Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: 50 cal ricochet

  1. #1
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,698

    50 cal ricochet

    Just wasn’t this guy’s time to leave this world
    Read before watching the attached video clip.

    Physics lesson... lucky man.

    Turn your sound up..........so you can hear the bullet head back.

    This guy is shooting a 50 cal rifle. The target is a steel plate, 1000 yards
    (.57 miles, 10 foot ball fields) away. You can hear the ping of the hit and then hear the bullet coming back. It hits the ground just in front of him (watch the dust), then bounces up, hits the earmuffs, knocking them from his head.

    The footage is amazing. If you haven't heard a ricochet before, you can hear the bullet as it tumbles through the air on its course back toward the shooter.

    For those of you that wish to, consider the probability the bullet hitting the ground in exactly the right place to bounce up at the correct trajectory angle to hit his ear protection, not over, or under them. Fortunately the tumble, or the angle of the plate he was shooting at changed the return course of the bullet by 6 inches "left" over half a mile's worth of travel distance (right eye dominant sighting - left ear-cup impact). Otherwise it would have been a "return one hop head?shot", instead of an earphone shot.

    The .50 caliber sniper rifle is an impressive piece of gear.


    Guy hit in head with .50 caliber ricochet - YouTube

  2. #2
    Mehpic
    Reputation: 2cflyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    7,867
    go buy a lottery ticket with that luck!
    catzilla: I wish we were all a little more invincible.

    The NEGU Foundation: Caring for Courageous Kids http://www.thenegufoundation.org/

  3. #3
    Frog Whisperer
    Reputation: Touch0Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    36,609
    we used to go out to the an old quarry and ricochet 22's off the water (a rock wall as a backstop)

    having it bounce STRAIGHT back ....wow.....what are the odds of that????
    Of course I'm sure...that doesn't mean I'm right......

  4. #4
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,698

    yup

    Quote Originally Posted by Touch0Gray View Post
    we used to go out to the an old quarry and ricochet 22's off the water (a rock wall as a backstop)

    having it bounce STRAIGHT back ....wow.....what are the odds of that????
    2000 yards total, and hit yourself in the ear?

    "We're not doing that again."

  5. #5
    Master debator.
    Reputation: nOOky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    7,082
    Nice. Cool they got it on video, else no one would ever believe it otherwise!
    "I felt bad because I couldn't wheelie; until I met a man with no bicycle"

  6. #6
    Frog Whisperer
    Reputation: Touch0Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    36,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixed View Post
    2000 yards total, and hit yourself in the ear?

    "We're not doing that again."
    my dad had a scar on his chin, till I was in my early 30's I never knew what it was from, I asked and found out that as a kid he threw a 22 shell in a fire....apparently the lead, being heavier stayed in the fire and the brass flew out and hit him in the chin....needless to say, his mom and dad NEVER found that out. FWIW, my dad became an avid collector and had his federal license and had several fully automatic weapons in his collection.......
    Of course I'm sure...that doesn't mean I'm right......

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    157
    Not doing that ever again!!! Holy crap!

  8. #8
    corning my own beef
    Reputation: JustTooBig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    5,595
    when that vid first came out, there was quite a bit of debate among long gun shooters whether it is actually real. There are two elements that don't quite add up:

    the time between the shot and the "return hit" is just over 2 sec. The muzzle velocity of an avg .50cal round is about 3kft/sec. So the round could get downrange to the target in 1 sec. But for it to return in the same amount of time, it would have to do so while maintaining the same velocity despite having hit a steel plate. That stretches the limits of the laws of physics. There's no way a round strikes a target and essentially reverses direction without losing a significant amount of energy (and velocity).

    you can hear the round strike the steel plate before it returns. But how can that be? If the target is indeed 1000yds away, it would take the sound almost 3 seconds to travel that distance at a rate of ~350yds/sec (the bullet is traveling much faster than sound). We would not hear the round strike the target until well after the ricochet strikes the guy. But that's not what happens in the video.

    Real or not, it's pretty damned eerie.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    People who say, "Laughter is the best medicine.." have never been on the receiving end of a morphine drip..

    ноожеяз ай вщоw?
    -VaughnA


    A fool and his money were damned lucky to have bumped into each other in the first place.

  9. #9
    donuts?
    Reputation: asciibaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,821
    several aspect make me wonder - the sound/distance issue, the dust kickup, and the delay of the earmuffs coming off - and that no faces are shown.
    -Steve
    Quote Originally Posted by Chain
    Next time, save your energy for tomorrows ride and try not to come in 6th.

