Advice about illegal fireworks

[passingwindII]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

what a bunch of whinny bitches. Its 2 days a year.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

I agree^^^^^^^.......​

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

Well, we obviously differ in our opinion. Mine is that if you insist on doing things that are both illegal and dangerous, I have no responsibility to feel bad for not letting you go play without concern for who you hurt in the process. Funny how people will scold their children for doing things that could hurt them, but turn into wimps when it comes to standing up to adult neighbors who are behaving exactly the same way. These incidents are not at all infrequent - people shoot off illegal fireworks only a couple of days a year and in those same couple of days, there are numerous incidents across the country involving personal injuries and fires. In the incident that I just cited, the couple might have died if the wife hadn't gotten up at a very unusual hour. I have since learned that the building was an apartment house, so she probably also saved a lot of other people.

It's not about the noise - I don't care if people want to shoot off a bunch of firecrackers all night. In that light, you're right, it's only a couple of nights per year, so let people have their fun. But, if you are my neighbor and you insist on shooting the large and illegal stuff, you can plan on having me do whatever it takes to legally prevent you from doing so. If you manage to shoot some off anyway, and damage my house, hurt someone or both, you can whine about how mean I am from the inside of a jail cell or a courtroom.

I really hope this last statement sinks in because I don't think "the kids" have any idea how many folks would be just like me if their homes were damaged, or someone in their family were to be hurt. They may not speak up before the damage is done but, when you hurt people or those dear to them in some way, the can of whoop @$$ usually gets opened in a hurry.

 

[John_S]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

After four pages of opinions, I would like to know what action was decided, how it went, and what the results were.


Merill,
I understand your position, and don't take this the wrong way, I am glad you are not my neighbor. The feeling is probably mutual!

Many more people are killed in boating accidents every year. Mostly from untrained or people lacking common sense. We don't need another law to protect us with our boats. I feel the same about consumer fireworks. While illegal in many states, its how they are used. Now, being illegal, but still commonly available and in use, there isn't any training classes or info for the "common sense" impaired.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

LOL, no, I don't take it personally. In fact, my guess is that you are a very nice guy, as am I. In fact, you'd probably like having me as a neighbor because I would be doing things like helping you to fix something on your boat if you wanted me to. I am actually a very people oriented person and like most of them a great deal. That is precisely why I have very little reluctance to deal with something that is quite likely to do bad things to those folks that I like so much.

I also generally agree that we don't need any more laws on this - we already have them. I really think that the major disconnect between the differing opinions is centered in a lack of understanding of just how dangerous some of what is being sold as consumer oriented fireworks happens to be. Use of the stuff in an inappropriate setting is reckless and that's where the problem lies. Although I think its dumb from the standpoint of personal safety, I wouldn't mind people shooting the larger rockets and such off in a place that isn't likely to impact others. My philosophy in that circumstance is pretty much "have a ball."

This issue really isn't any different than operating your boat while intoxicated or trying to water ski in the middle of a swimming area - its about responsible decisions. The boat is pretty safe when used prudently and it isn't when not used prudently.

 

[thefairlaneman]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

Thanks for the common sence advice. To follow up with what happined newyears eve is sorta a let down. It seems the neighbor didnt shoot them . Why? He always does. I did notice a cop parked in front of his house for a few minutes around 11 and then saw several more cursing by a little later. I think that others around here may have warned the cops about him and they were waiting this time. He must have gotton scared. Whatever.I didnt call them and am darn glad I didnt shoot my 50 cal at midnight . Maybe they were waiting for me........LOL. shouldnt be anymore about this till the 4th when once again I will put my eye on this guy.

 

[mudmagnet63]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

Shoot my 50 cal. midnite!!!!!!

and you're complaning. I just dont get it ?

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

LOL! If you had, the folks in Utah would have to be watching out for the falling bullets!

 

[v1_0]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

This will explain it all about a projectile fired upwards.
__________________________________________
Vertically Shot Bullet Landing Speed

name Davidstatus educatorgrade 9-12location PAQuestion - In the real world, (not the physics world of no air resistance), how do I calculate the speed of a bullet that was shot straight into the air when it returns to Earth.

Now if you want to refine the estimate further a fair assumption would be to assume that air resistance would be proportional to the cross sectional area of the object and the time of flight. _____________________________________________
Talking about making my head hurt.

The math smells funny here. Air resistance is proportal to the area and speed of the object. The resistance on the bullet would be orders of magnitude higher than on the hail, as it is going much faster.

Reference: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity"

The bullet's maximum downward speed (when shot straight up) would be its terminal velocity. Regardless of how far up it falls from.

To calculate this:

Drag Coefficient, bullet = 0.295. (0.3).
Mass of bullet = 160 grains = 10 grams. ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-30_Winchester") = .01 kg.
Bullet diameter (.30 cal) 7.8 mm. = .01 m
Density of air 1.204 kg/m^3 at 20 C

Ok. So Vt = sqrt ( (2 * 0.01 kg * 9.8 m/s^2) / (1.204 kg/m^3 * 0.01 m * 0.3))

I get 0.79 m/s.

Before I go futher, can someone please confirm? Been a long time since I've done more than simple addition/subtraction. And I'm not claiming to be good at it..

-V

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

One of the things that occurred to me after this thread died down, is that I believe some get too hung up on the issue of the bullet that is shot straight up or if it is shot in an arc. The TV show shot bullets straight up primarily so they could recover them. In that situation, the descent involved bullets that had left ballistic flight and fell in a tumbling manner. That, in turn, increased drag and reduced terminal velocity.

That said, why would not a bullet falling in ballistic flight not be in a state where terminal velocity is applicable? At some point, it is going to fall in a nearly vertical path and its own weight and drag configuration is going to determine its speed. To me, it is much like a skydiver in a loose jump suit falling with open arms, suit flapping in the slipstream, versus the same skydiver falling with arms and legs tucked in. In both situations he/she is at terminal velocity but that velocity is modified by the amount of drag present.

The bottom line to me is that, they are all falling bullets and it is known that they can kill people.

 

[v1_0]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

That said, why would not a bullet falling in ballistic flight not be in a state where terminal velocity is applicable?

Think of it this way - a bullet shot directly at a target would not reach terminal velocity (excepting a target that is very very far away...). A bullet shot straight up would.

So, there is some angle between 0 (horizontal) and 90 (straight up) that is a 'break point' mathematically. Realistically you'd probably want to round up..

My first guess would be to use the formulas for a trajectory... You'd have to know the 'safe' velocity for a bullet and backtrack from there.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory"

-V

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

Think of it this way - a bullet shot directly at a target would not reach terminal velocity (excepting a target that is very very far away...). A bullet shot straight up would.

I can only presume you typo'd that 'not' as a bullet shot at a target would be travalling toward that target much faster than its terminal velocity. For example, an M16A1 firing a standard 77 grain nato round has a muzzle velocity of 3200 feet per second (the bullet ultimately slows as wind resistance acts upon it which is why the velocity is measured as the bullet leaves the muzzle, but not by much over a standard range of 300yds)(by the way, that's actually SLOW when compared with other setups). Compare that with a musket ball (which doesn't matter if it's tumbling or not, terminal velocity will be the same) which has a terminal velocity of 201 feet per second. So a standard nato round being fired from an M16 is travelling approximately 18 times faster than the terminal velocity of a bullet.

Now...

201 fps is rougly equal to 137 mph. Now that's certainly enough to do some serious damage, but that's nowhere near enough to kill when inflicted by a much smaller bullet such as the 77 grain nato round it's being compared to (a musket ball is 730 grain, and that's the mini ball, there are larger ones)

Meanwhile... 3200 fps is roughly equal to 2454 mph. So you can now see that a bullet fired from a gun is already travelling almost 18 times faster than terminal velocity even if it wasn't tumbling during it's terminal velocity decent.

Now, let's look at this in regard to ability to kill... the military has this to say about nato rounds... "the bullet velocity required for skin penetration is between 45 and 60 metres per second" ... now let's figure out what that is in feet per second so that we can compare apples to apples. 45 meters is roughtly 147.6 feet... and 60 meters is roughly 196.8 feet. so a bullet has to be travelling between 147.6 fps and 196.8 fps to just barely penetrate the skin. Now that might hurt, but it's not enough to kill. (PS - I wouldn't want to be the test subject in that study... talk about worst jobs )

On the other hand, a bullet from an M16 would still be travelling at thousands of feet per second even if being fired from over a mile away, which is more than enough to kill.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

Let me try to explain in another way.

As a comparison, consider two aerobatic manuevers in an airplane with a less than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. In the first manuever, you climb sraight up until just before the airplane begins to fall backwards on its tail. At this time, you use rudder to flip to plane onto its nose, thus descending in a controlled fashion. Next, you climb the same way until all airspeed (energy) is lost but you attempt to hold the airplane nose up. You soon slide backwards and the airplane tumbles, eventually ending up nose down. Controlled flight is then achieved by pilot input to the ailerons, elevator and rudder.

In the case of the bullet, when it is fired straight up, it too loses energy and tumbles backwards, entering an uncontrolled, high drag profile. In this case, however, there is no pilot to return it to controlled flight or ballistic flight, as would be the correct term for a bullet. The second comparison is somewhat different because it involves shooting the bullet off of the 90 degree, vertical path, but the concept is the same - controlled, low drag flight v. uncontrolled, high drag flight. In the case of a bullet shot mostly in an upward direction, common sense tells you that there is a point in the descent where any accelleration of the bullet is due to gravity, not the gunpowder in the cartridge from which it was fired.

If the bullet remained nearly horizontal I would agree that this would affect TV, but that isn't what usually happens in the accidents that we have been discussing. The bullets usually enter the body in a vertical or nearly vertical path so there is little or no "trajectory" involved. The end result is velocity determined at or close enough to TV, to eliminate practical application of ballistic theories. Put a bit more simply, spinning or not, the bullet is simply falling from gravity and not enough of anything else to matter.

 

[External Combustion]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

Sgtmag:
A 223 Win/ 5.56 Nato 70gr bullet at over 700 meters is subsonic. That is it is flying at less than 1400 FPS. At that velocity it only gives 304 FPS of energy. At 1700 meters; roughly a mile, it is far less. Hell I know as I have been hit with both the glorified .22 and with a .45 ACP and I would be glad to be hit with the .22 at a distance as compared to the venerated .45 close up.

At a distance, the .22 was an aggravation (hit in the sturnum) as compared to the .45 (permanently missing bone).

I am an experienced shooter of all the US rounds since the Revolution. The Brown Bess was a .75 round that was just under 620 grains (which is the largest of round ball) and my .69 cal minnie ball launcher is the largest of the minnie class at 740 grains. 18 coyotes and a few dogs can attest to the effectiveness of these slow moving slugs that produce a wound channel of over one inch in diameter all the way through the body at less than 200 yards.

You are more than correct that a bullet from any .22 to the head can cause death at more than a mile .22 long rifle to .22 Swift. The .50 BMG M2 at any range it can fly is deadly just because of its weight at 708 grains.

Way off the subject of fireworks, but I thought you would appreciate one that has lead in his hide.

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

Let me try to explain in another way.

As a comparison, consider two aerobatic manuevers in an airplane with a less than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. In the first manuever, you climb sraight up until just before the airplane begins to fall backwards on its tail. At this time, you use rudder to flip to plane onto its nose, thus descending in a controlled fashion. Next, you climb the same way until all airspeed (energy) is lost but you attempt to hold the airplane nose up. You soon slide backwards and the airplane tumbles, eventually ending up nose down. Controlled flight is then achieved by pilot input to the ailerons, elevator and rudder.

In the case of the bullet, when it is fired straight up, it too loses energy and tumbles backwards, entering an uncontrolled, high drag profile. In this case, however, there is no pilot to return it to controlled flight or ballistic flight, as would be the correct term for a bullet. The second comparison is somewhat different because it involves shooting the bullet off of the 90 degree, vertical path, but the concept is the same - controlled, low drag flight v. uncontrolled, high drag flight. In the case of a bullet shot mostly in an upward direction, common sense tells you that there is a point in the descent where any accelleration of the bullet is due to gravity, not the gunpowder in the cartridge from which it was fired.

If the bullet remained nearly horizontal I would agree that this would affect TV, but that isn't what usually happens in the accidents that we have been discussing. The bullets usually enter the body in a vertical or nearly vertical path so there is little or no "trajectory" involved. The end result is velocity determined at or close enough to TV, to eliminate practical application of ballistic theories. Put a bit more simply, spinning or not, the bullet is simply falling from gravity and not enough of anything else to matter.

There's a major problem in your comparisson. In the case of a ballistics trajectory, the plane never stalls and is still moving forward at mach1 at the highest point in the arch, and all that speed is carried into the decent. In a non-ballistics trajectory, the plane does stall and has no forward momentum to carry into the decent.

In every documented case of someone having been killed by a stray bullet shot into the air, the person killed was no less than a half mile away, which means that the forward momentum of the bullet wasn't arrested by gravity, therefore the bullets were still in a ballistics trajectory.

A better comparison is hail. While pea sized hail may not feel good when it rains down on you, but it's not going to kill you, even though it is falling at terminal velocity (ok, granted baseball sized hail might kill, and softball sized hail definately would kill). In order for a bullet sized piece of hail to kill you, it would have to have been fired from a gun.

So, the only real question becomes at what angle does a bullet fired at lose it's ballistics trajectory?

We already know that at 90 degrees it loses 100% of its ballistics trajectory, and at 45 degrees it retains 100% of it's ballistics trajectory. So over 45 degrees a bullet loses 100% of it's ballistics trajectory, which is roughly equal to 2.2 percent per degree. By that, if the earlier mentioned gun was fired at an 80 degree angle, the bullet would still be travelling at approx 700fps when it landed several hundred meters away. That's still 3.5 times the bullet's terminal velocity, and is probably enough to kill.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

I understand what you are saying and it makes perfect sense. What I am still not sure about is whether or not the bullet would be traveling at ballistic speed when it falls and hits someone in a near vertical path. If the bullet is nearly vertical, I would think that essentially all of the energy derived from the powder charge would have been spent. If this were not true, the bullet would have more of a forward motion component.

Not trying to "win" the discussion here - just find the topic to be interesting. I wonder if there are calculations of impact velocity done for artilliary pieces. I would think that there are and they would probably provide some interesting info about elevation v. impact velocity. This one might be kind of like the Bernouli's issue - some say (particulalry a specific engineer in the early 90s) that Bernouli's is incorrect, but many don't and the theory is still taught to flight students. In that case, in fact, many engineers feel that lift is generated from a variety of forces. I guess my point here is that this stuff is complicated and even the experts don't always agree.

But, then again, being a Republican Guard dude on the receing end of a 16" shell during GW 1, probably pretty much "inhaled" (ummm ... can we say the other word here?) whether it was arriving in freefall or not!

 

[thefairlaneman]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

I dont understand all of the balistical stuff. On new years eve I sometimes shoot my 50 cal kentucky pistol. There is a very large graveyard located about 1/3 of a mile from my house and I shoot at an angle that will have it fall there.

 

[Nandy]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

I dont understand all of the balistical stuff. On new years eve I sometimes shoot my 50 cal kentucky pistol. There is a very large graveyard located about 1/3 of a mile from my house and I shoot at an angle that will have it fall there.

Really? I thought you were joking! Maybe the police was there for you, not him. That is way more dangerous than the fireworks, it actually, to me, just dwarf the fireworks issue...

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

Really? I thought you were joking! Maybe the police was there for you, not him. That is way more dangerous than the fireworks, it actually, to me, just dwarf the fireworks issue...

Agreed, and not to mention... isn't it a bit disrespectful to be shooting up graves?

Going back to what Jay was saying, yeah, if it's shot in a vertical or nearly vertical mannor, all or most of the forward motion (which would normally be carried through the arch of the trajectory) is stopped or slowed. Just remember that for every degree off from 90 that you're shooting, you're carrying through 70.4 feet per second of velocity. Now until you reach that 201 fps terminal velocity, that figure doesn't matter. So you could be up to 2 degrees off without the bullet comming down any faster, but at 3 degrees, the apex velocity is higher than terminal velocity and therefore the bullet would "fall" faster than it's terminal velocity.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Advice about illegal fireworks

Shooting into the air just about anywhere doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Because the bullet is going to travel quite some distance, and its essentially impossible for the average person to mentally calculate where it might land, the shooter has very little control over that landing point. You also never know who could be walking around at the point where the bullet comes down. It seems to me that if you want to shoot a gun for any reason other than hunting, skeet, etc., the way to do it is to have a proper backstop and a controlled shooting area.