Shooting up into the air with a .22wmr

Umiq88

I always thought this was one of those things that you never do and that its extremely dangerous. I always though to be sure of your backstop and what your shooting at. Anyway how the question arised i was asked to shoot some crows and that they're very wary so just shoot them out of the tree with the rifle and i said i couldnt do that and wont i then later ran this by my dad who said that its grand

i can see the logic that the bullet will lose all its energy and by the time it gets back down will not do any harm but also the logic that the bullet can still fall quickly and have power left to do damge

anyway can you shoot into the air with a .22wmr

17REM

u gonna get slaughtered for askin that! if in doubt dnt pull the trigger

Keelan

No Way!!!!!!!!!!!!!

newby.204

Crows in trees

SHOTGUN, psitta, id make use of that Browning of yours!

Just my own opinion, i would never fire a rifle into the air, although maybe im just a wary novice!!!

johngalway

psittacosis wrote:

anyway can you shoot into the air with a .22wmr

No.

No.

&

No.

No disrespect to your dad, but that's one peice of advice that you shouldn't even consider taking. My gun dealer has told me stories, yep more than one, of people being killed in this way. Don't go there

John

civdef

The only time the "shooting upwards means the bullet will lose most of it's energy and only come down with the velocity it picks up due to gravity" is valid is if you shoot exactly upwards.

This will be easy if firing from a fixed mount equipped with a spirit level, but otherwise is pretty much impossible.

Any horizontal component in the path of the bullet will mean it will come down with more energy than a falling object.

Hezz700

Good God man don't do it. that is a very unsound theory. if you only follow one run in rifle shooting, let it be this. Never squeeze the trigger unless you a 100% sure of where the projectile will stop:eek:

jaycee

Any horizontal component in the path of the bullet will mean it will come down with more energy than a falling object.

And..even if it didn't have any more energy than a falling object ..
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be the thing it hit after falling vertically from half a mile up... :eek: It would make for very nasty hailstones.

Never shoot without a solid back stop. ... the end !

Sparks

I think that about covers the "answering the question" part

A point that ought to be made though, is that psitta didn't know and asked. That's something to be encouraged!

Double Barrel

JC, I am sure meant "Never shoot without a solid back stop". ... the end !

jaycee

Spotted and edited that typo at the same time as you posted...

Umiq88

Havent done it and tbh was shocked when i heard it hence posting it here thanks for clearing that up

How is it that a shotgun can be fired up in the air though

EDIT
Ive just been informed by a competent marksman and one who has shot for ireland and has been shooting all types for years that it is fine that the bullet will loose energy and is designed to tumble in the air. But only take a clean shot ie no branches in the way so it wont get deflected

what basis does everyone else have for saying that you cant i mean i thought you cant but had no basis just that its a big bad no no which i also thought the same for dry firing which ive found and proven to be wrong (on my rifle)

civdef

Where do you reckon the bullet would go if you miss?

Umiq88

up into the air loose its energy and decend doing no more damage than a rock someone throws into the air or someone firing a caturpult

NutJob

it looses its energy alright but it makes it up on the way down.


Dont take any chances with a gun and youll live longer and those around you may live longer two.


Iv seen too many stupid thing go wrong and iv a collection of stories from others.


Moral of the story is dont do anything unless you know its safe.

jaycee

How is it that a shotgun can be fired up in the air though

lower velocity ammo , There are multiple very small projectiles ..which each have much lower energy and lose that energy quickly as they spread out .
Compare the size of a shotgun pellet to a .22mag bullet ...much smaller.

Then theres that warning written clearly on the side of the rifle ammo box about range and danger. You'd be very unlucky to be fatally injured by birdshot from a shotgun at 100yards ..and very lucky NOT to be seriously injured by a shot from a .22 at twice that range.

As to dry firing without a snap-cap.. ok in some guns ..not in others. Rimfires tend to suffer the most from damage to the firing pin as it's usually tiny. Centerfire rifles ..less so, because everything is a bit stronger.
I wouldn't do it , or allow anyone to do it to my rifles. As far as "Proving it's ok" .. I have my doubts .. it won't snap the firing pin for sure every time , but it can and it has happened to many people .. why risk it. ?

I don't wish to offend your expert friend , but bullets are not generally designed to tumble , actually it's one of the things designers try to avoid at all costs .. eventually as it loses velocity it may . A bullet that tumbles soon after firing would be very innacurate and unpredictable.

