"Tone" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:04:37 -0400, "Harold Walker"
wrote:


"Derek Turner" somewhat@odds wrote in message
...
batgirl wrote:
I think you are the verminous one. How utterly vile. What are the
creatures doing to deserve death? What kind of a world do we live in
where we blast something we don't like into smithereens? You are the
keeper of a small part of this beautiful earth, please treat everything
in it with respect.

but clare, we DO like them! they are very tasty, blasting them to
smithereens would make them inedible so we don't do it (and air weapons
must have come on a long way if they are capable of it anyway). Do grow
up, there's a good girl.

My .177 pellet air gun does a fine job at 1000feet per second
velocity....

1000Fps ???

At 12ft/lbs ???
What airgun is that then ?????

A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can be...HW
...
--


Just livin the Vida Sofa

In article ,
Harold Walker wrote:

My .177 pellet air gun does a fine job at 1000feet per second
velocity....

1000Fps ???

At 12ft/lbs ???
What airgun is that then ?????

A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can be...HW

I think that you should rerear your own post, and recheck both your
facts and the speed of sound at sea level. Our Tone seems to be a
bit more on the ball than the other Tone we keep hearing about - and
from :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold Walker wrote:

My .177 pellet air gun does a fine job at 1000feet per second
velocity....

1000Fps ???

At 12ft/lbs ???
What airgun is that then ?????

A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can be...HW

I think that you should rerear your own post, and recheck both your
facts and the speed of sound at sea level. Our Tone seems to be a
bit more on the ball than the other Tone we keep hearing about - and
from :-(

1000 fps is correct

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Harold Walker wrote:

My .177 pellet air gun does a fine job at 1000feet per second
velocity....

1000Fps ???

At 12ft/lbs ???
What airgun is that then ?????

A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can be...HW

I think that you should rerear your own post, and recheck both your
facts and the speed of sound at sea level. Our Tone seems to be a
bit more on the ball than the other Tone we keep hearing about - and
from :-(

1000 fps is correct

I reread my post, decided to check my facts, and cancelled it :-)

Unfortunately, Usenet is not good at that. I still can't make all
the figures add up, as I am pretty certain that 350 fps was touted
as the maximum velocity for a 0.22 air rifle when I bought mine.
That is under a quarter of the energy of yours (and pretty damn
inaccurate).

One thing to do is to check what those idiots mean by foot-pounds,
because there are at least three obvious meanings, and doubtless
others known only to legislators. Remember BHP?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold Walker wrote:

My .177 pellet air gun does a fine job at 1000feet per second
velocity....

1000Fps ???

At 12ft/lbs ???
What airgun is that then ?????

A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can
be...HW

I think that you should rerear your own post, and recheck both your
facts and the speed of sound at sea level. Our Tone seems to be a
bit more on the ball than the other Tone we keep hearing about - and
from :-(

1000 fps is correct

I reread my post, decided to check my facts, and cancelled it :-)

Unfortunately, Usenet is not good at that. I still can't make all
the figures add up, as I am pretty certain that 350 fps was touted
as the maximum velocity for a 0.22 air rifle when I bought mine.
That is under a quarter of the energy of yours (and pretty damn
inaccurate).

One thing to do is to check what those idiots mean by foot-pounds,
because there are at least three obvious meanings, and doubtless
others known only to legislators. Remember BHP?


As I remember from my poaching days back in the early 50's and my BSA 0.22
air rifle the 350 sounds like the right number.....typically the O.22 is a
slower speed than the .177 ...a lot of the more recent models have a higher
velocity than those back in the 50's...........H
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Harold Walker wrote:

As I remember from my poaching days back in the early 50's and my BSA 0.22
air rifle the 350 sounds like the right number.....typically the O.22 is a
slower speed than the .177 ...a lot of the more recent models have a higher
velocity than those back in the 50's...........H

If I recall, it was stated that the maximum legal muzzle velocity of
a .177 was 500/550 fps, which matches 350 for a .22. What I don't
understand is why it should be higher now.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

1000 fps is correct

I reread my post, decided to check my facts, and cancelled it :-)

Unfortunately, Usenet is not good at that. I still can't make all
the figures add up, as I am pretty certain that 350 fps was touted
as the maximum velocity for a 0.22 air rifle when I bought mine.
That is under a quarter of the energy of yours (and pretty damn
inaccurate).

350 fps is a bit less than 240 mph, which is 'nosedive' speed for a
bullet/pellet.

I'd estimate that a reasonable (·177) air rifle should propel a pellet
at around 900 fps, a good one, a lot faster. If I were to 'get at' my
·22 AirArms S310, I reckon, getting it to hold a pressure of in excess
of 250 bar and using a light pellet I could bump that up to over 2,000
fps - but then, it would require a f.a.c.

One thing to do is to check what those idiots mean by foot-pounds,
because there are at least three obvious meanings, and doubtless
others known only to legislators. Remember BHP?

A foot pound is very precise, and is that amount of energy required to
shift the mass of one pound the distance of one foot - but how you would
measure it in the 'back garden lab' I don't know.

I'd hazard a guess that you'd hit the bottom of a metal weight with the
pellet and see how far it rises against the force of gravity, and work
it out from there.

Ideally, the weight would be in a vacuum and not subject to friction on
its way up, and having come to rest, would remain there, but...

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades writes:
|
| A foot pound is very precise, and is that amount of energy required to
| shift the mass of one pound the distance of one foot - but how you would
| measure it in the 'back garden lab' I don't know.

Er, you DID learn some elementary physics at school, didn't you?

