Science Blogs

Go to Select Blog...

Search National Geographic

Search nationalgeographic.com Submit

Last 24 Hrs
Life Science
Physical Science
Environment
Humanities
Education
Politics
Medicine
Brain & Behavior
Technology
Information Science
Jobs

Dot Physics
MythBusters: Bringing on the physics bullet drop

Posted by Rhett Allain on October 9, 2009

(24)
Like 23 Tw eet 2 1 Share
More

If you didnt catch the latest MythBusters (yeah! new episodes), they did something straight from the physics textbooks. Just
about every text has this example of shooting a bullet horizontally and dropping a bullet from the same height. The idea is that
they should hit the ground at the same time. No one but the MythBusters could actually show this demo with a real gun.

The Physics

I am going to do some calculations, but I want to first write about the physics that accompanies this idea (and you can
actually do it your self without the gun). What physics principle does this demo show? Well, it shows two things. First, it
shows that the horizontal and vertical motion in projectile motion are independent. That is, what happens in the y-direction,
stays in the y-direction. Really, you can treat projectile motion as two separate problems that just happen to take the same
amount of time. The second thing it shows is that the velocity in one direction does not effect the velocity in the other
direction (which really is the same as the first thing). Let me draw two diagrams, one for a dropped ball and one for ball shot
horizontally.
There are some really important things to note in this diagram. First, the force is only in the y-direction. This means that the
red balls x-motion does not change and neither does the blue balls. Second, the acceleration in the y-direction for both
balls will be the same. Even if the balls had different masses, this would be true since a greater mass would have a greater
gravitational force from the Earth.

Since the x- and y-motions are independent, and since the balls have the same y-motion they would hit the ground at the
same time.

But what about air resistance?

Yes, this complicates things somewhat. First, I will use a typical model for air resistance that depends on some stuff and the
speed of the object. Here is the model:

This is the magnitude of the air resistance. The direction is in the opposite direction as the way the object moves. So, here is
a bullet shot horizontally from a gun with air resistance.
Here there is a difference. Now there is a component of force that depends on velocity in the y-direction. Will this make it hit
the ground at a different time than one that is just dropped? Even if that one also has air resistance? Lets just do it. Of
course, I am not the MythBusters. I dont even own a gun. I do own a computer.

Modeling Bullet with air resistance

It seems like I have been using my bullet model a lot lately. Each time I change it just a little. In this case, I am going to start
with a .45 caliber bullet like the mythbusters did. They said they used it because it was heavy and slow. That is fine with me.
Slow means that I can just use one value for the drag coefficient instead of my super-sonic coefficient table. If you want my
python program, I will add it at the end. But here is my first run. I am going to shoot a .45 caliber bullet aimed horizontally 36
inches above the ground. Just as a comparison, I will plot the trajectory of the .45 and another object shot with it but without
air resistance.
This gives a range of 102 meters (or feet) which is similar to what the MythBusters found. Notice that without air resistance,
the object only goes a few (7 ish) meters more. Now how about a comparison of their vertical motions.

I zoomed in to just the end. Here you can see that the bullet with air resistance hit the ground after 0.44 seconds. The bullet
without air resistance hit the ground after 0.431 seconds. Ok, now to add air resistance to the dropped bullet and just drop it
(dont shoot it). Also, I will add a plot of a falling bullet without air resistance.

They dont hit at the same time. Actually, all three objects will hit differently. The no air drag object will hit first, then the
dropped bullet and then the fired bullet. The above graph looks like just two lines because the dropped bullet and the no
drag bullet are so similar. Let me zoom in a bit on that graph.

What if I increase the air resistance? I could redo this with something like a baseball, but I will just increase the coefficient C.
Here is what I get.

This is with a ginourmous drag coefficient of C = 20. So, is this right? Should the dropped bullet really hit the ground first
with air resistance? Let me draw two force diagrams for a dropped bullet and a fired bullet just a short moment after they are
released.

When initially released, both bullets had the same force in the y-direction. The fired bullet was moving horizontally so that the
air resistance was only in the x-direction. So, they both initially had the same vertical acceleration and after a short time about
the same velocity (I will call this v2y ). But, how do the vertical air resistances compare? Let me call the initial launch speed of
the bullet vbullet. One more thing, I am going to write the air resistance as Kv2 just because it is shorter. The air resistance on
the dropped bullet will be:

Now let me look at the y-component of air resistance force on the fired bullet. Let me just say that it really hasnt slowed
down much (doesnt really matter anyway) in the x-direction. The magnitude of the whole air resistance force would be:

I left off that tiny little y-component of velocity because it is just too small to matter. But what I want is the vertical
component of the air resistance. To do this, I need the angle below the horizontal the bullet is traveling. This diagram may be
useful:

So, I can write the following:

And then the y-component of the air resistance would be:

There you have it. The y-component of air resistance for the fired bullet still depends on the fired speed of the bullet (since it
is proportional to v2). A fired bullet (with air resistance) does not hit the ground at the same time as a dropped bullet. That
being said, it was still an awesome demo. The .45 caliber was a great choice since it is slow and heavy and air resistance
doesnt play that big of a role.

