5.45 & 5.56 SBR - SPINNER CHALLENGE 

Spinner is the true enemy. Got it!

If the goal is to test the effect of velocity, then you should eliminate as many other variables as possible. Fire example, go ahead and use a bench rest, preferably with optics, so there are more hits. I know it's not supposed to be a SR vs Karl video, but shooter ability seems to have played a far larger role than velocity, and that makes it hard to compare the results.

@@cymond It’s not a scientific test. the question is can it be done with X gun. How well the sights work, and how controllable the gun are are factors. In several more upcoming videos how bad the sights are is absolutely a factor.

I always found 5.45 a bit lobby flying down range exl holding more of a ballistic arch vs 5.56 anyone notice this too?

@@darthtyranus7683 they’re pretty much even leaving a comparatively similar barrel length. Maaaaayybeee the slightly heavier 5.56 projectile carries energy a little better, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, they’re practically identical.

And the sun spots changed too!

Mercury was in GATORADE, you pleb. 🙄🙄🙄

Ain't that EXACTLY what the comments section be like?

Normally takes about three in quick timing to knock a pistols only plate over at my range. It is fun trying to get them all out fast enough

.22? You trying to blow holes in the targets with that WMD?

I'll take the American 180

are we allowed to use a rotary magazine full of angry bees?

I doubt it could be done but if someone managed it would shut up all the people trying to blame their gun/ammo instead of themselves

THIS! Can we see it Karl?

One goes ping. One goes Bonk!

In the same vein, I'd love to see a .300 blackout with 125gr supersonic ammo vs. 220gr. subs. The subsonic loadings have twice the mass, but only deliver a third of the supers' energy.

@@TheB3e3 This is my idea too. Easier logistics since it only requires readily available firearm, and easily available ammo as well. Could also be interesting to do 45gr vs 77gr .223 rounds.

Uea I would love to see 45-70 in this test.

If you miss power does not matter.

@@nwolinsP It matters to any poor sod you hit instead _because_ you missed.

@@Sableagle lol. Facts. Although, 5.56 is plenty powerful for the poor bastard you hit because you missed.

We've shot them at prs matches at 550yd. Just over 0.5s of flight time, those with crap natural rhythm have a hard time.

@@Magnusintro ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-32j8M5G1f8o.html

Yeah. It's still extremly valid as a target for pure skill, live ain't easy.

I understand their sentiment but when its a fact of the match, its usually best to act like it doesn’t affect you.

Spinners for rifles are fine. Spinners for 45 or up used for 9mm is dumb

Russell has not been programmed for you, you have been programmed for Russell 🤫

Hitting the thing is the obvious missing variable, both the percentage of hits vs misses and the sequence of those hits/misses. Beyond my mathematical pay grade.

Inertia is more of an influencing factor than p(momentum). Heavier bullets make more of a difference than velocity unless it's a huge increase(like difference between rifle and pistol velocity). For example: 160gr 9mm is going to have better performance on shifting the spinner than 115gr even if the p is the same between the two rounds.

@@colbunkmust Do you have a definition or formula for inertia? From everything I've been able to find, it's just another word for mass. (Well, almost everything. There's an XKCD strip about a hypothetical non-identity of inertial mass to gravitational mass, but that's just a "your mom" joke.)

@@Sableagle Inertia is directly related to mass. Inertia is defined as "a property of matter by which it remains at the state of rest or in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force". The spinner, at the start, wants to stay static, and any projectile that hits it wants to keep traveling at velocity(discounting atmospheric resistance, gravity, etc.) so the more mass the bullet has the more the spinner plate will shift as a result of the impact do to the bullet having higher mass, therefore higher inertia. There are other factors that come into play as well, like p and friction and probably a bunch of other stuff, but bullet, mass and associated inertia is probably the biggest factor. Keep in mind, a person can very easily push the spinner with their body while moving at a much slower speed than any bullet.

Who actually doesn’t grease a pivot point?

Apparently it's needed to convince people that inrange is honest.

