Forum: Author Hangout

That would work for a model 1873 Winchester.

A model 1866 Winchester (and there would have been plenty around in 1880) was set up for .44 Henry with a listed MV of exactly 343 m/s.

Instant death from a gunshot is pretty much a myth (short of bullet to the brain). Even with a heart shot it could take a second or two for the rest of the body to catch up.

Yes, the cowboy would hear the shot before the horse dropped, but only by a second or two. Not because the sound arrives before the bullet, but because the horse will take a second or two to drop dead.

And unless the shooter is 300 meters or more away from the target, even with a more modern super sonic round, the sound of the gunshot would probably catch up before the horse dropped.

You got it backwards. The sound is traveling faster than the bullet, so it will reach the cowboy before the bullet.

Nope. Most rifle rounds, even early black powder rounds are at or marginally faster than the speed of sound. The only solidly sub-sonic rifle rounds are the .22LR and .22SR. Correction: Even the .22sr and .22lr, the vast majority of available loads are sonic.

For the .44-40 Winchester, even in black powder, there are 4 load outs with different bullet weights and/or powder charges. Only two of them are sub-sonic, and one of those is sub sonic by only 3 m/s (the other 43 m/s under the speed of sound). The other two are 17 m/s and 36 m/s over the speed of sound

The first repeating rifle cartridge, the .44 Henry has a muzzle velocity of 343 m/s, exactly sonic.

When they talk about modern rifle rounds being super sonic, they mean 2-4 times the speed of sound, not 1.1 times the speed of sound,

Generally speaking, unless you are talking really long shots, 300m+, likely impossible shots with black powder cartridge rifles and no telescopic sights, a 43 m/s difference between the speed of sound and the speed of the bullet is not likely to produce a noticeable gap in arrival time.

At a more reasonable 100 meter range and a 300 m/s muzzle velocity (the slowest .44-40 period load) will yield a gap in arrival between the sound of the shot and the bullet impact of just 0.04 seconds

If you check you will see I used his numbers. According to his numbers, I'm right.

No, you used only the lowest number he provided. Look at his links.

There are 4 different load outs for the .44-40 Winchester.

Muzzle Velocities at 300 m/s, 340 m/s, 360 m/s and 379 m/s. Speed of sound is 343 m/s

even at the 300 m/s mv, the range would have to be nearly 300 meters for the difference in arrival time to hit even 1/10th of a second. At reasonable ranges for the period, and within the limits of human perception, arrival will be effectively simultaneous.

Now, the OP's question was about hearing the shot before the horse dropped dead. The horse isn't going to drop dead in 4/100ths of a second, so yes he'll hear the shot first.

even at the 300 m/s mv, the range would have to be nearly 300 meters for the difference in arrival time to hit even 1/10th of a second. At reasonable ranges for the period, and within the limits of human perception, arrival will be effectively simultaneous.

Very good point. Actually, at the speed you react, everything happens simultaneously except the horse's falling. A good rider could get his feet out of the stirrups -- though not his ass out of the saddle -- beginning when he feels the horse start to fall and ending before the horse hits the ground.

the speed of sound is consistent without change.

Nope.

The speed of sound varies depending on the medium it is passing through. The speed of sound through air varies according to humidity, pressure (altitude) etc.

Basic High School source

Where it gets complicated is at longer ranges. The bullet may drop below the the speed of sound down range as the bullet is constantly slowing; whereas the speed of sound is consistent without change.

You've a nasty habit of taking things out of context. In context, it is consistent.

In what context do you believe that " the speed of sound is consistent without change"..?

In what context do you believe that " the speed of sound is consistent without change"..?

joyR, read again carefully.
He originally wrote:

The bullet may drop below the the speed of sound down range as the bullet is constantly slowing; whereas the speed of sound is consistent without change.

In the context of this statement – one shot! – the speed of sound is consistent during the duration of the shot.

HM.

Correct.

Correct.

Nope.

In the context of this statement – one shot! – the speed of sound is consistent during the duration of the shot.

Actually, this is still not quite true. The speed of sound through air is at least partially dependent on pressure. Localized differences in elevation, wind, temperature and humidity can lead to localized changes in air pressure and thus slight differences in the speed of sound.

Now in the context of the statement, at the range of a rifle shot in the 19th century, those variances will be too small to be significant.

And how far a golf ball will fly. :)

Technically, those things will affect the trajectory of a bullet. Enough that modern snipers have to account for them in making very long (multi KM) shots.

fly

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

A fly flies like a...

In the context of this statement – one shot! – the speed of sound is consistent during the duration of the shot.

Unless...

-the shot is made over a sunlit golf course, where the rising plumes of warmed air over the bunkers gives small variation of density, thus speed-of-sound

-the shot is made over an area of mixed dry and damp ground, where the rising water vapour has the same effect (yes, water vapour is less dense than air)

-the shot is made with significant elevation change

-the shot is made through an area partially shaded from the wind by buildings, as this gives variations in the SoS between the moving and calmer air

-the shot is made through the thermal plume from a fire, chimney etc (where not only the temperature and thus the density, but also the molecular composition of the air with more CO2 has some albeit small effect)

Indeed, there are many possible causes for density changes in the air which, because of the dependency invalidate the 'without change' clause so, strictly, joyR is correct. However the changes are all small and generally negligible, and this whole argument could have been avoided with a little more careful wording, like '... the speed of sound is consistent without significant change.

