Elric
Well-Known Member
Concerning Bullets Vertically Fired
Editor, Arms And The Man:
American Rifleman, vol 64 No. 16, July 13, 1918 page 318
https://books.google.com/books?id=t...q=Concerning Bullets Vertically Fired&f=false
Being interested in the discussion of the behavior of vertically fired bullets, as lately printed in Aims And The Man, I am writing to tell of my observations along that line. During the Civil War, I was a student under the late Samuel L. Venable, who was an ardent sportsman and as accomplished in rifle shooting as he was in "teaching the young idea how to shoot" in the matter of Greek and Latin verbs.
Professor Venable was not satisfied with the common belief that a rifle bullet, fired vertically, would reach the ground in its fall at the same velocity as when it started upward from the muzzle.
We had been taught to believe that the bullet, fired vertically into the air, would gradually lose its velocity and finally come to a stop, when the attraction of gravitation would bring it back to the earth with a speed increasing as it descended, until it reached the level from which it started. We were told that the velocity and penetration at the end of its fall would be the same as when it began its upward flight.
To make a practical sort of a test, he used his long-barrel sporting rifle, which was carefully set up, precisely vertical, by the aid of a spirit level, and secured in that position.
The test took place on the-flat tin roof of St. John's College. The weather was clear and a dead calm; that is, no wind whatever. A number of shots were fired and most of the bullets struck the roof in falling, but none of them penetrated the tin. The charge of powder he used would drive the same bullet through a two-inch pine board near the muzzle. We concluded that there was something wrong in the common belief in the theory or the law in falling bullets.
As well as I can remember, such a theory used to be taught in the Natural Philosophy, as used in the schools, along with the cause of the intermittent springs, which was also found to be incorrect.
Thos. C. Harris,
Washington, D. C.
Editor, Arms And The Man:
American Rifleman, vol 64 No. 16, July 13, 1918 page 318
https://books.google.com/books?id=t...q=Concerning Bullets Vertically Fired&f=false
Being interested in the discussion of the behavior of vertically fired bullets, as lately printed in Aims And The Man, I am writing to tell of my observations along that line. During the Civil War, I was a student under the late Samuel L. Venable, who was an ardent sportsman and as accomplished in rifle shooting as he was in "teaching the young idea how to shoot" in the matter of Greek and Latin verbs.
Professor Venable was not satisfied with the common belief that a rifle bullet, fired vertically, would reach the ground in its fall at the same velocity as when it started upward from the muzzle.
We had been taught to believe that the bullet, fired vertically into the air, would gradually lose its velocity and finally come to a stop, when the attraction of gravitation would bring it back to the earth with a speed increasing as it descended, until it reached the level from which it started. We were told that the velocity and penetration at the end of its fall would be the same as when it began its upward flight.
To make a practical sort of a test, he used his long-barrel sporting rifle, which was carefully set up, precisely vertical, by the aid of a spirit level, and secured in that position.
The test took place on the-flat tin roof of St. John's College. The weather was clear and a dead calm; that is, no wind whatever. A number of shots were fired and most of the bullets struck the roof in falling, but none of them penetrated the tin. The charge of powder he used would drive the same bullet through a two-inch pine board near the muzzle. We concluded that there was something wrong in the common belief in the theory or the law in falling bullets.
As well as I can remember, such a theory used to be taught in the Natural Philosophy, as used in the schools, along with the cause of the intermittent springs, which was also found to be incorrect.
Thos. C. Harris,
Washington, D. C.