You’re talking about collision mechanics rather than a difference between momentum and energy. Momentum and (kinetic) energy are both useful in determining how the spinner would behave in this case, as both take into account velocity and mass. While they don’t scale together linearly, you’re going to get more momentum with more energy and vice versa. The fragmentation you mentioned will happen regardless of which method you want to use to determine the movement. Maximum target movement would occur if the projectile dumped all of its energy OR momentum into the target without spalling outwards and “wasting” energy/momentum (inelastic collision). Given that there is no such magical material and that the projectile will shatter more at higher velocities, a slower moving, heavier bullet will probably work better to get the target moving. Source: trust me or something idk I tutored college physics for 3 years and like to pretend I know stuff

​@@AllOuttaNine I figure if the projectile stops dead, all its momentum has been transferred to the plate, if it sticks in the plate and goes with it it's sharing its momentum with the plate and if it bounces back it's transferred its downrange momentum to the plate _and taken its uprange momentum from the plate_. If the bullet *bursts* it's still stopping, in terms of its total downrange momentum has become zero, meaning its downrange momentum has been transferred to the plate. If we call a rifle plate 12" x 10" with 2" from each top corner cut off and 0.25" thick, that's 120 - 4 sq in / 4 = 29 cu in, or 475 cc of steel, 3802 grams. That PS90 bullet, stopping on impact, would knock that plate back at 0.3576 m/s, which is 0.243 J. That means 527.89 J have gone somewhere: bursting the bullet, denting the plate, making noise, heating stuff up, everything else that happens. If we use the "ideal bowl" instead and assume it stops too, we get 15.36 m/s, 448.53 J, and that's obviously an issue because that's more energy than the ball had. Let's go with "shared momentum" then. From 7.2575 kg to (7.2575 + 3.802) kg, and from 8.047 m/s to 5.28 m/s. Now we have 53.00 J in the plate and 101.18 J in the ball, total 154.18 J, meaning 80.78 J have gone into the "clong" sound and heat. In the bowling ball impact, 65.62% of the energy is still downrange kinetic energy. In the PS90 bullet impact, 0.046% of the energy is still downrange kinetic energy. Even if the bullet comes right back, it's still only 0.092% As you said, the heavier, slower impactor is more efficient.

To take a really extreme example: let's spit that little 27 gr bullet out of a 5.7 x 63 mm cartridge. To have 4 kJ of muzzle energy, it's going to have to leave at a rather impressive 2138 m/s, which means when it hits that plate it's pushing atoms of the plate back relative to the other atoms of the plate around them at a velocity far greater than the velocity at which those atoms move relative to each other when the steel is heated to its melting point, and that little bullet would carry on right through the plate like a, um, like a warm paintball through a sandwich bag full of water? Both metals would splash as if liquid but immediately revert to behaving as if solid as soon as they're out of the impact. In this example, the bullet's only taking 1.30 g of steel with it, and the rest of the plate just stands there and goes "ping." Very inefficient indeed! (Anyone wanting to actually make a 5.7 x 64 mm should probably start with at least 6 g (92.6 grains), and aim for a much lower velocity like 1155 m/s (3788 fps), so it'd carry that energy downrange and still be supersonic at 1 km, rather than trying for a crazy two kilometres per second at the muzzle that'll be lost by the time the bullet crosses the room.)

I think what you’re ultimately getting at here is to say that a bullet (particularly a relatively soft lead bullet) hitting a steel plate is, on the scale of things, more of an inelastic collision than an elastic collision (on the continuum between perfectly inelastic and perfectly elastic). Which seems probably right to me. And, being a fairly inelastic collision, this means a not-insubstantial chunk of the initial kinetic energy of the projectile is transmogrified into heat energy on impact. Nevertheless, momentum is still conserved, and is pretty nearly fully transferred to the target-at least within certain limits of approximation, given that of course there‘ll inevitably be bits of lead flying off to the sides and other such non-whiteboard-ideal stuff. In any case, the conclusion is that the velocity increase of the target will be much more like v^1 (proportional to momentum), than like v^2 (proportional to kinetic energy). And then the corollary would be that, assuming the choices of projectiles available to you tend to scale according to equal kinetic energy (which I _think_ is _very roughly_ how it works, in general, correct me if I’m wrong), then those projectiles more toward the high-mass low-velocity end of the scale are indeed a better choice (at least as far as the narrow question of “how fast can I get this steel plate moving” is concerned). [To be a bit pedantic, all of this *is* still *both* a momentum *and* energy issue; it’s just that the energy side of the analysis, in a relatively inelastic collision like we’re discussing, involves a lot of kinetic energy turning into heat energy and therefore not being useful.]

