Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Naturally, seismology provides the answer.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                     

Arch riflery

 Angle!
 
(0) 		  [vote for,
against]

The term "archery" connotes the path of the arrow along an arch. The degrees of arch corresponds with the distance the arrow must fly before hitting its target.

Distance shooting certainly takes into account the fact that the bullet will drop in flight but I think the target is generally still visible through a scope on the rifle.

Arch riflery requires that the bullet travel at more pronounced degrees of elevation. At these degrees of elevation the scope of the rifle shows the sky, and so the shooter must rely on pure skill to hit the target. 45 degrees produces the maximum horizontal travel but special shots may require even greater elevation - for example to traverse an obstacle blocking the horizontal path between shooter and target.

—bungston, Oct 07 2016

The Machine Gun Corps https://en.wikipedi...i/Machine_Gun_Corps
"Saul hath slain his thousands but David his tens of thousands". [8th of 7, Oct 07 2016]

Indirect fire https://en.wikipedi.../wiki/Indirect_fire
Widely known to be unpleasant for the recipient [8th of 7, Oct 18 2016]

Mortar https://en.wikipedi...iki/Mortar_(weapon)
This type of weapon has always relied on arching its payload toward the target. [Vernon, Jan 23 2017]

Sighting-in http://www.gunsanda...perly-zero-a-rifle/
For shooting at long range, there are standard ways of calibrating the arch that the bullet must travel. [Vernon, Jan 23 2017]

[link]






       This is called "indirect fire", and is Baked and WKTE.   

       The classic example is the deployment of MMGs in WW1 to provide interdiction fire beyond direct fire ranges. On one occasion, one million rounds were fired. <link>. This required a large number of guns and corresponding personnel, operating over many hours (The accepted maximum rate of fire of a Vickers MG is 600 rpm, the practical achievable rate is substantially lower).
—8th of 7, Oct 07 2016
   

       //so the shooter must rely on pure skill to hit the target// at those ranges, I think the odds devolve more to "pure luck"
—lurch, Oct 07 2016
   

       //At these degrees of elevation the scope of the rifle shows the sky// Look up "volley sights".
—FlyingToaster, Oct 07 2016
   

       I am glad I posted this for many reasons.   

       1. I had no idea that machine guns were used as " rifle-calibre fire employed as ultra-short artillery" although it makes sense. Maybe because it was specific to WW1? Maybe because I am ignant?   

       2. The wikipedia article describing this use and the resistance to it focuses on WW1 and then stops. Were there machine gun units in subsequent wars that used this technique? Was it obsolete after WW1? Certainly there were infantry battles in WW2.   

       3. Artillery uses math and forward spotters / maps. My read of the wikipedia is that these gunners were also firing at theoretical, unseen targets. My proposal is for target shooting.   

       4. Volley sights - also super interesting and thank you FT. Reference is made to shooting at the "grey mass" and so they gave up on accuracy.   

       For my proposal one would use an accurate but low power bullet - something that can fly straight but not far.   

       5. //so the shooter must rely on pure skill to hit the target// at those ranges, I think the odds devolve more to "pure luck". I am sure you will credit skill when you hit the target, lurchly one. Have hope - the target is actually the very distant broad side of a barn.
—bungston, Oct 07 2016
   

       I think you should add the target size and low power bullet to the description. That makes much more sense. Actually, with a sufficiently large target, full power rounds could be pretty impressive. I think the one remaining problem is that it's hard to see where a shot went that misses the target. I recommend that every bullet be a tracer (at least during initial training). At high levels of competition it may be impressive to see these people shooting up in the air and holes magically appearing in the center of the barn wall.   

       And my thanks as well to [8th of 7] for the link. That was interesting.
—scad mientist, Oct 07 2016
   

       // Maybe because I am ignant? //   

       We consider it much more likely that you are merely ignorant, and lack spelling skills ...   