As they say ... "What go's up...Must come down " ..and would he like to be under it when it comes down.. ? ..Once again... Why risk it..?

johngalway

The angle you'd (in theory, still wouldn't do it in practice) be firing at... if it's closeish to straight up, then why not use a shotgun? How tall are these trees lol. If you're shooting at an angle other than that (long arc is the only way I can describe it as I was always s***e at maths) then the so called lethal range of say a .22 is 1.5 kilometres (5km for a .223 on the Tikka website,am subject to correction on both). So, if you shoot the latter, and miss, you have no idea where your bullet will go. Perhaps over the next hill and smack someone in the side of the head while they're out walking, gardening, driving. Again, if it's safe to do so, use a shotgun. My gun dealer told me of such a story, a guy was shooting at a bird. He missed and it ended up hitting and killing I think it was a farmer on a tractor. The only time I'd consider it safe to shoot a bird with any rifle is when either you've engineered a situation to land them infront of a safe backstop, or you're presented with that same situation by chance.

It's beed said here many times already, know where your bullet will go, make sure it's going to hit a safe backstop if you do miss. I think from reading the replies all everyones trying to do is keep ya out of trouble (in a good, not condescending/patronising way).

On shotguns, going on what I've read only. Given a generous safety margin the so called danger zone of a shotgun fired at the optimal elevation to get the most range is 500 yards. Don't get me wrong, it's still dangerous if you don't know where the shot is going IMO. But it's a big improvement on rifles in the same situation.

Very commendable to have asked the question in the first place as Sparks said No such thing as a bad question IMO!

Sorry for rambling, I just really don't want to see anyone do anything they might regret in the future

John

Jacobo

psittacosis wrote:

How is it that a shotgun can be fired up in the air though

Because, while bullets are aerodynamic and spin to retain their stability, and are somewhat heavy, so they keep some energy when they fall to the ground, pellets in a shotgun are spherical, very light and unstable, so they lose their energy very soon due to air resistance.

ABC

Hello,

Here comes another 2 cents worth.


The bullet (if fired vertically or close to vertical) will go up (obviously!), stop,
and start to come down again accelerating as it does so. It will get faster
and faster untill it reaches its 'terminal velocity'. Thats the max. speed the
bullet can reach as the pull of gravity is equal to the air resistance at that
speed. I do not know what the terminal velocity of a free falling WMR is but
if you google you may find it. I would imagine it would be a dangerous speed and enough to possible kill but nowhere near the speed that it exist the gun.

In general the larger the round the more energy the round will have as it hits the ground (or the top of your noggin:) ) if they are at the same speed. As the rounds get bigger the terminal velocity will get smalller, but not much, so a half inch caliber round would be a lot more dangerous than a WMR free falling eventhough the speed of the half inch round would be slightly less.

If you think that the large half inch round will hit the ground at a much bigger speed that a smaller round do the following. Take a small chunk and a large chunk of Iron and drop them at the same time. Both will hit the ground at the same time. If fact, if you do it very accuratly, and use a sensible distance (climb up two strories) the small chunk will hit the ground first (ie. it will travel faster) . Small piece has less air resistance.............

So my question is

What is the terminal velocity of common rounds??

I wont bother holding my breath for an answer:p

Vegeta

get a friend to call round who has an air rifle, if you lived close to me I'd do it for ya.

I also enjoy rat shooting with it


As everyone has said a bullet is designed to spin in the air and keep a flat trjectory. Don't do it man, don't shoot into the air with it. The worst case scenario(i.e. teh angle at which teh bullet will travel the furthest) is if you fire at a 45 degree angle, which could easily happen shooting into trees.

Anyway there is some truth into this tumble theory but let me explain. The bullet leaves the barrell breaking the speed of sound (unless its sub sonic ammo) while the bullet is in the air it is slowing down and may come back down through the sound barrier, when it does the bullet may tumble as a result of the force placed on it but the thing is the bullet will probably have hit something and come to a stop before it has ever slowed down enough. A lot of PCP air rifles are designed with this is mind, the pellets are very light so cannot keep a flat trajectory if subjected to the shockwaves coming back down through the sound barrier

civdef

Some research has been done on this:

from http://www.villman.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1087

Question
In many parts of the world, people celebrate victories, birthdays and similar events by firing guns into the air with great exuberance and a seeming disregard for the welfare of themselves and others. Assuming the barrel of the gun is perpendicular to the ground when the bullet leaves it, approximately what altitude would it reach and what is its velocity (and potential lethality) when it falls back to Earth?

