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.
@@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.
I'd love to see a video that puts the whole "energy vs. momentum" argument to bed. Something like a subsonic .458 SOCOM in an AR with a red dot vs. .223 varmint loads in an AR with a red dot. Obviously actual caliber and weapon choice would depend on what's available, but the idea is slow, high mass (high momentum, low energy) vs. fast, low mass (low momentum, high energy), with as many other variables removed as possible. I haven't run the numbers, but "classic/trapdoor" .45-70 in a lever gun vs. 20" AR w/ 53gr VMAX should be about equal in energy with a vast difference in momentum. Edit: Ok, I ran the numbers. (Note the velocity numbers are based on what I could find online and might require a custom low-power handload for the .45-70) .45-70 (trapdoor): 405gr @ 1200fps -> 1295 ft-lb; 486 Kgr*fps (kilograinfeetpersecond; technically a valid momentum unit; yay US units!) .223 (53gr VMAX, 20" bbl): 53gr @ 3200fps -> 1205 ft-lb; 169.6 Kgr*fps This would give us a .45-70 load with only 7% more energy but 187% more momentum than the comparison. I know which one I bet on spinning the spinner faster (even though it's a lever gun)...but science requires verification!
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.
I always laugh when I see people complain about the spinner target when they see it show up at matches. I think to myself, "You guys have psyched yourself out and already lost." I try to embrace it and most encounters with it have been successful.
Interesting stuff. Great way to start the day. Once again, proving optics are better than irons, and accuracy is mor important than power. Not that power doesn't matter.
I think this is the most human emotion and intonation I have seen Russell use. Has Terminator Russell secretly been replaced with a biological homo sapien?
The reason I see most people fail on the Spinner at matches: missing. People get excited when they're almost there and then they start biffing shots. The second biggest issue is timing (i.e.: making hits but not at the most appropriate time to deliver energy into the Spinner when it's most advantageous). Specific cartridge or caliber is less of an issue but it does help to have a 12 gauge with a Turkey choke instead of a 9mm.
Long vs Short barrel conundrum could be easily calculated: *Momentum = muzzle velocity x mass* (bigger momentum = smacks the spinner harder) You could compare different calibers (and their respective muzzle velocities from various barrel lengths) and *game it out* for the matches... But where's the fun in that!
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.
I mean we've seen Karl and Ian spin a spinner with the 5.56 Krink when it was an impromptu M1 Carbine vs 5.56 Krink so there's no doubt that it can. With a red dot, it was much less of an issue getting hits on it so I imagine that getting a nice optic, or even a prism or magnified optic on either of these guns would help a lot.
Physics nerd moment: I think it'd be a momentum issue, not an energy issue. Energy will make the bullet fragments spray out harder and the plate go "ping" louder. Momentum will make the plate move, because momentum is conserved. To illustrate with a couple of real-world examples: a 27 gr (0.00174957 kg) bullet at 777 m/s from a PS90 has 1.35941589 kg m / s of momentum and 528.133073 J of energy; a 16 lb (7.25748 kg) bowling ball at 18 mph (8.04672 m/s) has 58.3989094656 kg m / s of momentum and 234.959836 J of energy. Which one knocks the spinner plate farther? To match energy, you'd have to bowl at 27 mph. To match momentum, you'd have to bowl at 0.42 mph. Which bowling speed knocks the spinner plate back like the impact of the 5.7 mm bullet?
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.)
Yeah, I wonder if you're going to have one of those at Woodland Brutality.... Looking forward to seeing you guys there! Thanks for coming to the West Virginia!!
Well you could always test if a hotter pcc would be better than a 9mn pcc since with a stock recoil should be a non factor for pistol calibers. 10mm vs 9mm for which is best mm anyone
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.
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.