On the gripping hand, peri-sonic flight will be subject to greater buffeting leading to accuracy loss, so you would want to avoid a ballistic combination giving supersonic flight at barrel exit and subsonic flight at the target.

Anyway, how fast does a bullet slow down?

And, the thing that struck me first on reading is a little datum I remember from years ago, that in wood the speed of sound is different with the grain and across the grain.

After all that, I'm just going to have to re-read John Ringo's Unto the Breach again, for Lasko's long, long shot - and that means re-reading the whole series.

joyR, read again carefully.

I did, that is why I replied as I did. :)

In the context of this statement – one shot! – the speed of sound is consistent during the duration of the shot.

No, it isn't. It might be, if the conditions were perfect, but so say that it is consistent (without change) is misleading and factually incorrect.

Another matter to keep in mind is the velocity of the bullet will change with the amount of propellant and the weight of the bullet with another small change due to the bullet shape and design.

Barrel length also makes a difference. The bullet takes time to accelerate. Shorten the barrel of the weapon and the round may not reach full rated MV.

Barrel length also makes a difference. The bullet takes time to accelerate. Shorten the barrel of the weapon and the round may not reach full rated MV.

True to some extent, but once the gas has expanded and pressure drops friction takes over and starts slowing the bullet while it is still in the barrel. For example a 30 inch barreled .22LR is slower than a 16 inch barreled .22LR because of this. Many pistol caliber carbines gain velocity from added barrel length over the pistol lengths, increasing the length even more may lower the velocity though.

Large differences in barrel length may also affect how loud a gun is due to gas expansion. In the same cartridge a longer barrel can be quieter.

True to some extent, but once the gas has expanded and pressure drops friction takes over and starts slowing the bullet while it is still in the barrel. For example a 30 inch barreled .22LR is slower than a 16 inch barreled .22LR because of this.

Agreed. You need to consider the weapon/barrel length the round was designed for.

IIRC, .22lr and .22sr were designed for carbines, for those who aren't familiar with the term, a relatively short barreled rifle.

I don't know if this is an issue with modern smokeless powder*, but with a black powder cartridge if you shorten the barrel enough, forget about the gas not fully expanding, you can get the bullet leaving the barrel before the powder charge finishes burning.

*Black powder burns fast, but moderns smokeless powder burns even faster.

*Black powder burns fast, but moderns smokeless powder burns even faster.

I saw a comparison on tv recently of an 1873 Winchester .38 caliber fired with both the black powder and a smokeless powder cartridge. The smokeless cartridge had twice the muzzle velocity of the black powder -- 2200+ vs 1100+. The thing that struck me, though, is that the black powder burned faster than the smokeless powder.

That was demonstrated by burning the same amounts of powder. I watched this with no earlier knowledge, i.e. ignorant of the facts. And I remember thinking "how can a powder that burns slower produce twice the muzzle velocity for the same size slug"? It doesn't seem logical.

So unless it was rigged like the exploding gas tanks on Ford trucks were on 60 minutes, I gotta go with what I saw.

That is actually correct, smokeless powder burns slower than black powder.

Smokeless powder is a propellant (like solid rocket fuel).

Black powder is an explosive.

But then the OP's question isn't about whether the sound or the bullet get there first, it's about whether the cowboy hears the shot before the horse drops dead.

Generally speaking, at the ranges common at the time, I would be very surprised if short of a shot to the brain, the horse dropped dead before the sound caught up.

Does the cowboy hear BANG and then the horse drops or does the horse drop and then he hears BANG or is it simultaneous?

My opinion:

Within the limits of human perception, the sound and the bullet impact would be effectively simultaneous. We're talking hundredths of a second difference either way.

However, the horse (whether lethally injured or not) will not collapse instantly. This is especially true for a non-lethal injury.

In fact, a non-lethal injury might not lead to the horse collapsing at all, but the cowboy might force the horse down to use it as cover.

Thus, it doesn't matter whether technically the bullet hits before the cowboy hears the shot, he will hear the shot before the horse collapses.

If the horse is at a walk then the horse will drop down on that leg when the weight comes on it and the cowboy has time to safely get off the horse.

Most four legged animals can manage to walk on three legs. The horse may stumble a step at a walk but won't necessarily fall. In fact, while painful, a leg shot probably wouldn't completely disable the leg in any immediate sense. To reduce the leg to where the horse couldn't put any wight on it, even for a second, the shot would have to break one of the leg bones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwAXON0XQc

which is likely to happen

No, I wouldn't consider a random poorly aimed shoot missing the rider and hitting the horse in the leg particularly likely to hit and there by break one of the bones.