@@AllOuttaNine And you raise a good point: in addition to the basic “how inelastic of a collision do we assume it is when a lead bullet hits a steel plate” analysis, it is probably true that there are other relevant considerations that become important as the velocity ramps up, that further complicate things. (Like the extent to which the projectile will tend to shatter or do various other not-very-ideal things.)

10MM MASTER RACE

9.5mm just to be THAT guy lol

They weren’t ever hitting the joint. The cloud you see is the bullet jacket and splatter going in all directions and hitting the protruding part of the joint and deflecting.

All else being equal, hits or misses make much more difference than 16” vs 20” or .308 vs 5.56

No lube.

Having difficulty with a target is nothing to be ashamed of. Calling it unfair or inappropriate for matches because you're having difficulty with it is something I disagree with vehemently.

If you have the speed and timing to alternate top bottom and hit every time it would be quicker to go over. Alternately if you are only aiming at the top or bottom presentation, half of the time is wasted waiting for the target to be presenting itself.

@@iainwalker8701 just a curiosity. I suppose it would depend on a lot of factors like distance, recoil, and velocity.

Thank you!

Yeah, cuz 9x39 just grows on trees in the US...

The reason we degreased it was so that there couldn't be cope comments about "Oh, you spun that one because it was greased...when I shot on the target at your match it WASN'T properly greased..." So by making sure there's no grease, there can be no excuse.

Bring out some cowboy action shooter who is really good at reloading and maybe it could be done. Even then just a maybe

the rumor is that going forward at Brutality matches, they will not be greased. the spinner's calibration will be demonstrated at each squad, and the spinner will be degreased at ever squad. they are an excellent target to train with, I have one from MOA Targets and it is not easy at all.

No, it was not greased. :)

@@InrangeTv :)

"BRAKE" cleaner might add a bit of lubrication if it is completely dry temporarily, and then flash off very quickly.. It will remove added lubricants/oils and create more friction if there is some present. How can your opinion be taken seriously when you can't even use the right spelling of brake? You're also just wrong. Read books please.

@@thepjup4507 I mean.. I mispelled a word. The rest of your reply backs me up. Who's wrong bro? BTW there are videos AND books talking about using break cleaner and other solvents as lube effectively. Sit down lady

@@angrydingus5256 there are many different petroleum. petroleum =/= lubricant necessarily, and MOST brake cleaner does not have a lubricating petroleum. "break cleaner and gun lube are petroleum based" - you. By that logic, putting a plastic bag in your breaks will lube it. Brake cleaner that also lubricates are specific products, 90% of brake cleaner are solvents only which.... break down oils :O omg wow. Sit down son, on lady mama's lap. PLEASE show me a book that says "use brake cleaner as lubricant". I will read it cover to cover and if it says what you say VERBATIM then I will send you $10 on paypal. Also, how do you come to the conclusion that what I said backs up what you say at all? Maybe I used some terms you're not familiar with.

@@angrydingus5256 I'm sorry... I am double commenting but the fact you're doubling down is just blowing my mind. Brake cleaner by it's very nature is intended to create a surface that has more friction. Brakes shouldn't be lubricated, I just... you're really blowing my mind here. I really would like to read all these books and see these videos about using something DESIGNED by it's very chemical makeup to CREATE a surface that has MORE FRICTION (WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF LUBRICATING IF YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS). I really want to see what you come up with that implies to use brake cleaner as a lubricant. Should be funny. I'm sorry, this is my last comment before you respond.

Probably the primary arms microprism. But the mount will put you over $200

Well how much velocity changes with barrel length varies greatly with different calibers(see the short barrel 7.62 NATO vs short barrel 7.62x39 vid) so you wouldn't be able to assume X change in barrel length makes Y change in velocity.

No, it isn't noticeable.

Those exist on other channels. Something like 5 hits and it’s done

3-4 hits usually with .308 The point of this series is challenges.

1

Master spinners.

Dunno. All future spinners will be without lube.

1-2 hits difference tops.

55

The WD40 factory next to the Nintendo factory my dad works at? That's crazy man small world, I also have all the cheatcodes. COOL