I don't understand why people are mad about greasing the spinner. It seems like it would gall around the pivot and cause it to not be consistent overtime, with a side effect of it wearing out. If it's greased it would be perfectly consistent within reason. If a really thick grease is used it would still add rotational resistance and could actually make it harder to rotate. Obviously fine tuning is required. I know that these rifle targets aren't cheap and it's silly to make them ruin their targets just because you feel like they're trying to trick you or something.
Wow, that AK windage was all the way to the left. That is insane you had to adjust it that much! My Wasr 10 only needes a very slight windage adjustment to zero.
Have to give you props. I have an AKSU also and a SLR-105, the AKSU sights suck! Good job on that. I had to go with a dot on my AKSU, 40 years of being a programmer does not make for good eyes.
It would be cool to have a version of the spinner where you can put weights on the bottom spinner (maybe the top too) to make it easier or more difficult to get going. Also I wonder if it takes around the same time if you only shoot high or low instead of alternating.
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.
Hi Karl, I'm not really a "gun-guy" because I only own a pistol, but I am a "tool-guy." What is that little pouch on your folding stock for? Thanks! Your videos are always informative and interesting. I hope to see more of your infosec and history-related content.
I wonder if a flycam third arm would offer a significant mechanical advantage to the vertical adjustments in a spinner challenge for shooting standing.
Out at the range a few years ago with my Gun Guru, Vic, 2 other guys were there using the military shooting line (meant for military rifle shoots, from a "trench" to knock-down targets that go out to 750m, in 50m increments, starting at 300m). After they finished playing with a Swiss Schmidt-Rubin, I asked if they minded if I shot at the knockdowns. As I had only brought my Jericho 941 .45acp, and Vic only had his Thompson Contender with his .32-20 barrel, testing out some loads, they kind of laughed at me. I was surprised that 230gn bullet out of a 5" barrel actually knocked the target down! The 350 targets were already all down by them, so I shot at the 400m target, but it wouldn't go down. I then switched to the T/C, and ya, the little 90gn boolit (cast w/w with added tin, sized and powder coated bright red) did not knock down the other 300m target, nor the 400m or 450m! A heavy bullet (or cast boolit) has to help get knock-downs and spinners going, but the spinners obviously take a lot of skill as well.
When I have had the AK sight issue (front sight too far right or left) I will take a file and open the rear sight. In this case I would file the right side thus allowing the front sight to be moved back toward the center. Also I prefer a wider rear sight on an AK anyway.
So I've never done competition shooting, and I'm struggling to understand why the spinners are obviously built to be greased but you guys are making a big deal about them not being greased? What's the deal there? Why would you not grease it/intentionally degrease it? Just for curiosity's sake. Thanks for the video :)
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.
I've found that bullet momentum (as opposed to energy) seems to matter most with how easily you can flip a spinner. Somewhat cheated once against a friend of mine. We were both using 9mm pistols, but he was using 115s vs my 147s.
I'd love to see a variety of 300 BLK loadings used to see if there's enough difference to matter. Comparing spinner effect of 110, 125, 150, 200, and 220gr rounds could be interesting.
I think i have seen you spin a spinner with a lever action already, but would be interesting, if one in 357 mag could do it at this distance. (as it seems bullet weight is favorable against the spinner, and a 158gr bullet is 3 times the weight of the 556 you used here.)
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.
If I didn't trust you not to be greasing it in the first place, I wouldn't trust the shot of it being degreased which thanks to the magic of editing could happen before/after you shot at it.
I absolutely could've spun the rifle spinner at DB2021 with my 5.45 AK-74. I just missed too much - it's my own damn fault, the rifle was perfectly capable, as proven here!
I'd love to see a vid of barrel length/velocity effects on a spinner, yall could get a 10.3, 14.5, 16, and 20 inch 5.56 rifles and see what effects occur from them
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.
I mean... break cleaner and that gun lube are petroleum based, so they will add a bit of lubrication no matter. But that really isn't the point here. Great video. Also it really looks like 5.45 has a lottt more energy on target
"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.
