I totally agree with the above, if accuracy is needed.
My comments are biased by my circumstances.
I live in the bush surrounded by 170 acres and a 300 foot driveway.
I could spent hours a day just shooting - BUT
The wife has decided that grouse and rabbits are pets.
I'm down to plinking.
Someone shot all of the pesty red squirrels and racooons that wanted to live in my attic and barns.
Questioning whether pellets are superior to balls.
-
jezX
- Supporting Member 2013
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:47 pm
- Location: 123 gun street Nova Scotia
i have to say i can't figure out why people think that a ball would be so inaccurate compared to a pellet and shooting under 50 feet ,it shouldn't matter . i can shoot pellets backwards and still hit in 1'' . but bullet shape is better ? only if it has the rotation to stabelize ,then it is better .also rifling for a ball ? ? ? which way is it going to tumble? the barrel should be perfectly smooth to get the best from a ball . rifling will only cause tumbling .
Actually JezX you're close.....but have it just a little backwards.
Rifled barrels grip the ball or pellet and put spin on it.
Spin on a pellet or ball causes it deviate less in the line of flight.
Without spin, the pellet could tumble because of errors in shape etc., a ball that tumbles might not be noticeable except for more spread in the group.
The rifle bullet that "growled" going past your ear when you hunted with others around.... was a bullet that had lost its spin....and now is tumbling.
-LarryS
Rifled barrels grip the ball or pellet and put spin on it.
Spin on a pellet or ball causes it deviate less in the line of flight.
Without spin, the pellet could tumble because of errors in shape etc., a ball that tumbles might not be noticeable except for more spread in the group.
The rifle bullet that "growled" going past your ear when you hunted with others around.... was a bullet that had lost its spin....and now is tumbling.
-LarryS
LarryS-
Parker_101_
- Site sponsor and moderator
- Posts: 5331
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:38 pm
- Location: Southern Ontario
- Contact:
-
jezX
- Supporting Member 2013
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:47 pm
- Location: 123 gun street Nova Scotia
larry . you are saying rifling helps a ball ? i know for bullets it is needed but not for ball . rifling has no purpose for a ball .
sorry if i was unclear , ball+ no rifling =good and bullet + no rifling =bad.
bullet +rifling =good ball + rifling =bad . this is truth , broken down . lol .
either way at 50 feet no big diff' but pell/bullets are more accurate at long distance
sorry if i was unclear , ball+ no rifling =good and bullet + no rifling =bad.
bullet +rifling =good ball + rifling =bad . this is truth , broken down . lol .
either way at 50 feet no big diff' but pell/bullets are more accurate at long distance
You might be right JezX... I am not a Ballistics or Aerodynamic expert.
But to my mind I use parallel comparisons in area's of doubt. In this case imagine a gyroscope, essentially round, "when spun" centripetal force tends to maintain the axial alignment against any change in direction of that axis.
The ball having been spun by riflings, should have centripetal force maintaining that axial alignment against change in any direction. The acceleration of gravity would still act upon it but I believe any sudden changes like wind gusts and such, might be resisted by the spin and from that I would expect tighter groupings at least.
Again... I do not know for sure about this sort of thing, certainly not positive as to whether acceleration of gravities slow directional change is countered too in some way somewhat..... If I look at the whole body it wouldn't be countered, but if a tilt is envolved in the process it could be....
This would be an interesting test by itself.... determining whether spin helps a ball in any way......Good stuff jezX....good stuff!. -LarryS
Incidently... I expect the ball to lose the race in the short term for accuracy and velocity....but their "might" be a difference in long range shooting. ---Snipers quick test with .177 indicated a ~5FPS loss of the ball compared to a pellet in velocity.
But to my mind I use parallel comparisons in area's of doubt. In this case imagine a gyroscope, essentially round, "when spun" centripetal force tends to maintain the axial alignment against any change in direction of that axis.
The ball having been spun by riflings, should have centripetal force maintaining that axial alignment against change in any direction. The acceleration of gravity would still act upon it but I believe any sudden changes like wind gusts and such, might be resisted by the spin and from that I would expect tighter groupings at least.
Again... I do not know for sure about this sort of thing, certainly not positive as to whether acceleration of gravities slow directional change is countered too in some way somewhat..... If I look at the whole body it wouldn't be countered, but if a tilt is envolved in the process it could be....
This would be an interesting test by itself.... determining whether spin helps a ball in any way......Good stuff jezX....good stuff!. -LarryS
Incidently... I expect the ball to lose the race in the short term for accuracy and velocity....but their "might" be a difference in long range shooting. ---Snipers quick test with .177 indicated a ~5FPS loss of the ball compared to a pellet in velocity.
Last edited by LarryS on Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.