  10. #10
    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    Reputation: old_fuji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,530
    What I wanna know is what the hell kind of steel were they shooting at that made a .50 cal ricochet?

  11. #11
    - I -
    Reputation: Kodi Crescent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    990
    It took a bad bounce off the dirt before it hit him.

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: jarbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,672

    fake

    Quote Originally Posted by asciibaron View Post
    several aspect make me wonder - the sound/distance issue, the dust kickup, and the delay of the earmuffs coming off - and that no faces are shown.

    I agree - sound is the giveaway here. Perhaps the distance wasn't 1000 yards.
    +1 for the NRA!

    Guns save lives.

  13. #13
    corning my own beef
    Reputation: JustTooBig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    5,595
    Quote Originally Posted by jarbiker View Post
    I agree - sound is the giveaway here. Perhaps the distance wasn't 1000 yards.
    even reducing the distance to the target, it still doesn't work. To hear the bullet strike the target approx 1 second before the ricochet arrives ...... the math just doesn't work. Not even close.

    The initial muzzle velocity of the bullet is around 1000yds/sec. Knowing that, you can calculate the time it take the bullet to get downrange (and accordingly, you can also calculate the time it would take the sound of the target strike to travel back, at a rate of 370 yds/sec) for any given distance to the target. The only real unknown factor (besides the distance to the target) is how much energy -- and velocity -- is lost by the bullet striking the target. Regardless, there's no combination of those factors that allows the sound of the target strike to arrive back at the shooter 1 sec before the ricochet without re-writing the laws of physics.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    People who say, "Laughter is the best medicine.." have never been on the receiving end of a morphine drip..

    ноожеяз ай вщоw?
    -VaughnA


    A fool and his money were damned lucky to have bumped into each other in the first place.

  14. #14
    donuts?
    Reputation: asciibaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,821
    Quote Originally Posted by JustTooBig View Post
    without re-writing the laws of physics.
    maybe they found the a flaw in the current understanding and were bouncing rounds off Einstein's casket.
    -Steve
    Quote Originally Posted by Chain
    Next time, save your energy for tomorrows ride and try not to come in 6th.

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: jarbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,672

    And if you wanted to get precise

    Quote Originally Posted by JustTooBig View Post
    even reducing the distance to the target, it still doesn't work. To hear the bullet strike the target approx 1 second before the ricochet arrives ...... the math just doesn't work. Not even close.

    The initial muzzle velocity of the bullet is around 1000yds/sec. Knowing that, you can calculate the time it take the bullet to get downrange (and accordingly, you can also calculate the time it would take the sound of the target strike to travel back, at a rate of 370 yds/sec) for any given distance to the target. The only real unknown factor (besides the distance to the target) is how much energy -- and velocity -- is lost by the bullet striking the target. Regardless, there's no combination of those factors that allows the sound of the target strike to arrive back at the shooter 1 sec before the ricochet without re-writing the laws of physics.
    you can find the ballistic coefficent of the bullet, etc and find ballistic calculators on the net to determine fairly specifically the time of flight for that projectile. Only problem is we don't know what that projectile was other than a .50 cal of some type. Anyway you look at it it is not factual. A neatly concocted fake.
    +1 for the NRA!

    Guns save lives.

  16. #16
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,698
    If the muzzle velocity is 1000 yds/sec, the bullet does not sustain that the entire flight. You have to know the rate it slows during flight, don't you?

    Also, once the bullet hits the target, it is going to be deformed, and who knows what rate it travels on the return. You don't know the flight path it takes, either; it could be deflected upwards and arc back toward the shooter. How to you calculate that?

    Quote Originally Posted by JustTooBig View Post
    even reducing the distance to the target, it still doesn't work. To hear the bullet strike the target approx 1 second before the ricochet arrives ...... the math just doesn't work. Not even close.

    The initial muzzle velocity of the bullet is around 1000yds/sec. Knowing that, you can calculate the time it take the bullet to get downrange (and accordingly, you can also calculate the time it would take the sound of the target strike to travel back, at a rate of 370 yds/sec) for any given distance to the target. The only real unknown factor (besides the distance to the target) is how much energy -- and velocity -- is lost by the bullet striking the target. Regardless, there's no combination of those factors that allows the sound of the target strike to arrive back at the shooter 1 sec before the ricochet without re-writing the laws of physics.

  17. #17
    FNG
    Reputation: drussell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by Touch0Gray View Post
    having it bounce STRAIGHT back ....wow.....what are the odds of that????
    According to the actuaries, the odds are now 100%
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai Winters View Post
    It's all about the legs, lungs, heart and soul. The gear comes after that.

