Recent content by boilingleadbath

1) Indeed, put the scope where it is optically correct. It does nothing for your shooting ability if you have to 'put up with' the ergonomics of your gear. 2) The fact that your eyesight isn't 'normal' doesn't make much (any?) difference in eye relief: Even at 20-200 nearsighted (uncorrected)...

You could put a load cell or accelerometer in the gun, and thus measure the force applied to the shoulder... Measuring the free recoil is largely pointless. Shotguns have a very high shot:powder weight ratio, and such their recoil physics can be approximated easily and accurately.

Alot of people consider seem to agree that being able to quickly mount/unmount a suppressor is useful - hence the existence of the various quick attachment methods that exist. ...a bayonet lug, though, might not work so well. I am not familiar with the geometry of the mounts on the rifle in...

I, too, have tried shooting weak sided with both eyes open. I'll agree: shooting weak side does feel a bit weird at first. I got used to the weird "feel" of it pretty quickly. Switching the rifle over to iron sights seems to help me - I think it works by eliminating the confusing visual...

"'Move' or 'Vaporize'" I'm not sure it's consequential - ultimately, even if the bow shock breaks up the raindrop, the mass is still there, and has to be moved. I don't know enough about the situation to be able to tell if moving that mass is: 1) Even possible through purely shockwave effects...

Railguns, unless you put some sort of recoil reduction system (rear facing rockets, for instance) most certainly do recoil. They have to - they make stuff go out the front. Not very harshly, given how low their muzzle momentum/launcher mass ratio is, but then that's also true of a .223 rifle...

"There will be no pistol shooting of any kind at the next olympics, if there is any justice in the world." Hu?

The photos you showed of bullets with notably detached bow shocks were scarcely supersonic - if you look at the rifle bullet, you'll notice that the bow shock is pretty much ON the point of the bullet. Besides, I wouldn't expect those shocks to move the rain very well. However, that...

"things we haven't thought of yet" Yeah, at least for lethal tools, in the short term: * Lasers will require a great deal of power to do anything substantial, so if they are chemical powered (any possible battery, that is) they will not have much benefit over firearms. * Railguns have...

Well, there are three challenges that the range offers which would have to be represented on your mini-range. 1) Angular size of the target. This is easy, just shrink the target porportionally. 36" target @ 600 yards = 6" target at 100 yards. 2) Drop of the bullet. Unfortunately, angular drop...

I'm calculating about .3 grains of air in a .224"x20" bore. So air effects in the bore are insignificant.

The reflector element is lighter, right? Shouldn't this improve their drop resistance? (Unless they aren't designed to be drop resistant, but instead simply light weight. But that's a design issue, not a inherent feature.) You generally get less light transmission off of a mirror than you do...

Eh, in general terms, I can only see a ambush as a justifiable defensive tactic if: 1) You cannot run 2) You cannot hide 3) You are able to set up an ambush Eh, an example? <strike>Well, let's say your in a mall when a whole bunch of zombies pop up and start closing in on your position...

Why can't they just swap the map out for one loaded with less-than-lethal rounds? Or make beanbag rounds for the m203? Sounds like a simpler solution - it obviously has the issue that they may fire the wrong rounds, but that problem exists with the proposed system too. AFAI(am concerned)...

...TRIANGULAR BARRELS?! COOL! I, eh, tried to model the scenario in solidworks. (FEA) I have no clue *** I'm doing, but I tried to do something reasonable, and this is what I got: ******* I got surprising results (?): 2) The barrels deflected .26 (triangular) and .31" (round) 3) The...