       // Was it obsolete after WW1? //   

       Not entirely, but the development of the mortar as a portable close-support infantry weapon capable of high-arc indirect fire, and delivering much more powerful ordnance at a rapid rate, superseded the technique to a great extent.
—8th of 7, Oct 07 2016
   

       I had a vision of a device affixed to the rifle that was like a spirit level but would show angle of elevation. Because this device would be mounted on the side of the rifle it would hard for a shooter to look at it with rifle to shoulder (although easy if you put the butt on the ground and fire it like a mortar). The spirit level device would have a flip out mirror to allow a shooter with gun at shoulder to read degrees of elevation.   

       Also I envision a bunch of salvaged industrial windows up against the side of the barn. These windows are painted white but the barn is not white. On successfully hitting the barn, a window pane would break revealing barn color behind, easily visible through a scope. One could also use inflated balloons as is done at the fair. An advantage to windows is that they can be left up outside for weeks or months but balloons likely would last only a day or 2.
—bungston, Oct 18 2016
   

       // affixed to the rifle that was like a spirit level but would show angle of elevation //   

       It's called a panoramic mortar sight. Baked and WKTE.   

       <link>   

       Please, do try to keep up, there's a good chap. Otherwise, we'll have to ... well, just keep up, that's all. For your own good.
—8th of 7, Oct 18 2016
   

       I was pondering this concept on considering how one would fire a shotgun slug made of a hypothetical element with MW 300. I think the slug would drop pretty fast. One would need to shoot high, possibly in an arc and so we arrive back here, but this time with large, shotgun-like weapons firing massive projectiles.
—bungston, Jan 23 2017
   

       //a hypothetical element with MW 300. I think the slug would drop pretty fast//   

       Indeed true, except for a couple of details:   

       (1) MW is molecular weight; you want atomic weight   

       (2) It wouldn't. Assuming you designed the gun to give the slug the same muzzle velocity as a lead slug, and assuming you fire upwards, it would actually drop slightly less fast - because with its greater density, air resistance would be relatively less, so its upward velocity would drop off a little less quickly. Conversely, a wooden bullet would drop slightly sooner, because air resistance would drain its upward velocity faster.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 23 2017
   

       /you want atomic weight/   

       I wonder if that can be abbreviated. If I abbreviate it AW people might think I am embarrassed.   

       /Assuming you designed the gun/ I was pondering this after watching a video channel which features all sorts of weird and wonderful special slugs fired out of a shotgun. As far as I can tell the shotgun is standard and the charge piece is the same for each. I suspect that a shotgun slug charge imparts as much energy as possible without risking the barrel exploding, and so if using a standard gun one would use the same charge for the AW300 slug. Muzzle velocity would be slower than for a lighter slug but as you say the increased mass means velocity at a distance will be increasingly greater than the case for a lead slug.
—bungston, Jan 24 2017
   

       Also the analogy to archery is rather misheaded. Modern archery uses direct sights rather like rifle sights (I have seen a telescopic sight on a modern compound bow). Even with longbow shooting, the target is usually sighted directly, with the tip of the arrow placed offset to compensate for parallax, windage and drop.   

       I have played archery golf and similar games where the aim is to drop the arrow down onto a horizontal target rather than shoot it into the face of a vertical target.   

       And finally, I will offer the suggestion that the "arch" in archery is nothing to do with the curved flightpath of the arrow, but actually comes from the Greek, signifying the archaic origins of this activity.
—pocmloc, Jan 24 2017
   

       Pomloc I am pretty sure your "archaic" comment was gentle trolling of the sort beloved to me. Which succeeded in bringing out my pedant. To the OED!   

       archer, n. Forms: ME archeer, archar, ME archere, archier, ME– archer, 15 artcher.   

       Etymology: < Anglo-Norman archer, Old French archier < Latin arcârium, < arcus bow.   

       which ends with Latin arcus; the same root word as arch in the curved flightpath or in the architectural sense.
—bungston, Jan 25 2017
   

       meta-pedant: Are you sure it said "arcârium", not "arcârius"? "arcârium" sounds like a place, rather than a person (you know, as "aquarium" is to "aquarius").
—pertinax, Jan 26 2017
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle