Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: neilep on 07/02/2007 16:25:25
-
What is the fastest bullet speed ?...does anyone know ?.
..also,......what would be the fastest speed a bullet could attain (your bog standard average bullet) before air friction destroyed it ? or any other force acting upon it ?
-
This is not a bullet, but the "Stardust" capsule is the fastest man-made object to pass through (thin) air.
the Stardust sample-return capsule was the fastest man-made object to reenter Earth's atmosphere (~12.4 km/sec / ~28,000 mph relative velocity at 135 km altitude)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry
On arrival, the capsule was travelling in a nearly flat trajectory, at 12.9 km/s (28,900 miles per hour), which is the fastest re-entry speed ever achieved by a man-made object. As a point of comparison, NASA stated it would be able to travel from Salt Lake City, Utah to New York City, New York in less than six minutes. A large fire ball and sonic boom were observed in western Utah and eastern Nevada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_%28spacecraft%29
-
This is not a bullet, but the "Stardust" capsule is the fastest man-made object to pass through (thin) air.
the Stardust sample-return capsule was the fastest man-made object to reenter Earth's atmosphere (~12.4 km/sec / ~28,000 mph relative velocity at 135 km altitude)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry
On arrival, the capsule was travelling in a nearly flat trajectory, at 12.9 km/s (28,900 miles per hour), which is the fastest re-entry speed ever achieved by a man-made object. As a point of comparison, NASA stated it would be able to travel from Salt Lake City, Utah to New York City, New York in less than six minutes. A large fire ball and sonic boom were observed in western Utah and eastern Nevada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_%28spacecraft%29
Wooo !!!...now that is fast...Thank you for the high velocity stats and data Robert...of course it doesn't compare to the alacrity used by your good self in answering the post [;)]
-
I know that in the lab where I used to work they had a gun capable of firing slugs at up to 2km/s, in a vacuum although I am sure the US military have higher energy versions.
Interestingly they decided to put this under the library, although it wasn't very loud, occasionally everything would shake slightly.
-
There isn't abullet fast enough to catch me the speed I'd run away if anyone fired at me! [8)]
-
I can't think of any reason why someone would want to shoot a bullet in your direction !!...hmmm..perhaps a few disgruntled husbands maybe !!
-
That's scandalous! [:o]
-
Ballistics eh?
is not the (Have to try and remember the caliber of the said quickest bullet) something like 4.5 mil from a 28OT6? @4000 fps somewhere in that range, must be a web site or so giving such info.
-
Ballistics eh?
is not the (Have to try and remember the caliber of the said quickest bullet) something like 4.5 mil from a 28OT6? @4000 fps somewhere in that range, must be a web site or so giving such info.
That would be slightly slower than the 2Km/s that Dave was talking about (more like about 1.4 Km/s).
Not sure that in everday terms such a high muzzle velocity would be much use, since so much energy would be lost in aerodynamic heating that it would tend to lose its velocity quite quickly (not a problem when firing though a vacuum, but that is not the normal medium in which bullets are fired).
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/highvel.htm
As has been described, high muzzle velocity carries severe penalties in size, weight, recoil, muzzle blast, barrel wear and cost. As a result, it has lost much of its original glamour and is now sought only if necessary to achieve a specific aim. In the civilian hunting field, this has restricted its use to circumstances in which accurate shooting at very long range, or against very small targets, is involved, The military are interested for different reasons; to reduce the time of flight (and thereby increase accuracy against moving targets), to extend maximum artillery range, and to improve armour penetration.
It is probable that conventional chemistry has pushed muzzle velocities about as far as they can go; the rate of expansion of propellant gasses places a practical ceiling on muzzle velocity of around 6,000 fps. The military are now examining other technologies such as electromagnetic rail guns, which have on test fired 300 gm projectiles at over 13,000 fps, with projectiles of a few grams being accelerated to over 30,000 fps. At the moment, the massive power supplies needed to achieve these results preclude any practical application, but there can be little doubt as to where the future lies.
For the most part they are referring to high velocity artillery (where issues of high recoil are less of an issue, and payloads of sufficient weight can be fired to retain energy over longer distances), although they do also refer to sniper rifles, but these usually require light rounds to limit the recoil for such high velocity rounds.
-
In the video game, Crysis, there is a gun that uses electromagnetic waves to launch bullets and Mach 2. Could we do that?
And why use "Mach" as the word for "speed of light"? Is it Latin or something?
-
In the video game, Crysis, there is a gun that uses electromagnetic waves to launch bullets and Mach 2. Could we do that?
And why use "Mach" as the word for "speed of light"? Is it Latin or something?
Firstly, Mach is used as a term for the speed of sound, not the speed of light, and it is names after the Austrian/Czech physicists Ernst Mach who did a lot of research into things supersonic.
We have developed guns that can fire small projectiles at very high speeds (probably faster than Mach 2) using electromagnetic forces, but they are not electromagnetic waves as such.
It is conceivable that electromagnetic waves could also be used to launch projectiles, but if you had an electromagnetic wave with that much energy in it, it would probably be quite harmful on its own, without the need for a projectile (although in some cases you may find a projectile is better able to penetrate a hardened target than the wave alone might be).
Ofcourse, one question one has to ask is what kind of electromagnetic wave. A laser emits electromagnetic waves in the visible spectrum, but radio waves are also electromagnetic waves. The problem is that while the small wavelength of visible light allows a laser to be quite compact, if one is dealing with radio waves, one will probably need a very, very, large device to use them.
-
I believe EM field powered weapon is called a rail-gun, and the US Navy prototype is so large it can not be carried by a person. I don't know if it is correct, but the following article claims it will fire a seven pound projectile at MACH 7 in 2016 (old article) but I can't find any confirmation it worked.
[url]http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/navys-magnetic-super-gun-to-make-mach-7-shots-at-sea-in-2016-adm-greenert/[/url]