Update

I forgot to post my sloppy python code for this problem. Here it is:

mythbusters_bulletdrop.py

Keywords: air resistance, bullet drop, forces, kinematics, mythbusters, numerical calculation, physics, projectile motion,
python
(24)
 Like 23 Tw eet 2 1 Share
More

Comments

1. #1 Uncle Al
October 10, 2009

If you fire horizontally the geoid curves downward L^2/8R to first order, L being pathlength and R being the
planets radius (about 3961 miles or 20,924,000 feet). Over 335 feet of flight the bullet had an added drop of about 7
mils (presumably taxable).

2. #2 David
October 11, 2009

Fantastic post (and blog) youve got here I actually found this in the course of writing up nearly the same thing for
my own blog. I was wondering if youd consider sharing the code you used to develop those graphs? Im running my
own simulations and consistently finding a drag force which is much larger than it should be I get the bullet flying only
about 25m (using rho=1.2, A=0.0001, m=0.015, C=0.2, all in MKS units), and Itd be great to be able to check my
program against yours.

3. #3 Rhett
October 11, 2009

@David,

I updated the page and included my python code. I am completely open to the idea that there is a problem with my
code (it happens).

4. #4 Nick
October 12, 2009

One thing that has always perturbed my in these physics demos is that the dont reflect reality at all. Bullet arcs form
parabolas as described above, but they dont start at the peak of a parabola. The bullet arcs up from the point of the
barrel before arcing down again.

You can prove this by keeping the gun steady, firing at a paper target, move the target forward, then fire again. The
second target will be higher by a proportion of the distance you moved forward. That proportion also depends on the
calibre of the weapon fired.

I once asked my physics professor why this was so back when I was in college. He wouldnt believe me. He asked
around, and apparently it has something to do with fluid dynamics. But its simple enough to prove but most physics
people wont believe you. So, one other reason a fired bullet wont hit the same time a dropped bullet will. It has
vertical, upword movement a dropped bullet does not.
 5. #5 David
October 13, 2009

@ Rhett

No, it was a problem with my code, I had an extra factor of v. Thanks for adding your program!

6. #6 Tyler
October 14, 2009

you forgot about the riffling found on modern guns which will increase the airtime of bullets. The arc of the earth,
rotational inertia, and the aerodynamics on the bullet itself are too many variables for the myth to hold true. Also
remember that warm air (and warm air around a hot bullet will rise when surrounded by colder air) which may account
for some of the lift found on modern weapons; The spinning bullet will have colder (and denser air) below it, but
warmer(less dense air) above it.

7. #7 calvin
October 15, 2009

I enjoyed the analysis of the physics on this site but the bottom line is that the fired bullet hit the ground 9.2% later than
the dropped bullet a significant amount! (.0396 sec/.4312 sec)=.092. myth busted

8. #8 Mark
October 16, 2009

The problem is always presented in text books with the proviso, negligible air resistance.

9. #9 paul
October 19, 2009

Not that any additional confirmation is needed but I set the problem up in Mathematica using a Runge Kutta instead of
the Euler algorithm and got essentially the same result. There is a breath over 2% difference in the landing times in the
calculations. I didnt see the original video of the Mythbusters but from the youTube short I gather they saw a wider
difference. Some of that may simply have been timing error in their equipment (trying to pick out a speck on a high
speed camera). I also note that the pistol had a significant kick as the bullet emerges. This could have given the bullet a
slight upward velocity. I think this one is close enough to the textbooks to call it good.

10. #10 Bert

October 22, 2009

The fun with this, that actually the measurement in the show did prove the myth to be false, but they said, oh, 40 ms
 difference is just so small, so let it be confirmed.

11. #11 calvin

October 22, 2009

To Paul I reply I agree that the methodology may have been flawed. The gun did kick causing an upward flight, the
dropping of the bullet may have been mistimed, and the evaluation of when the bullets hit the ground may have been
off. To Bert I reply yes that the difference was only 40 ms at 360 feet, but what would it have been at a quarter mile,
the distance many bullets would travel. If the difference were 200 ms would that change your decision? Its not the
time that counts but the percentage.
I suspect that the fired bullet really does fly! I base this idea on the experience of flying model airplanes. An airplane
with a fully symmetrical airfoil (the top contour of the wing is identical to the bottom contour) can fly upside down. A
bullet is similar to a symmetrical wing. I believe a fired bullet does have some lift keeping it in the air for a longer
period of time.
I would like to see this test repeated with better methodology. Which would determine conformation or busting.