Ive done one at 50 with an 11.5 5.56 so this tracks. It's harder but not significantly so. Make your hits at the right time in the right place and it'll go over.
though i guess you could say that if the 5.56 had more energy from a longer Barrel then it would be a fair bit easier with each Round doing more work. but man, such masochism with these awful Sights, haha.
I think iron sights can be useful still just takes way more consistency,familiarization,training to do what a red dot does out the box, I'd stress for people to get used to the irons first just incase they ever have to use them when their optic goes down...
@@InrangeTv I agree to disagree I think nothing is unbreakable, I've seen eotechs, aimpoint etc have their fair share of bad days even materials people claim that are indestructible have their weak points.
So I feel the point of this video, is that the spinner target is a test of timing and accuracy, and that if the shooter is accurate and fast enough, then the spinner can be spun. Optics can make target acquisition easier, thus faster. But my question is, does the grease help the spinner to spin easier? If it was made with a grease point, it should be greased, but Karl and Russel proactively degreased the spinner's bearing. So, do you grease it to prevent rust, then degrease it for training? I feel like rust in the bearing of the spinner would lead to inconsistencies in the effort required to spin. Or, is that part of the challenge? But the appearance of a spinner itself is enough to make some shooters, myself included, lose morale(shit bricks). I think the mere presence of a spinner target on 1 stage of a course of fire is enough to break the will of many shooters, however, maybe we shouldn't fear the spinner, since Karl and Russel both proved they can do it with iron sights, in a single standard magazine(I know Karl's first run wasn't a success, but im not counting it.)
i can't afford to send money but it would be cool to see a truck mounted mini gun and let see if we can get the spinner to spin fast let see if it can take off plus you save on the WD40 spray, just a thought
I question the effectiveness guys. You need the same barrel length. The 5.56 out of a 8.5” barrel is running way slower then the round out of a 16” one.
@@InrangeTv the velocity of a 5.56mm is lower the shorter the barrel length of the rifle right? Not to mention the vastly reduced sight radius you mentioned in the video contributing to the difficulty in putting the rounds where you want them. (You are by far a better shooter then I am and I know I’d have a hard time with that little Krink style gun) I just think to make a better comparison between calibers one factor you could make identical is the barrel length. That way the rounds are on an equal playing field in that regard. (I wasn’t trying to sling mud mate. I love your channel and all the videos you guys make)
@@MKD.357 the point of the video was NOT to advocate for the use of short-barreled rifles for the spinner target or compare calibers. The point was that it CAN be done with a softer hitting short barreled rifle, therefore the complaints of people at gun matches saying that the target is "impossible" are irrelevant, especially when they're shooting harder hitting longer barreled rifles. They have a series of videos on this topic.
Dude, that's literally the point of the video. They weren't testing the guns against each other. They were testing if the spinner could be done with a 5.56 SBR
This is *not* a SR vs Karl video, but each of us versus the target itself.
The 5.56 ammunition used was PMC Gold 55 grain.
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.
But Karl, the relative humidity changed! Last time you shot it Mercury was in Retrograde! The Coriolis effect aided the spinner on your second run!!!!
And the sun spots changed too!
Mercury was in GATORADE, you pleb. 🙄🙄🙄
Ain't that EXACTLY what the comments section be like?
Very clever, putting the label from a degreaser can on a tin of lubricant! (I jest, I jest!)
Ok, now for the masochists in the group; try with a .22 at 25m.
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
I'd love to see a video that puts the whole "energy vs. momentum" argument to bed. Something like a subsonic .458 SOCOM in an AR with a red dot vs. .223 varmint loads in an AR with a red dot. Obviously actual caliber and weapon choice would depend on what's available, but the idea is slow, high mass (high momentum, low energy) vs. fast, low mass (low momentum, high energy), with as many other variables removed as possible.
I haven't run the numbers, but "classic/trapdoor" .45-70 in a lever gun vs. 20" AR w/ 53gr VMAX should be about equal in energy with a vast difference in momentum.
Edit: Ok, I ran the numbers. (Note the velocity numbers are based on what I could find online and might require a custom low-power handload for the .45-70)
.45-70 (trapdoor): 405gr @ 1200fps -> 1295 ft-lb; 486 Kgr*fps (kilograinfeetpersecond; technically a valid momentum unit; yay US units!)
.223 (53gr VMAX, 20" bbl): 53gr @ 3200fps -> 1205 ft-lb; 169.6 Kgr*fps
This would give us a .45-70 load with only 7% more energy but 187% more momentum than the comparison.
I know which one I bet on spinning the spinner faster (even though it's a lever gun)...but science requires verification!
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.
I always laugh when I see people complain about the spinner target when they see it show up at matches. I think to myself, "You guys have psyched yourself out and already lost." I try to embrace it and most encounters with it have been successful.
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.
Would at least be a good laugh to see the spinner attempted with a .22lr machine gun like an American 180.
Interesting stuff. Great way to start the day.
Once again, proving optics are better than irons, and accuracy is mor important than power. Not that power doesn't matter.
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.
I think this is the most human emotion and intonation I have seen Russell use. Has Terminator Russell secretly been replaced with a biological homo sapien?
The reason I see most people fail on the Spinner at matches: missing. People get excited when they're almost there and then they start biffing shots. The second biggest issue is timing (i.e.: making hits but not at the most appropriate time to deliver energy into the Spinner when it's most advantageous). Specific cartridge or caliber is less of an issue but it does help to have a 12 gauge with a Turkey choke instead of a 9mm.
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 ruclips.net/video/32j8M5G1f8o/видео.html
It's great to see Russell get more and more comfortable on camera. Keep up the good work gents.
Russell has not been programmed for you, you have been programmed for Russell 🤫
Long vs Short barrel conundrum could be easily calculated:
*Momentum = muzzle velocity x mass*
(bigger momentum = smacks the spinner harder)
You could compare different calibers (and their respective muzzle velocities from various barrel lengths) and *game it out* for the matches... But where's the fun in that!
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.
I mean we've seen Karl and Ian spin a spinner with the 5.56 Krink when it was an impromptu M1 Carbine vs 5.56 Krink so there's no doubt that it can.
With a red dot, it was much less of an issue getting hits on it so I imagine that getting a nice optic, or even a prism or magnified optic on either of these guns would help a lot.
Ultimate Power vs Quick Follow-ups Spinner Challenge!
30-06 Bolt Action vs 9mm PCC, similar to modern sights. LET'S GO!!
The rounds were GrEaSeD!!!
Physics nerd moment: I think it'd be a momentum issue, not an energy issue.
Energy will make the bullet fragments spray out harder and the plate go "ping" louder.
Momentum will make the plate move, because momentum is conserved.
To illustrate with a couple of real-world examples:
a 27 gr (0.00174957 kg) bullet at 777 m/s from a PS90 has 1.35941589 kg m / s of momentum and 528.133073 J of energy;
a 16 lb (7.25748 kg) bowling ball at 18 mph (8.04672 m/s) has 58.3989094656 kg m / s of momentum and 234.959836 J of energy.
Which one knocks the spinner plate farther?
To match energy, you'd have to bowl at 27 mph. To match momentum, you'd have to bowl at 0.42 mph.
Which bowling speed knocks the spinner plate back like the impact of the 5.7 mm bullet?
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.)
So now it's just 'Phagan?' That's right. You never want to get too friendly with the competition. HA!!! Thanks to you both for another fun video.
Yeah, I wonder if you're going to have one of those at Woodland Brutality.... Looking forward to seeing you guys there! Thanks for coming to the West Virginia!!
You can say whatever you want about Karl but you can’t deny he’s a good marksman with all his firearms as well as extremely knowledgeable in his field
So the conclusion is the best thing to help with balistics is better sights?
ItS gReAsEd!
Who actually doesn’t grease a pivot point?
Apparently it's needed to convince people that inrange is honest.
The aplit screen is good.
We can actually see the hits and misses.
Well you could always test if a hotter pcc would be better than a 9mn pcc since with a stock recoil should be a non factor for pistol calibers.
10mm vs 9mm for which is best mm anyone
10MM MASTER RACE
9.5mm just to be THAT guy lol
Thanks for the great content, looks like beautiful weather in the desert.
I like the concept of this series
I wonder how many times the spinner joint can get hit before it's wrecked. 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.
Sometimes I think you are throwing shade @ Ian for having difficulty with the spinner :D
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.
I don't understand why people are mad about greasing the spinner. It seems like it would gall around the pivot and cause it to not be consistent overtime, with a side effect of it wearing out. If it's greased it would be perfectly consistent within reason. If a really thick grease is used it would still add rotational resistance and could actually make it harder to rotate. Obviously fine tuning is required. I know that these rifle targets aren't cheap and it's silly to make them ruin their targets just because you feel like they're trying to trick you or something.
Wow, that AK windage was all the way to the left. That is insane you had to adjust it that much! My Wasr 10 only needes a very slight windage adjustment to zero.
What we've proven is in the event of open combat with an army of spinners, give Carl the Spencer
Have to give you props. I have an AKSU also and a SLR-105, the AKSU sights suck! Good job on that. I had to go with a dot on my AKSU, 40 years of being a programmer does not make for good eyes.
1:12 "This is as dry as it can get"
That's what she said.
Doesn't Fagan have a cold or something? I don't recall seeing him ever miss... Anything!
It would be cool to have a version of the spinner where you can put weights on the bottom spinner (maybe the top too) to make it easier or more difficult to get going.
Also I wonder if it takes around the same time if you only shoot high or low instead of alternating.
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.
Wherever you are whatever your doing I hope you are feeling as well as I am today thank you for the video.
Thank you!
1:11 Spinner now as dry as the humor.
Hi Karl, I'm not really a "gun-guy" because I only own a pistol, but I am a "tool-guy." What is that little pouch on your folding stock for? Thanks! Your videos are always informative and interesting. I hope to see more of your infosec and history-related content.
Thank you.
I wonder if a flycam third arm would offer a significant mechanical advantage to the vertical adjustments in a spinner challenge for shooting standing.
Out at the range a few years ago with my Gun Guru, Vic, 2 other guys were there using the military shooting line (meant for military rifle shoots, from a "trench" to knock-down targets that go out to 750m, in 50m increments, starting at 300m). After they finished playing with a Swiss Schmidt-Rubin, I asked if they minded if I shot at the knockdowns. As I had only brought my Jericho 941 .45acp, and Vic only had his Thompson Contender with his .32-20 barrel, testing out some loads, they kind of laughed at me. I was surprised that 230gn bullet out of a 5" barrel actually knocked the target down! The 350 targets were already all down by them, so I shot at the 400m target, but it wouldn't go down. I then switched to the T/C, and ya, the little 90gn boolit (cast w/w with added tin, sized and powder coated bright red) did not knock down the other 300m target, nor the 400m or 450m! A heavy bullet (or cast boolit) has to help get knock-downs and spinners going, but the spinners obviously take a lot of skill as well.
Needs to be a sign over the spinner that reads, "it's not the spinner, you just suck."
this episode is sponsored by... Bulgaria! For all your AK needs :D
When I have had the AK sight issue (front sight too far right or left) I will take a file and open the rear sight. In this case I would file the right side thus allowing the front sight to be moved back toward the center. Also I prefer a wider rear sight on an AK anyway.
Have you ever thought of trying a full auto .22? I know it’s a really hard logistical thing to do but it would be epic.
So I've never done competition shooting, and I'm struggling to understand why the spinners are obviously built to be greased but you guys are making a big deal about them not being greased?
What's the deal there? Why would you not grease it/intentionally degrease it?
Just for curiosity's sake. Thanks for the video :)
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.
Still wanna see something like the GM6 Lynx vs. The Spinner
Dang. That front sight on that Bulgy. Ugh! Rectify that. Lol
Two guys, no lube.
No lube.
Once you go under 10inches in barrel, might as well go 300 ACC or 9x39.
Yeah, cuz 9x39 just grows on trees in the US...
Awesome, thank you!
wouldn't a SIG553SB in 5.56 be more approriate for the challenge?😝
I've found that bullet momentum (as opposed to energy) seems to matter most with how easily you can flip a spinner.
Somewhat cheated once against a friend of mine. We were both using 9mm pistols, but he was using 115s vs my 147s.
I'd love to see a variety of 300 BLK loadings used to see if there's enough difference to matter. Comparing spinner effect of 110, 125, 150, 200, and 220gr rounds could be interesting.
Today only emphasizes that the real obstacle is still the spinner.
But Karl, was the spinner greased?
No, it was not greased. :)
@@InrangeTv :)
I think i have seen you spin a spinner with a lever action already, but would be interesting, if one in 357 mag could do it at this distance. (as it seems bullet weight is favorable against the spinner, and a 158gr bullet is 3 times the weight of the 556 you used here.)
Are the spinners greased at matches? This just always seems like an uphill battle. Thinking of getting one just to torture myself with.
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.
Love to see a .480 Ruger. Would it be better to hit it with 300gr fast bullets, or 440gr hard cast?
How do you think that 556 isn't going to move the target enough? Do these people know why 556 was made?
How about a break-action 20-bore shotgun at 10 paces?
Bring out some cowboy action shooter who is really good at reloading and maybe it could be done. Even then just a maybe
If I didn't trust you not to be greasing it in the first place, I wouldn't trust the shot of it being degreased which thanks to the magic of editing could happen before/after you shot at it.
It would be interesting to see with a typical 16” barrel AR what the farthest distance is that you can spin one.
Great video, the spinner is pain in the butt target.
I would rotate the front sight block on that 74.
I absolutely could've spun the rifle spinner at DB2021 with my 5.45 AK-74. I just missed too much - it's my own damn fault, the rifle was perfectly capable, as proven here!
Id like to see multiple people shooting the same spinner at the same time
You should try it with a .22 full auto, American-180 or such :D
I'd love to see a vid of barrel length/velocity effects on a spinner, yall could get a 10.3, 14.5, 16, and 20 inch 5.56 rifles and see what effects occur from them
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.
Second time I engaged a spinner was desert brutality 21. Got the 150yd and the 50yd spinners with a 14.5” 5.56
That's so much harder than people realize... seriously.
That is tough.
Because I'm not a super shooter, I'm going to lube the spinner
I mean... break cleaner and that gun lube are petroleum based, so they will add a bit of lubrication no matter. But that really isn't the point here. Great video. Also it really looks like 5.45 has a lottt more energy on target
"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.
how about a lever action in 45-70
So it has a lubrication port, but people are concerned that something that is apparently supposed to be lubricated is actually lubricated!? 🤔
Don't be so modest...good shot...bothya...
Follow up with a .308? I'd love to see how much of a difference the extra umph has out of something like a socom scout "standard" barrel.
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.
How was the muzzle flash on the shorty? Did it make it harder?
No, it isn't noticeable.
Try a 50-90 sharps
Doable but you two are master spinners.
Master spinners.
Ive done one at 50 with an 11.5 5.56 so this tracks. It's harder but not significantly so. Make your hits at the right time in the right place and it'll go over.
though i guess you could say that if the 5.56 had more energy from a longer Barrel then it would be a fair bit easier with each Round doing more work.
but man, such masochism with these awful Sights, haha.
What's the sack in the triangle stock called?
