On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> This conflicts with your earlier statement where you said the main goal was
> productivity.  Either you can buy something effective and ready to go off
> the shelf and get on with things, or you can create your own that will
> certainly cost more and probably won't be as good but will be a lot more
> fun.
>

What's wrong with trying to optimize cost, efficiency and fun? Is there
anything preventing me from wanting an inexpensive home-made solution that
works the way I want it to? I thought that was the whole idea of 'doing it
yourself' ...




> I'm no gun expert, but if the gun isn't firmly anchored, wouldn't the
> resulting kickback make a noticeable decrease in the bullet speed?  After
> all, momentum still has to ballance.


Kickback => do you mean recoil ? (just so we talk about the same thing)
I don't think it will make a noticeable variation in speed. If, say, the
gun is moving backwards at 5 fps after the shot is fired, and the projectile
is moving out of the muzzle at 500 fps (or anywhere between 100 and a few
thousand), that means the bullet speed relative to the ground is 495 fps...
a 1% error. Of course I have no real data on that, but I'm sure the
difference won't be that big.

And it gives a better idea of what speeds can be attained in a normal
situation. If I'm timing an anchored gun, the speed obtained will be greater
than those that will be attained in a normal situation, i.e. with a human
holding the gun, dealing with real recoil.


Christian VA2CBW
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist