rats. Coyotes can get into many enclosures, I have uppityperson Jul 2012 #120
So which is it? Doremus Jul 2012 #127
Hence why I don't like coyotes. Thank you for your concern but I'm not going to argue with you. uppityperson Jul 2012 #128
I think you're not going to argue because you don't have one. Doremus Jul 2012 #130
Thank you for replying respectfully rl6214 Jul 2012 #123
It ain't just cattle ranchers that have problems. JoeyT Jul 2012 #50
I give you props for trying. Doremus Jul 2012 #74
Fortunately it worked. JoeyT Jul 2012 #126
Because they kill livestocks and pets obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #52
coyote attacks on humans are rare handmade34 Jul 2012 #76
The coyotes in the East are very inbred with feral dogs obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #78
coydogs handmade34 Jul 2012 #84
Yup, they are aggressive here obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #96
Coyotes killed one of my calves.. proudgunowner Jul 2012 #115
We used to have sheep tularetom Jul 2012 #54
Coyotes are very aggressive here in Colorado Springs Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #122
Some good science and math on the issue belcffub Jul 2012 #6
Utter nonsense ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #7
Kind of wondering about that claim myself.... Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2012 #10
Me too, unless it was in the head obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #59
+1 Marinedem Jul 2012 #12
Fact is they went to the smaller caliber to get away from so much killing power. A Simple Game Jul 2012 #35
I think it had more to do with logistics. bluedigger Jul 2012 #37
Ridiculous post. Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #13
i doubt that fellow was in nam... for some reason.... dionysus Jul 2012 #69
I don't belive you Ptah Jul 2012 #14
That's why most states will not allow the .223 for deer hunting, a larger caliber is required rl6214 Jul 2012 #15
The .223 is designed to be light, inexpensive and easy to train on jmowreader Jul 2012 #18
Used both the M-14 and M-16 The Wizard Jul 2012 #26
They dropped it to a .223 Go Vols Jul 2012 #19
Where did you come up with this line of nonsense? Drahthaardogs Jul 2012 #21
It is also not considered a defensive round obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #60
lol JeepJK556 Jul 2012 #22
I was just talking to an active duty guy.. glowing Jul 2012 #24
First off... the rifle and the ammunition are two different things krispos42 Jul 2012 #29
Ballistically, the .223 is almost identical to the .222 Mag. It's a dressed-up varmint rifle. Jackpine Radical Jul 2012 #30
For deer, gimme a .30-06 or .308 any day. SlimJimmy Jul 2012 #82
Theyre all deadly. rrneck Jul 2012 #31
"The .223 ... acts like a dud ..." AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #32
Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with a "whimpy" 9mm and .22LR Kennah Jul 2012 #33
Oh Jeez... Serve The Servants Jul 2012 #34
I was wondering how he financed everything, myself. bluedigger Jul 2012 #39
This message was self-deleted by its author D23MIURG23 Jul 2012 #36
OMG Get out of Here with your BS EpsilonZer0 Jul 2012 #38
AK-47s also were also tremendously reliable. They rarely jammed, compared to M-16s. Selatius Jul 2012 #44
Tremendously reliable, and dead simple lapislzi Jul 2012 #135
glad im not the only one CbtEngr01 Jul 2012 #49
Interesting Comments TheMastersNemesis Jul 2012 #40
Do you understand that most posters here are saying you're full of shit? Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #125
I dunno where you got your ballistics info, cliffordu Jul 2012 #43
He pulled his entire OP out of a place where the Sun never shines slackmaster Jul 2012 #61
WTF are you talking about?? CbtEngr01 Jul 2012 #46
Oh look - the OP made this poster screaming angry. ellisonz Jul 2012 #48
Sadly, what he's screaming is right. JoeyT Jul 2012 #55
This isn't AR-15.com... ellisonz Jul 2012 #64
No, there's a different kind of ignorance. JoeyT Jul 2012 #66
He's not interested in facts. Clames Jul 2012 #111
because the OP was lying his face off. dionysus Jul 2012 #70
Eliisonz, please use your magic powers to send this thread to the Gungeon. It's unbearable in GD now freshwest Jul 2012 #107
the myth warrprayer Jul 2012 #53
The boattail on a bullet is to lessen the vacuum area it oneshooter Jul 2012 #98
??? warrprayer Jul 2012 #129
Read this RegieRocker Jul 2012 #102
I can't warrprayer Jul 2012 #133
It works RegieRocker Jul 2012 #136
If I am ever shot, please let it be with a .22 or .223 obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #56
This person knows what they are talking about RegieRocker Jul 2012 #57
LOL. A predictably fact-free post. More fairy tales. Edweird Jul 2012 #65
Got ya! RegieRocker Jul 2012 #67
LULZ. You made the bullshit claim - you substantiate it. Edweird Jul 2012 #71
It will go right through this one: AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #77
"It's an 88 magnum. It shoots through schools." Edweird Jul 2012 #81
You made the bullshit claim RegieRocker Jul 2012 #85
33% F Edweird Jul 2012 #90
No RegieRocker Jul 2012 #95
This Edweird Jul 2012 #100
Nope RegieRocker Jul 2012 #104
That means nothing. Edweird Jul 2012 #106
Another over the top waaayyyy out there RegieRocker Jul 2012 #138
This Edweird Jul 2012 #101
Try and get a permit and if you can get one RegieRocker Jul 2012 #105
People have them. You know it. Edweird Jul 2012 #108
This Edweird Jul 2012 #103
Uh huh...sure RegieRocker Jul 2012 #139
You forgot "The bullet finds a vein and travels up it to the victim's heart" slackmaster Jul 2012 #58
a military round of that caliber has a high powder load and goes right through people. dionysus Jul 2012 #68
As with the OP I saw this RegieRocker Jul 2012 #88
This OP proves the poster knows absolutely nothing about firearms. nt GarroHorus Jul 2012 #79
That would be you and that is plain to all who do. RegieRocker Jul 2012 #86
Are you honestly suggesting the OP was correct about the .223? GarroHorus Jul 2012 #87
Most of it. The parts that matter. RegieRocker Jul 2012 #89
HE was 100% inaccurate about that round nt GarroHorus Jul 2012 #91
Wrong on several items. oneshooter Jul 2012 #93
That was back then. Then was then RegieRocker Jul 2012 #97
Looks to me like oneshooter was referring to "back then", the same time period as the OP... Marengo Jul 2012 #132
Were you ready for immediate action? RegieRocker Jul 2012 #137
No, the 223 round is a high velocity round. pwb Jul 2012 #94
Read this and scroll down RegieRocker Jul 2012 #99
Ever here of a ricochet? pwb Jul 2012 #110
This 24 year old medical student did NOT act alone... lib2DaBone Jul 2012 #109
Yeah, this is a myth Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #121
Hate to rain on the parade Rex Jul 2012 #131
Locking SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #140
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The .223 A Very Deadly Bu...»Reply #6