Leo Kelly , Auckland

Answers
Firing handguns into the air is commonplace in some parts of the world and causes injuries with a disproportionate number of fatalities. For a typical modern 7.62 millimetre calibre bullet fired vertically from a rifle, the bullet will have a velocity of about 840 metres per second as it leaves the muzzle and will reach a height of about 2400 metres in some 17 seconds. It will then take another 40 seconds or so to return to the ground, usually at a relatively low speed which approximates to the terminal velocity. This part of the bullet's trajectory will normally be flown base first since the bullet is actually more stable in rearward than in forward flight.

Even with a truly vertical launch, the bullet can move some distance sideways. It will spend about 8 seconds at between 2300 and 2400 metres and at a vertical velocity of less than 40 metres per second. In this time it is particularly susceptible to lateral movement by the wind. It will return to the ground at a speed of some 70 metres per second. This sounds quite low but, because of the predominance of cranial injuries, the proportion of deaths and serious injury as a proportion of the number of gunshot wounds is surprisingly high. It is typically some five times more than is observed in normal firing.

As might be expected, measurements are rather difficult and the above values come from a computer model of the flight.

Sam Ellis And Gerry Moss , Royal Military College of Science Swindon Wiltshire



Different bullet types behave in different ways. A .22LR bullet reaches a maximum altitude of 1179 metres and a terminal velocity of either 60 metres per second or 43 metres per second depending upon whether the bullet falls base first or tumbles. A .44 magnum bullet will reach an altitude of 1377 metres and a terminal velocity of 76 metres per second falling base first. A .30-06 bullet will reach an altitude of 3080 metres with a terminal velocity of 99 metres per second. The total flight time for the .22LR is between 30 and 36 seconds, while for the .30-06, it is about 58 seconds. The velocities of the bullets as they leave the rifle muzzle are much higher than their falling velocities. A .22LR has a muzzle velocity of 383 metres per second and the .30-06 has a muzzle velocity of 823 metres per second.

According to tests undertaken by Browning at the beginning of the century and recently by L .C. Haag, the bullet velocity required for skin penetration is between 45 and 60 metres per second which is within the velocity range of falling bullets. Of course, skin penetration is not required in order to cause serious or fatal injury and any responsible person will never fire bullets into the air in this manner.

The questioner may like to read "Falling bullets: terminal velocities and penetration studies", by L. C. Haag, Wound Ballistics Conference, April 1994, Sacramento, California.

David Maddison , Melbourne Australia



John W. Hicks in his book The Theory of the Rifle and Rifle Shooting describes experiments made in 1909 by a Major Hardcastle who fired .303 rifle rounds vertically into the air on the River Stour at Manningtree. His boatman, probably a theorist unaware of the winds aloft, insisted on wearing a copy of Kelly's Directory on his head. However, no bullets landed within 100 yards, some up to a quarter of a mile away and others were lost altogether.

Julian S. Hatcher records a similar experiment in Florida immediately after the First World War. A 0.30 calibre machine gun was set up on a 10 feet square stage in a sea inlet where the water was very calm so that the returning bullets could be seen to splash down. A sheet of armour above the stage protected the experimenters. The gun was then adjusted to centre the groups of returning bullets onto the stage.

Of over 500 bullets fired into the air, only 4 hit the stage at the end of their return journey. The bullets fired in each burst fell in groups of about 25 yards across.

The bullets rose to approximately 9000 feet before falling back. With a total flight time of about a minute, the wind has a noticeable effect on the return point.

Dick Fillery , London

see also:

http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/March01.htm

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec98/913922171.Ph.r.html

http://www.nennstiel-ruprecht.de/bullfly/faq.htm#Q13

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a950414b.html

sidneyreilly

Good research Civ:) Would a BB cap or CB long be suitable to fire upwards (given a resonable field of view beyond) as they travel at relativley low velocity using owning the primer to fire and no powder. A .22 magnum could be slieved to accept this.

Sparks

psittacosis wrote:

Ive just been informed by a competent marksman and one who has shot for ireland and has been shooting all types for years that it is fine that the bullet will loose energy and is designed to tumble in the air.

I'd say that whomever he was, he's just proven that "competent marksman" may not be an accurate description of himself.

Firstly, you never, ever, ever fire any firearm without knowing where the bullet will stop. That's a basic rule, as has been stated here already.