I think iron sights can be useful still just takes way more consistency,familiarization,training to do what a red dot does out the box, I'd stress for people to get used to the irons first just incase they ever have to use them when their optic goes down...
Quality modern optics really don't "go down".
@@InrangeTv I agree to disagree I think nothing is unbreakable, I've seen eotechs, aimpoint etc have their fair share of bad days even materials people claim that are indestructible have their weak points.
If you can make the hits is key. They cannot. They are not lying.
Bunch of people shooting same target with 22. That would be interesting
It would be fun to test different bullet weights like 55gr and 77gr.
1-2 hits difference tops.
Doable, but way more challenging. :)
So I feel the point of this video, is that the spinner target is a test of timing and accuracy, and that if the shooter is accurate and fast enough, then the spinner can be spun. Optics can make target acquisition easier, thus faster.
But my question is, does the grease help the spinner to spin easier? If it was made with a grease point, it should be greased, but Karl and Russel proactively degreased the spinner's bearing.
So, do you grease it to prevent rust, then degrease it for training? I feel like rust in the bearing of the spinner would lead to inconsistencies in the effort required to spin. Or, is that part of the challenge?
But the appearance of a spinner itself is enough to make some shooters, myself included, lose morale(shit bricks).
I think the mere presence of a spinner target on 1 stage of a course of fire is enough to break the will of many shooters, however, maybe we shouldn't fear the spinner, since Karl and Russel both proved they can do it with iron sights, in a single standard magazine(I know Karl's first run wasn't a success, but im not counting it.)
Greased spinners do rotate more easily.
To remove the argument about how well greased it was or wasn’t we degreased it.
@SinistralRifleman I see, I figured you were going for consistency between you and Karl.
Please spin the spinner with a pump action shotgun!! Slugs and buckshot, maybe even birdshot too.
Multiple videos forthcoming…:
Next time try with a howitzer.
How many shots does it take to spin the spinner target with a .50 BMG?
1
How much difference does lubing the spinner do?
Dunno. All future spinners will be without lube.
Spinner with an American 180?
Assuming you can find someone with one.
i can't afford to send money but it would be cool to see a truck mounted mini gun and let see if we can get the spinner to spin fast let see if it can take off plus you save on the WD40 spray, just a thought
Which scope under $200 would you recommend for AK-74 tactical use? And I'm astigmatic
Probably the primary arms microprism. But the mount will put you over $200
I clearly saw WD40 come out of that bottle. My grandmother used to work in a WD40 factory. Sorry Karl, but ya can’t beat the experts 😎
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
Man, now I wanna see your times with the same guns but with red dots, even though I know very well that you'd smoke your iron sight times for sure.
I question the effectiveness guys. You need the same barrel length. The 5.56 out of a 8.5” barrel is running way slower then the round out of a 16” one.
What?
@@InrangeTv the velocity of a 5.56mm is lower the shorter the barrel length of the rifle right? Not to mention the vastly reduced sight radius you mentioned in the video contributing to the difficulty in putting the rounds where you want them. (You are by far a better shooter then I am and I know I’d have a hard time with that little Krink style gun)
I just think to make a better comparison between calibers one factor you could make identical is the barrel length. That way the rounds are on an equal playing field in that regard.
(I wasn’t trying to sling mud mate. I love your channel and all the videos you guys make)
@@MKD.357 thats the whole point of the video, since people often deride the performance of 5.56 out of short barrels.
@@MKD.357 the point of the video was NOT to advocate for the use of short-barreled rifles for the spinner target or compare calibers. The point was that it CAN be done with a softer hitting short barreled rifle, therefore the complaints of people at gun matches saying that the target is "impossible" are irrelevant, especially when they're shooting harder hitting longer barreled rifles. They have a series of videos on this topic.
Dude, that's literally the point of the video. They weren't testing the guns against each other. They were testing if the spinner could be done with a 5.56 SBR
For the algorithm!