5 ms·

They clocked the glass at ~3,000 mph so it'd be a lot closer with 5.56 being ~2,000 mph. The fastest production bullet I believe is .270 Swift which is over 4,0

They clocked the glass at ~3,000 mph so it'd be a lot closer with 5.56 being ~2,000 mph. The fastest production bullet I believe is .270 Swift which is over 4,000 fps depending on barrel and conditions.

vidanay 4y ago
Pick consistent units!
- walrus01 4y ago
  Getting Americans to not use measurements like grains (for powder loads or bullet weights), feet per second, yards, MOA, cartridge dimensions and chamber dimensions and barrel sizes in inch-based measurements and other non-metric measurements for anything rifle related is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Unfortunately. Even things which happen in supposedly entirely metric countries in Europe/NATO land use USA-spec things. Such as: Oh, you want to replace a barrel on your M4 rifle used by a European military? Time to get out your half inch square-drive socket torque wrench and torque that barrel to a certain value in foot-pounds... And after you're done you get to mess around with your SAE spec hex key set to reinstall the hand guard and associated stuff. I'm not kidding.
  - vidanay 4y ago
    I was referring to the use of MPH (which is probably wrong) and FPS mixed together. I don't care about bullet caliber being mixed mm and inch - I consider them to just be "a size" and not a measurement.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      Isn't it just a constant ratio in either case? 1 mph === 1.46667 fps
      - Sharlin 4y ago
        So? All units of a given quantity differ by just a constant factor [ignoring the affine units °C and °F]. But mixing mph and fps is just as disingenuous as, say, mixing mph and km/h. Nobody on Earth outside the US has any idea or intuition what the conversion factor between mph and fps is.
        AustinDev 4y ago
        Disingenuous was not the goal. I was in a hurry and didn't convert the last unit FPS after looking up the specifics.
        rootusrootus 4y ago
        You've nothing to apologize for. MPH and FPS are both simple distance versus time measurements, both imperial, and trivially converted. Of course it's some non-US individual that has to complain about it, those are the only people who truly seem to care about what units are customary in the US. The rest of us just convert as necessary. Hell, just google search and have the answer in two seconds.
        Sharlin 4y ago
        Don't be ridiculous. It would be just as silly to have velocities in both m/s and km/h in a same paragraph. And many, many more people in the world know the conversion factor between those than between mph and fps. It's pretty bold of you to talk about 4% of the world's population as "the rest of us", but unfortunately it's to be expected from a certain type of American.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      > I consider them to just be "a size" and not a measurement. You're right to consider it that way. In many cases, bullets aren't actually the size the name would suggest. For instance, .380 ACP is actually .355 inches (9mm) in diameter. 5.56x45mm is actually 5.7mm.
    - AustinDev 4y ago
      MPH is how they clocked it in the video. I should have converted it to FPS because that's the proper measurement for these sorts of things although I prefer or meters per second.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Vs. those darn limeys, where you just have to know that a QF 17-pounder is a WWII anti-tank gun, but a QF 18-pounder is a WWI field artillery piece...
  - permo-w 4y ago
    > like grains (for powder loads or bullet weights) or heroin
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kmonsen 4y ago
4000 fps ~= 2800 mph
hackcasual 4y ago
The .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer was designed to hit 5000 fps (3400mph), but testing the round most people agreed it only hit 4600 (Just a few dozen mph shy of glass). With modern propellants it would probably beat the glass.
- AustinDev 4y ago
  Oh wow, this is cool. I'd never heard of this round before. I imagine you'd need a very large barrel to burn up all that powder before the bullet left the chamber.
- oxfeed65261 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Eargesplitten_Loudenboomer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Eargesplitten_Loudenboom... (emphasis added): > This humorously named cartridge was developed in the 1960s by P.O. Ackley for Bob Hutton of Guns & Ammo magazine, and was intended solely to exceed 5,000 ft/s (1,500 m/s) muzzle velocity. Ackley's loads only managed 4,600 ft/s (1,400 m/s)(Mach 4.2), firing a 50-grain (3.2 g) bullet. Based on a .378 Weatherby Magnum case, the case is impractically over-capacity for the bore diameter, and so the cartridge remains a curiosity. The advent of new slower-burning smokeless powders may have changed the equation.

vidanay 4y ago

Pick consistent units!

walrus01 4y ago
Getting Americans to not use measurements like grains (for powder loads or bullet weights), feet per second, yards, MOA, cartridge dimensions and chamber dimensions and barrel sizes in inch-based measurements and other non-metric measurements for anything rifle related is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Unfortunately. Even things which happen in supposedly entirely metric countries in Europe/NATO land use USA-spec things. Such as: Oh, you want to replace a barrel on your M4 rifle used by a European military? Time to get out your half inch square-drive socket torque wrench and torque that barrel to a certain value in foot-pounds... And after you're done you get to mess around with your SAE spec hex key set to reinstall the hand guard and associated stuff. I'm not kidding.
- vidanay 4y ago
  I was referring to the use of MPH (which is probably wrong) and FPS mixed together. I don't care about bullet caliber being mixed mm and inch - I consider them to just be "a size" and not a measurement.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Isn't it just a constant ratio in either case? 1 mph === 1.46667 fps
    - Sharlin 4y ago
      So? All units of a given quantity differ by just a constant factor [ignoring the affine units °C and °F]. But mixing mph and fps is just as disingenuous as, say, mixing mph and km/h. Nobody on Earth outside the US has any idea or intuition what the conversion factor between mph and fps is.
      - AustinDev 4y ago
        Disingenuous was not the goal. I was in a hurry and didn't convert the last unit FPS after looking up the specifics.
        rootusrootus 4y ago
        You've nothing to apologize for. MPH and FPS are both simple distance versus time measurements, both imperial, and trivially converted. Of course it's some non-US individual that has to complain about it, those are the only people who truly seem to care about what units are customary in the US. The rest of us just convert as necessary. Hell, just google search and have the answer in two seconds.
        Sharlin 4y ago
        Don't be ridiculous. It would be just as silly to have velocities in both m/s and km/h in a same paragraph. And many, many more people in the world know the conversion factor between those than between mph and fps. It's pretty bold of you to talk about 4% of the world's population as "the rest of us", but unfortunately it's to be expected from a certain type of American.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    > I consider them to just be "a size" and not a measurement. You're right to consider it that way. In many cases, bullets aren't actually the size the name would suggest. For instance, .380 ACP is actually .355 inches (9mm) in diameter. 5.56x45mm is actually 5.7mm.
  - AustinDev 4y ago
    MPH is how they clocked it in the video. I should have converted it to FPS because that's the proper measurement for these sorts of things although I prefer or meters per second.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Vs. those darn limeys, where you just have to know that a QF 17-pounder is a WWII anti-tank gun, but a QF 18-pounder is a WWI field artillery piece...
- permo-w 4y ago
  > like grains (for powder loads or bullet weights) or heroin
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kmonsen 4y ago

4000 fps ~= 2800 mph

hackcasual 4y ago

The .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer was designed to hit 5000 fps (3400mph), but testing the round most people agreed it only hit 4600 (Just a few dozen mph shy of glass). With modern propellants it would probably beat the glass.

AustinDev 4y ago
Oh wow, this is cool. I'd never heard of this round before. I imagine you'd need a very large barrel to burn up all that powder before the bullet left the chamber.
oxfeed65261 4y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Eargesplitten_Loudenboomer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Eargesplitten_Loudenboom... (emphasis added): > This humorously named cartridge was developed in the 1960s by P.O. Ackley for Bob Hutton of Guns & Ammo magazine, and was intended solely to exceed 5,000 ft/s (1,500 m/s) muzzle velocity. Ackley's loads only managed 4,600 ft/s (1,400 m/s)(Mach 4.2), firing a 50-grain (3.2 g) bullet. Based on a .378 Weatherby Magnum case, the case is impractically over-capacity for the bore diameter, and so the cartridge remains a curiosity. The advent of new slower-burning smokeless powders may have changed the equation.