Secondly, .22wmr rounds are not designed to start tumbling. Few rounds are - about the only ones I know of are military rounds like the NATO 5.56mm round which is designed to tumble so that it does more damage to an unarmoured target. So even if the .22wmr round did tumble (which it isn't designed to do), it will do more damage, not less, to whatever it hits. Think about it - it's like a hollowpoint round, pre-expanded. It's hitting the target with the full kinetic energy of the round, but with a wider cross-section so that you get less penetration and greater energy transfer. In other words, if it hits you, it'll tear you up more, rather than less, and that's assuming it doesn't fragment, causing even more damage (as the 5.56mm round is designed to do).

Lastly, this is not academic discussion. Last year alone saw two people struck by .22 rounds miles away from where they were fired, one a woman in the midlands who was thankfully struck (in the back of the neck) after the round ricocheted from a nearby wall; the other a young child in the North who was struck in the head whiles standing in a crowded school playground over a mile away from the shooter and who was in hospital for weeks before thankfully making a full recovery. These accidents can and will happen if you are careless and they will hurt people.

Your friend needs to be sat down and reeducated before he fires his next shot, in my honest opinion. Hopefully he'll read this and take a little more care before telling someone to not bother about watching for backstops in future.

Clare gunner

It must have been common at one time though.Considering the many "rook rifles"that were made in the last centuary,and some of those were bigger calibre than 22wmr.Maybe folks were abit smarter then or didnt have to worry about hitting the nearest housing estate.So realistically said shooting birds in trees with a rifle is a no no anymore.Good cammo and blind ,a good crow call ,and a owl decoy,your 12 GA and expect a good days hunting.Pointless to stalk crows,they are eternally suss of anything man does,their weakness is ;they hate owls or birds of prey and they fight in a gang style of mobbing.So give them somting to mob[owl decoy] plenty of noise[crow call] and good shooting.

johngalway

Clare gunner wrote:

It must have been common at one time though.Considering the many "rook rifles"that were made in the last centuary,and some of those were bigger calibre than 22wmr.

My dad has told me about a guy used to live here, talking now about 50-60 years ago. He'd a rifle specially for shooting birds in trees. Would go out and start pegging away at them. Always makes me cringe, how no one ever got killed is a miracle as back then (apparently) there were many many more people living here.

John

sidneyreilly

Clare gunner wrote:

It must have been common at one time though.Considering the many "rook rifles"that were made in the last centuary,and some of those were bigger calibre than 22wmr.Maybe folks were abit smarter then or didnt have to worry about hitting the nearest housing estate.

The couple of rook rifles ive seen fire a .30 black powder rimfire round that like like pistol ammo. Dont know how far they would carry but i'd imagine far enough

Clearly it's madness to even attempt discharging a rifle without a visible backstop. Rumour has it by the way that the new backstop requirement for a range will be 8.4 meters!

newby.204

Sparks wrote:

Secondly, .22wmr rounds are not designed to start tumbling. Few rounds are - about the only ones I know of are military rounds like the NATO 5.56mm round which is designed to tumble so that it does more damage to an unarmoured target. So even if the .22wmr round did tumble (which it isn't designed to do), it will do more damage, not less, to whatever it hits. Think about it - it's like a hollowpoint round, pre-expanded. It's hitting the target with the full kinetic energy of the round, but with a wider cross-section so that you get less penetration and greater energy transfer. In other words, if it hits you, it'll tear you up more, rather than less, and that's assuming it doesn't fragment, causing even more damage (as the 5.56mm round is designed to do).

Just a small correction here , just to be a pr!ck.

The russian 5.45mm IS designed to tumble to cause greater damage to the combatant!!!( a screaming crying man is more demoralising than a dead one)

SS109ball(5.56mmNATO) doesnt tumble

However the U.S. M193(5.56mmNATO) is designed to tumble upon impact and is generally not used as it is frowned upon by the UN

Rew

They tumble on impact not while flying throught the air so its all academic. Keep it on topic.

newby.204

Rew wrote:

They tumble on impact not while flying through the air so its all academic. Keep it on topic.

True was just nitpicking, not very helpful though!!!!!

civdef

However the U.S. SS109ball(5.56mmNATO) is designed to tumble upon impact and is generally not used as it is frowned upon by the UN

If you really want to be picky, SS109 (M855 to the Americans) is what nearly everyone (including Ireland) uses.

Are you thinking of the older M193 when you talk about tumbling?

Keelan

Think about this poor lad, who nearly died because of exactly what you are all talking about on here. Link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4481635.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4499895.stm

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2005/06/18/story432483140.asp

Be CAREFULL FOLKS.:(

keelan.