[HN Gopher] Does glass break faster than a bullet? [video] ___________________________________________________________________ Does glass break faster than a bullet? [video] Author : mfrw Score : 50 points Date : 2022-12-14 16:44 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.youtube.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com) | jkingsman wrote: | Awesome video -- pretty low on fluff compared to how bad YT can | get these days, which is a pleasant surprise. | | I totally understand the physics and reality of sound/light/etc. | traveling different speeds in different mediums, but it's always | such a wild thought to me. It tickles my brain in such a | delightful way. | version_five wrote: | For anyone who doesn't want to watch an 8 minute video, the | glass / bullet race is at 2:40. | | Maybe it's low fluff relative to other YouTube videos, for me | it could have been a 5 second GIF without any real loss. | permo-w wrote: | given that (in physics) sound is vibration, I think a clearer | way of phrasing it is that glass cracks at the speed at which a | vibration can travel through it. glass is much denser than air, | so the particles can knock into each other more easily, meaning | that the speed of sound (or vibration) in glass is a lot faster | | (this isn't aimed at explaining it to you, just to write out my | thoughts, as I found their explanation a little odd) | satvikpendem wrote: | Related, hitting a Prince Rupert's drop with a bullet: | https://youtu.be/F3FkAUbetWU?t=104 | | TLDW: The bullet shatters and the drop stays intact. | mwilliaams wrote: | So we should make body armor out of Prince Rupert drops? | walrus01 wrote: | I wonder what the results would be if done with a steel core/AP | type rifle round , the bullet in the video appears to be | jacketed plain lead at pistol velocities. | sophacles wrote: | The same channel did a follow-up with rifles here: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5MORochIDw | walrus01 wrote: | For sure some very different results but it looks like | they're using low cost jacketed plain soft lead. I wonder | what the results would be with an M855A1 (available to | civilians) or real armor penetrating designed round. | | https://smallarmssolutions.com/home/the-m855a1 | permo-w wrote: | I'm surprised the fragments didn't cause the whole thing to | shatter when they came into contact with the tail | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | I wonder how the speed of glass crack travel compares to the | speed of sound in that particular kind of glass, and if the | deficit can be accounted for by the fact that the cracks are not | traveling in a straight line. | nibbleshifter wrote: | The shockwave (which travels ahead of the cracks) travels at | the speed of sound of the material. | | I'd hazard a guess the shockwave propagates about twice as fast | as the cracks. | walrus01 wrote: | Handgun rounds are really quite slow - now do it with a 5.56 NATO | 55 grain FMJ from a 20" barrel at 3000+ feet per second. | | Basic rifle chronographs are under $200 and high enough Hz | precision to measure feet-per-second of different rounds | accurately. You still can't see it and differences are | imperceptible to human senses, but chronographs/chronometers are | a heck of a lot cheaper than a super-slow-motion camera. | | Commonly used for people testing out different combinations of | things for long range precision target shooting. | | https://www.snipercountry.com/best-shooting-chronograph-revi... | AustinDev wrote: | They clocked the glass at ~3,000 mph so it'd be a lot closer | with 5.56 being ~2,000 mph. The fastest production bullet I | believe is .270 Swift which is over 4,000 fps depending on | barrel and conditions. | vidanay wrote: | Pick consistent units! | walrus01 wrote: | Getting Americans to not use measurements like grains (for | powder loads or bullet weights), feet per second, yards, | MOA, cartridge dimensions and chamber dimensions and barrel | sizes in inch-based measurements and other non-metric | measurements for anything rifle related is unlikely to | happen anytime soon. Unfortunately. | | Even things which happen in supposedly entirely metric | countries in Europe/NATO land use USA-spec things. Such as: | Oh, you want to replace a barrel on your M4 rifle used by a | European military? Time to get out your _half inch_ square- | drive socket torque wrench and torque that barrel to a | certain value in _foot-pounds_... And after you 're done | you get to mess around with your SAE spec hex key set to | reinstall the hand guard and associated stuff. I'm not | kidding. | bell-cot wrote: | Vs. those darn limeys, where you just have to know that a | QF 17-pounder is a WW _II_ anti-tank gun, but a QF | 18-pounder is a WW _I_ field artillery piece... | permo-w wrote: | > like grains (for powder loads or bullet weights) | | or heroin | vidanay wrote: | I was referring to the use of MPH (which is probably | wrong) and FPS mixed together. | | I don't care about bullet caliber being mixed mm and inch | - I consider them to just be "a size" and not a | measurement. | LarryMullins wrote: | > _I consider them to just be "a size" and not a | measurement._ | | You're right to consider it that way. In many cases, | bullets aren't actually the size the name would suggest. | For instance, .380 ACP is actually .355 inches (9mm) in | diameter. 5.56x45mm is actually 5.7mm. | rootusrootus wrote: | Isn't it just a straight 1:1 calculation in either case? | 1 mph === 1.46667 fps | kmonsen wrote: | 4000 fps ~= 2800 mph ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-16 23:00 UTC)