12. #12 Warren

October 26, 2009

@Nick

Thats because in your examples you havent been aiming exactly horizontally. You cannot rely on the sights alone to
determine the direction the barrel is pointing, as sights are generally compensated for drop and parallax for a
determined distance. A rifle calibrated to hit a 50 meter target will not hit the point of aim at most other distances. The
further you calibrate sights, the greater the angle between the horizontal and the barrel. To see your initial trajectory,
you must use a laser bore sight. No crazy fluid dynamics.

13. #13 Eric

December 6, 2009

Read your article with interest. Would be interested in opinions of the rising fastball myth. Perhaps you saw the
episode on Mythbusters too. It appears that you guys may have some additional insight to provide in favor of the
rising fastball.

Take 100 mph baseball traveling 60 feet from mound to plate from a height of 6 feet. Previous models include gravity
and Mangus effect and current model include limited drag, but no discussion of lift or air resistance. IMO, it has less to
do with the Bernoulli principal of an 76mph curveball and more to do with the spinless flutter of a 76mph knuckleball.
Please help me with the physics.

From a statistical standpoint, I have determined the possibility of 1 person throwing a rising 90mph fastball out of 100
people is probably zero. But if each person were capable of throwing a 100mph baseball 15,000 times, I would
expect some of those pitches to rise above the normal parabolic anomaly.

Even if I am wrong, it would be nice to have someone else discuss the physical possibility of a rising fastball.
14. #14 Mark Miles
January 4, 2010

Everyone here seems to be confusing a hypthetical model illustrating the fundamental reality of gravity vs. reality. That
a bullet fired in normal air (a spinning bullet for that matter) questionably horizontal, was within 10% of the time hitting
the ground as an object dropped vertically, is proof positive that an object with horizontal speed falls at the same
speed as an object dropped vertically, with no relative speed. I think that any joe on the street would assume that the
difference in time would have be much greater. Expecting a perfect result under very imperfect circumstances is
ludicrous.

15. #15 bill

February 24, 2010

wont the air resistance coefficient be different (i.e. less) for the fired bullet than the dropped bullet plus casing etc.?

16. #16 Morgan

March 30, 2010

Casing. I love it!

17. #17 Peter

April 11, 2010

Does the caliber (size of the bullet) affect the rate at which a bullet will fall?

18. #18 Bret

February 12, 2011

None of this really makes much sense to me, But i do find it very interesting. I dont understand the math and the
formulas. But here is what Id like to know. I am an extreme mountain biker. And Id like to build some jumps and
drop offs. a drop off is a flat horizontal platform you ride straight off.
If I have a 10ft tall perfectly flat horizontal platform and I am on my bike traveling 30km/h how far will I go before i hit
the ground and at what angle will I be hitting the ground at? My speed and the heigh of the drop can be adjusted. I
figured this would be similar to the trajectory of a bullet only I am much larger and slower. Does weight play a factor?
if so I am 200 Lbs, my bike is 49 Lbs and i probably have 20 lbs of clothing/gear on. So call it 270 Lbs. Also if it
makes any difference i will be landing on a Downhill slope. the angle of the slope is unknown. It is also adjustable. As
I can build a landing ramp of just use the natural terrain of the hill. Thanks for your help.

19. #19 agustin

February 16, 2011
 The main problem is that the drag force is not independent on each axe.The drag force should be calculated always on
the basis of the velocity modul
It is very interesting that if you beleive that firing a bullet under the water in the Brazilan Coast the bullet could reach
Africa under the water

20. #20 Gordon

February 20, 2011

I am trying to do a math project on the flight of a bullet, i read what you said and it made a bit of sense, but do all
these formulas apply to all guns? and which formulas r the most important?? thanks

21. #21 Peter

February 22, 2011

This concept also works with a laser beam. Imagine that at the same time as you pull the trigger, a laser beam fires out
from the the rifle site perfectly horizontal. Both the laser beam and the bullet will hit the ground at the same time as long
as you have 300,000km of perfectly flat ground.

22. #22 rhett hayes

March 6, 2011

Hi my name is also Rhett!!

Im not a physicist but does this mean that the mythbuster item was actually correct more by luck due to the choice of
calibre? What if a much higher velocity weapon was chosen?

23. #23 Jack

March 7, 2011

Timing error is easily explained. They didnt account for the primer ignition time, powder burn time before pressure is
reached to cause motion, or the time spent in the barrell (supported)

To be accurate they would actually need a system that triggered upon barrel exit, and a barrel mounted on horizontal
slides so that Its recoil was rearward only with no tilt.

24. #24 Calibration Equipment

March 17, 2011

I think that any joe on the street would assume that the difference in time would have be much greater. Expecting a
perfect result under very imperfect circumstances is ludicrous

Search This Blog