  18. #18
    corning my own beef
    Reputation: JustTooBig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    5,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixed View Post
    If the muzzle velocity is 1000 yds/sec, the bullet does not sustain that the entire flight. You have to know the rate it slows during flight, don't you?

    Also, once the bullet hits the target, it is going to be deformed, and who knows what rate it travels on the return. You don't know the flight path it takes, either; it could be deflected upwards and arc back toward the shooter. How to you calculate that?
    that's right, the (unknown) ballistic coefficients that jarbiker referred to can help determine the rate of deceleration and how far the bullet drops during its flight. And the return flight absolutely MUST take considerably longer, based on the fact that the bullet will have already lost a lot of its energy (and velocity), and will take a longer course back (there's no way to avoid an arcing path back to the shooter unless the effects of gravity can be ignored -- and they cannot).

    Even if we cannot quantify those unknown factors exactly, there's still no way to bend the applicable math and physics enough to make the video credible. It's a clever fake.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    People who say, "Laughter is the best medicine.." have never been on the receiving end of a morphine drip..

    ноожеяз ай вщоw?
    -VaughnA


    A fool and his money were damned lucky to have bumped into each other in the first place.

  19. #19
    Steaming piles of opinion
    Reputation: danl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,524
    Quote Originally Posted by asciibaron View Post
    maybe they found the a flaw in the current understanding and were bouncing rounds off Einstein's casket.
    Was this in Switzerland? Maybe the bullet was made of neutrinos.
    A good habit is as hard to break as a bad one..

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: spade2you's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    11,131
    Quote Originally Posted by JustTooBig View Post
    that's right, the (unknown) ballistic coefficients that jarbiker referred to can help determine the rate of deceleration and how far the bullet drops during its flight. And the return flight absolutely MUST take considerably longer, based on the fact that the bullet will have already lost a lot of its energy (and velocity), and will take a longer course back (there's no way to avoid an arcing path back to the shooter unless the effects of gravity can be ignored -- and they cannot).

    Even if we cannot quantify those unknown factors exactly, there's still no way to bend the applicable math and physics enough to make the video credible. It's a clever fake.
    About the only thing I can think is that it was a hard hitting rock that fell at a high speed due to the compensator/massive gun powder discharge.

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by JustTooBig View Post
    that's right, the (unknown) ballistic coefficients that jarbiker referred to can help determine the rate of deceleration and how far the bullet drops during its flight. And the return flight absolutely MUST take considerably longer, based on the fact that the bullet will have already lost a lot of its energy (and velocity), and will take a longer course back (there's no way to avoid an arcing path back to the shooter unless the effects of gravity can be ignored -- and they cannot).

    Even if we cannot quantify those unknown factors exactly, there's still no way to bend the applicable math and physics enough to make the video credible. It's a clever fake.
    The sound travels back in a straight line (more or less). What if the return path of the round was a very tall (100-200m or more) parabolic arc giving it a much longer path? I don't have time to run the calcs right now but it seems at least somewhat possible.

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Bugeater61's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,012
    Same bullet that hit Kennedy, its still bouncing around.

  23. #23
    WouldYouCouldYouOnABike
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    478
    It's definitely not a full second from the trigger pull to when you hear it hit the target, and that's with the sound having to travel back to the camcorder from the target. The bullet is spending less than a 1/2 second in the air, which matches up pretty well with what you can see, looks like maybe 300 yards, IMO, maybe a little less. Then it's more than a full second before the projectile hits the earmuff. There's no physics standing in the way there, except how did the bullet get redirected back toward the shooter, THAT would take at least two ricochets it seems.

  24. #24
    Get me to In&Out
    Reputation: spookyload's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,550
    Muzzle velocity is aprox 1400' a second. that would mean the bullet flight would be around 1.5 seconds or call it two with the decrease after the ricochet. What nobody has figured in is the bullet drop. Sizeable at 2000 meters. Also, bullets don't bounce up at the angle it would take to hit his hearing protection. If the bullet ricocheted 1000 meters and only dropped that much, it wouldn't make a huge angle change 10 feet in front of him for no reason. Also the force of the bullet hitting his headset would have knocked him silly. F=MA. A 50 cal slug is huge. Lastly...the 50 cal is meant to penetrate armor. It would have gone through an iron plate like butter.
    Cyclists really need to learn a little Rule #5.

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    198
    The answer is obvious. And, frankly I'm a bit disappointed with you guys:

    there was a second shooter in the grassy knoll.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sea Otter Classic

Hot Deals

Contest


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook