New shooters question thread?

>>35129457
Bump, this happens to me as well.

>>35129457

You learn not to with practice.

You'll get over it in time bro, don't let it bother you.

>>35129457
Practice, practice, more practice, and stop bullying the L85A1 OP. You'll get the hang of it.

File: 64445160_p0.jpg (187KB, 600x842px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 600x842px

>>35129556
bully other guns

>>35129457
my father always told me to just "let the gun surprise you" when you shoot.
So do that, but most importantly just practice A LOT.

>>35129457
>Setting fire to Eru-chan
I want whoever made this to die slowly.

>>35129457
Get bullied kid

File: L85.png (778KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 1920x1080px

>>35129457
I'm sure L85 is just fine but this is still pretty rude so would you be inclined to stop being a faggot cunt and delete this OP.

>>35129457
Can I rotate the burst cam in my AR myself or do I have to shoot a 1 or 2 round burst to reset it? That arfcom ad I bought it from was worded weirdly. Why would he call it GI? Isn't mil spec the common terminology?

What's the pros and cons of buying used vs new? Specifically revolvers, specifically a snubnose, specifically S&W 36

>>35129457
>I built myself an AR15 and bought a nugget.
Why the Mosin?

File: maxresdefault (14).jpg (223KB, 3000x1690px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 3000x1690px

Why do larger caliber bullets achieve higher velocities out of relatively shorter barrels?

Does it have to do with the width of the bullet and the gases impinging on it? Or does it have to do with bullet weight? Like will an 80 grain bullet achieve higher velocities than a 60 grain bullet of 5.56 out of a 12 inch barrel? If you necked down the 5.56 to 4.6mm and used the same cartridge would it have the same performance if the bullet weighed the same (assuming the powder burned similarly?)

Or is it because of burn time in the cartridge? Like will a 6.5 mememoor achieve the same velocities out of a given barrel length as 308?

>>35131924
pls respond..

>>35129457
Dry fire practice. It's partly a reaction to recoil that you learn to ignore more as you focus on the sights. If it has something to do with eye sensitivity then shooting glasses might help. There isn't one reason why people do this and it's often subconscious so narrow it down.

>>35131924
>Why?
They have more room in their case for powder.
An 80gr bullet will move slower than a 55gr at 5.56mm with the same power behind it because lolphysics.

>>35132427
>>35132427
Not what I asked. I asked why 7.62 more effeciently uses the powder to get higher relative velocities out of short barrels opposed to 5.56 out of the same length barrels and relative velocities for the bulet weight? Why does 5.56 spit out such huge fire balls from short barrels?

Is it becasue A. the width of the 7.62 case allows for a more effecient burn or because B. the barrel width allows the gases to travel through the barrel faster and therefore less horizontal displacement is needed for the expanding gases?

>>35132497
Difference in operation pressures.

>>35132715
So its how big the hole is in the barrel?

It's also how efficiently the powder is burned because longer cases burn from one end to the other, is it not?

>>35131924
>Why do larger caliber bullets achieve higher velocities out of relatively shorter barrels?

My guess (And it is *definitely* just a guess) is that a larger caliber barrel will give you a more efficient burn down the barrel.

So if you took created two new bullets, (.2000 and .3000) and gave them the exact same case length (so they have the exact same amount of powder PER GRAIN OF BULLET WEIGHT) Then the .3000 would fly slightly faster.

This is not due to any ballistics knowledge, this is something I have from rocket physics.

Here's something that's NOT a guess, which I know from rocket physics: If you have a monopropellant, then you risk the flame front to spread up through the fuel line. You don't want this. But the flame front needs a certain diameter of fuel line or it won't run up the line and instead peters out. So if you need fuel fast enough that you need a square inch of cross section to get the fuel out, you don't make one thick pipe, you make sixteen thinner pipes that each only have 1/16th of a square inch and now the flame won't travel up the pipe.

So if you have something similar in gun propellants (I'm back to guessing again) then the powder burns better down the larger-diameter barrel even if everything else is completely identical.

File: US20110146231A1-20110623-D00000[1].png (108KB, 2134x2564px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 2134x2564px

>>35134107

Hey the patent office has an image that shows something like this:

You'll notice the relatively thick pipe letting fuel travel vertically.

In the middle, there's a large obstruction for the fuel to travel around so it spreads out in a section where the layer is much thinner (but same speed because the area never changes, it gets just as much area to travel through, it's just been pressed thin)

So when flames come travelling in the opposite direction, they reach the area where the flows through an area of pipe too thin to support a flame front and peters out.

Quoting from the patent:

>a first region of said overlapping regions having a characteristic pore diameter likely too large to suppress the passage of a flame front therethrough incident to the detonation of propellant, but robust enough to resist catastrophic failure during detonation; and

>a second region of said overlapping regions having a characteristic pore diameter small enough to suppress the passage of a flame front therethrough incident to the detonation of propellant, but not robust enough without the first region to resist catastrophic failure during detonation.

We getting /sci/ up in /k/ today my niggers.

Anyway, that's my guess anon - I don't know if solid propellant behaves like liquid propellant in this scenario, but if it does, then a larger area to burn in gives you a more thorough burn and that translates into more energy into the bullet and less energy in a useless flash after the muzzle.

>>35134107
>>35134144

Iirc powder, containing both fuel and oxidizer would behave differently to that.

>>35134465
>Iirc powder, containing both fuel and oxidizer would behave differently to that.

Monopropellant (which is where you see these devices installed on the fuel lines) are also two-in-one which is why the flame can travel up the fuel line. Otherwise, the fire dies out fast from lack of oxidizer.