And no, it wouldn't really be necessary to put the horse down. A horse can get by on three legs (for the rest of it's life if necessary). They put them down, because it would have been too difficult to keep it off the leg long enough for the bone to heal and they didn't consider a three legged horse to have any value as a working horse, and a non working horse had no value. It wouldn't be worth feeding.

This is the Old West. Other than as a pet, what would a rancher do with a 3-legged horse?

That was my point. Putting down the horse with a broken leg isn't/wasn't necessary for the benefit of the horse, to save it from a slow lingering death.

It was done because they considered horses to be tools. It was done purely and knowingly for the convenience of humans, so they didn't have to devote resources to a broken tool.

How would he even get the horse back to the ranch?

Assuming the horse fell, the hard part is getting the horse back to a standing position. After that it should be capable of walking back on three legs provided the terrain isn't too rough.

I'll Google the anatomy of a horse to see what vital organ could be hit without hitting the rider. Maybe a lung.

Here is a site with vitals diagrams for deer hunting.

https://www.wideopenspaces.com/how-to-find-and-aim-for-deer-vitals/

The relative anatomy of a horse is probably close enough. I'd have to check references on where the rider's legs would sit to be sure, but I think there would be a clear shot at both heart and lungs without hitting the rider's leg.

From behind it could be an up the ass shot. :)

If the cowboy is riding a stallion, it could limp away a gelding. :)

They do. Working in the target pits of a rifle range, the sound is crack-thud as the supersonic bullet goes past, followed by the muzzle blast. The longer the range, the greater the time interval between the two sounds.

Modern rifle rounds are jacketed for high velocity and small diameter with a boat tail shape for maximum streamlining. Early cartridges used soft lead bullets with flat points and a larger diameter, relying on weight intead of speed for energy to cause damage.

The heavier slower rounds were more likely to go subsonic over long distances.

There is good chance the Indian killed at 1538 yards at the Battle of Adobe Walls had a chance to register the sound of the muzzle blast before the bullet arrived.

Could be worse, it could be horseflies.
Those little bastards are mean, bite a chunk out of you and take a drink of blood to wash it down.

Those little bastards are mean

Little? The ones we get in my neck of the woods are big bastards (as far as flies go). They are one of if not the biggest type of fly we see around here.

"Eppur si muove."

How narrow-minded and bigoted.

An example of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals steps 5 and 13.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Also a violation of rule seven:
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."

Call a man racist or bigot often enough and he will no longer care or, to your detriment decide its a complement and take on the attributes.

The Carrington Event was a pre civil war solar storm. Can we work that in?

After everything else it's been through, you want to electrocute the horse with earth currents?

Frankenstein horse... why not...

ASTM A325, Type 3 1" structural bolt should work. Needs to be weathering steel as the next evolution of this is someone trying to drown Frankenhorse.
https://boltport.com/products/astm-bolts/astm-a325-type-3/A

No... that's his transgender frankenhorse Shiela.

Doctor Who could deliver modern supersonic ammunition and ruin all our calculations.
If OP's cowboy works for SCENT then shooting the horse woyld result in a richochet. The horse wouldn't die, but would require a re-boot after suffering the blue screen of death.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forward

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreward

Nothing new about it.

You're correct, I read it wrong.

Is this the new de facto American spelling of foreword?

Maybe they just started with aluminum (aluminium) and are going forwards alphabetically..?

Could be worse, they might have chosen 'four words'.

(No AJ, not 'fork handles')
:)

No AJ, not 'fork handles'

On behalf of AJ: Fork you :)

QQQQ?

Link

Thank you, joy. I forgot how much the Ronnie's loved to screw with language.

I forgot how much the Ronnie's loved to screw with language.

You're well cum.

:)

Although I've never seen the attraction for women inserting candles up their hoo-haas ;)

hoo-haas...??

Is that some kind of Marine thing?

:)

Is that some kind of Marine thing?

No, it's an ancient Greek witch thing.

Hoo-haas the eye?

Edited to fix typo.

The eys have it.

but oceanic metaphors are new to me.

Oceanic metaphors would be a Navy thing not a Marine thing.

"Marine" literally means "oceanic".

"Marine" literally means "oceanic".

I'm unaware of a source for that.

Most sources agree that as an adjective, "marine" relates to things found in the sea, or to shipping or naval matters, or to artists or paintings depicting scenes at sea. Note "sea", not "ocean".

As a noun, "marine" is a member of a body of troops trained to serve on land or sea, in particular (in the UK) a member of the Royal Marines or (in the US) a member of the Marine Corps.

Last time I checked, the ocean(s) were full of sea water

Not exactly. There are various places where an ocean contains an often visible quantity of fresh water.

Oh, and if you dive deep enough off the US NE coast you'll find there is fresh water under the Atlantic Ocean. A gigantic aquifer of mostly freshwater, that hugs the coastline from New Jersey up to Massachusetts, sits below the ocean floor.

"Marine" literally means "oceanic".

Tell that to the United States Marine Corps.