Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Long range whoppers and other shooting BS

That only works when the muzzle is pointed up. Of course it has to be pointed up to get the trajectory to have a bullet travel any distance, but a bullet doesn’t rise if the barrel was level with the ground.

Yep, pointed up, above the sight line

Bullets don't rise above the line of bore. But if the muzzle is pointing up.....

That's really the jist of it. As you know, the bullet drops from line of bore, rises and drops relative to the line of sight, the target and the earth. Hell, the bullet, rifle and shooter are all moving more or less 24,000 mph if you happened to be viewing it from the moon, and it hasn't even been shot yet. Don't even get me started relative to the sun. Haven't personally met a shooter yet who could explain why gravity exists, but they still hit things a long ways away with the deficiency. (I'm guessing you're a mass warping space time guy?)

If a shooter believed that wind was caused by trees sneezing but held/dialled into the sneeze he'd still be better off than the guy who didn't crank/hold into the sneeze.

Does it?

Sure, because everybody knows that apples don’t fall up 😳

Somebody once said there is no gravity, the Earth sucks.

knew some old timers that knew for a fact that their their rifles hit high in the night-time. They weren't wrong, but had long since wondering wondering why. Took me a good few minutes to crack that nut.

Gravity, a la Newton, isn't necessarily why.

Of course gravity exists, but it isn’t the act of falling that is gravity. It is the physics of the phenomenon of larger objects that attract smaller objects due to the difference of mass.

Nope.

Sorry mathman, I nope your nope…

In Newtonian gravity it isn't larger objects attracting smaller objects. It is mutual attraction, and it isn't due to the difference of mass. It's the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between them, all multiplied by a scaling constant.

The formula for which a body of mass attracts the other is not the definition of gravity. Stick with math, but remember we’re not talking math, we’re talking mass…

You mentioned attraction, which is a force. It is mutual, and in the Newtonian model the attraction which you mentioned is described by the formula I mentioned.

So how do you define gravity? That is, what is your "physics of the phenomenon" you mentioned?

I should say when I asked "Does it?" above I was referring to the force of gravity.

OK smarty pants, if you had a scale on the moon, would you weigh what you do on earth?

Of course not, your formula wouldn’t work on the moon because the mass of the moon is less than that of the earth and the attraction of your mass to the core of the moon is less, giving you a lighter weight, yet you are the same…

If we're sticking with Newtonian gravity then the inverse square law would actually say exactly why I'd weigh less on the moon. The mutual attraction between me and the moon would be less because the product of our masses would be less.

Glip doib googly skizm pakrid smiyrt…

Maybe you never heard of MACV SOG? Or maybe he had? LOL