Bullet flight

[itchyTF]

My son is in the Navy getting his masters and is currently taking a course on "weaponeering" or "weaponology" or something like that. They were on the topic of stabilization primarily on the big stuff, not small arms. If I understood him correctly, when a projectile is over stabilized it maintains the same attitude as when it left the barrel throughout its path. This would mean at long range it would punch a slightly oblong hole. Did I understand him correctly?

In contrast, a stabilized projectile will point in the direction of its path thereby punching a round hole.

 

[Lapua40X]

When the bullet leaves the barrel its longitudinal axis assumes a line that, as long as it's stable, remains constant throughout the distance to the target. The stable bullet will therefore always print on target at a slight angle. So even those "round" holes in the target are not truly "round".

 

[DRNewcomb]

I don't know the ballistics of artillery. Maybe what they are telling him is correct. When Hatcher did his tests at Datona of .30-'06 bullets fired straight up, he discovered that they impacted the ground pointy-end-up. In other words, they did not turn 180º in flight and fall back point first. My understanding is that this is the case for rifle bullets in general. They are so stabilized that they continue flying more or less in the same attitude that they had when they left the barrel. If anyone cares to correct this, I'll be happy to learn more.

 

[Canadian bushman]

Yes this is correct.

They fire massive projectiles a very long ways and from steep launch angles. In these cases they need the "bullet" to trace, or follow the arc of its flight path.

This helps keep the drag of the bullet more consistent and ensure it hits point first.

In small arms our launch angles are so small it makes very little difference.

 

[johnfred1965]

+1 bushman, I recently read an article about English artillery development, and they discussed this exact point