Moving a mass of a pound the distance of a foot isn't a measure
of energy. At a naive guess, it would mean a foot-pound(force),
a.k.a. a foot-poundall, or a foot-pound(weight). But another,
equally important, question is how it is specified to be measured
(which is where my remark about BHP comes in).

I would have no difficulty measuring it at home, in any of several
different ways, and how to do so would make a nice open elementary
physics examination question. No, I don't approve of the modern
approach of close examination questions or, worse, box ticking.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Harold Walker wrote:
"Tone" wrote...
"Harold Walker" wrote:
My .177 pellet air gun does a fine job at 1000feet per second
velocity....

1000Fps ??? At 12ft/lbs ??? What airgun is that then ?????

A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can be...

But surely you're not in the U.K.? My .22 RF shoots a (subsonic)
bullet at about that speed (depending on ammunition).

In article ,
Chris Bacon writes:
|
| 1000Fps ??? At 12ft/lbs ??? What airgun is that then ?????
|
| A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can be...
|
| But surely you're not in the U.K.? My .22 RF shoots a (subsonic)
| bullet at about that speed (depending on ammunition).

That's .22 short, I assume? .22 long is almost always supersonic.
The difference other than speed between .22 firearms and .22 air
rifles are that the bullet is c. 7 times heavier than the pellet,
so a .22 bullet carries c. 14 times the energy of a .177 pellet at
the same speed.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Chris Bacon writes:
|
| 1000Fps ??? At 12ft/lbs ??? What airgun is that then ?????
|
| A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can
be...
|
| But surely you're not in the U.K.? My .22 RF shoots a (subsonic)
| bullet at about that speed (depending on ammunition).

That's .22 short, I assume? .22 long is almost always supersonic.
The difference other than speed between .22 firearms and .22 air
rifles are that the bullet is c. 7 times heavier than the pellet,
so a .22 bullet carries c. 14 times the energy of a .177 pellet at
the same speed.



Don't want to appear pedantic, but isn't the formula for kinetic energy 1/2
mv2? So if v is the same for two projectiles, the energy will vary by half
the mass ratio, hence in your example it would be 3.5 times not 14 times?
Apologies if incorrect :-)

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Don't want to appear pedantic, but isn't the formula for kinetic energy 1/2
| mv2? So if v is the same for two projectiles, the energy will vary by half
| the mass ratio, hence in your example it would be 3.5 times not 14 times?
| Apologies if incorrect :-)

Whereas I have no objection to appearing pedantic - hell, I am
a professional pedant :-)

It is m(v^2)/2. So, the ratio is (m1(v^2)/2)/(m2(v^2)/2). Cancelling
common factors, one gets m1/m2. You also may have missed the fact
that a .177 pellet has 1/14th the mass of a .22 bullet - both the
type and calibre are different.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Don't want to appear pedantic, but isn't the formula for kinetic energy
1/2
| mv2? So if v is the same for two projectiles, the energy will vary by
half
| the mass ratio, hence in your example it would be 3.5 times not 14
times?
| Apologies if incorrect :-)

Whereas I have no objection to appearing pedantic - hell, I am
a professional pedant :-)

It is m(v^2)/2. So, the ratio is (m1(v^2)/2)/(m2(v^2)/2). Cancelling
common factors, one gets m1/m2. You also may have missed the fact
that a .177 pellet has 1/14th the mass of a .22 bullet - both the
type and calibre are different.


Yes, it appears I was doubly mistaken - firstly in misapplying the formula,
and secondly by interpreting your statement "The difference other than speed
between .22 firearms and .22 air
rifles are that the bullet is c. 7 times heavier than the pellet,
so a .22 bullet carries c. 14 times the energy of a .177 pellet at
the same speed." as deducing the comparative energy as a function of the
stated difference in mass between the .22 bullet and pellet.

The message
from "BAC" contains these words:

That's .22 short, I assume? .22 long is almost always supersonic.
The difference other than speed between .22 firearms and .22 air
rifles are that the bullet is c. 7 times heavier than the pellet,
so a .22 bullet carries c. 14 times the energy of a .177 pellet at
the same speed.



Don't want to appear pedantic, but isn't the formula for kinetic energy 1/2
mv2? So if v is the same for two projectiles, the energy will vary by half
the mass ratio, hence in your example it would be 3.5 times not 14 times?
Apologies if incorrect :-)

Yes, that is the formula, but you halve both weights and the ratio
remains the same.

Only varying the velocity upsets the linearity, which is why you have to
be careful with an airgun which is on the limit for power: use a lighter
pellet and the speed increases, so the kinetic energy will decrease in
direct proportion to the mass of the pellet, but it will increase in
proportion to the square of the velocity.

Overdo it, and the increase in velocity can take the kinetic energy over
that lost by reducing the pellet's weight, and render the gun illegal.

If ever the Dibble want to test your airgun, be sure to stipulate which
pellet you are using, and insist that they use the same for the test. I
wouldn't put it past some smart-alec to have a supply of very light
pellets...

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Nick Maclaren wrote:
Chris Bacon writes:
|
| 1000Fps ??? At 12ft/lbs ??? What airgun is that then ?????
|
| A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can be...
|
| But surely you're not in the U.K.? My .22 RF shoots a (subsonic)
| bullet at about that speed (depending on ammunition).

That's .22 short, I assume? .22 long is almost always supersonic.

No, you can get subsonics - e.g. Eley "Club Xtra", "Match EPS", etc.,
as well as high velocity rounds. I haven't used "shorts" for ages,
but ISTR they were available in high velocity.

The difference other than speed between .22 firearms and .22 air
rifles are that the bullet is c. 7 times heavier than the pellet,
so a .22 bullet carries c. 14 times the energy of a .177 pellet at
the same speed.

Yup.