by russell
saw this on NPR initially, now it's at Field and Stream of all places.
I'm actually really curious to see how this shakes out, legally.
For the record, I don't really have a problem with people blasting camera-bearing drones out of the sky if they are hovering over their property. A 2nd Amendment solution to privacy invasion, I call it.
Don't want to get shot down, stay out of range.
But, IANAL.
Curious to know what you all make of it.
You’re responsible for where your bullets land, right? If this guy shot straight into the air, he’s a complete idiot and a menace to boot. If he shot at an angle, he endangered his neighbours. Firing a weapon overhead near the border of your property just seems like an insanely stupid thing to do.
You’re responsible for where your bullets land, right? If this guy shot straight into the air, he’s a complete idiot and a menace to boot. If he shot at an angle, he endangered his neighbours. Firing a weapon overhead near the border of your property just seems like an insanely stupid thing to do.
You’re responsible for where your bullets land, right? If this guy shot straight into the air, he’s a complete idiot and a menace to boot. If he shot at an angle, he endangered his neighbours. Firing a weapon overhead near the border of your property just seems like an insanely stupid thing to do.
You’re responsible for where your bullets land, right?
You’ll get no argument from me on that point.
I’m mostly just curious about where the law lands on the issue of whether a drone hovering over your property is trespassing, or not.
You’re responsible for where your bullets land, right?
You’ll get no argument from me on that point.
I’m mostly just curious about where the law lands on the issue of whether a drone hovering over your property is trespassing, or not.
You’re responsible for where your bullets land, right?
You’ll get no argument from me on that point.
I’m mostly just curious about where the law lands on the issue of whether a drone hovering over your property is trespassing, or not.
As I understand it, aircraft are regulated by the FAA. Over a certain height, you have no property rights above your land. That’s why you can’t charge United airlines with trespassing even if its jets traverse your property a dozen times a day.
As I understand it, aircraft are regulated by the FAA. Over a certain height, you have no property rights above your land. That’s why you can’t charge United airlines with trespassing even if its jets traverse your property a dozen times a day.
As I understand it, aircraft are regulated by the FAA. Over a certain height, you have no property rights above your land. That’s why you can’t charge United airlines with trespassing even if its jets traverse your property a dozen times a day.
I read this after reading Turb’s comment. If nothing else it’s an interesting physics tangent to go off on.
I read this after reading Turb’s comment. If nothing else it’s an interesting physics tangent to go off on.
I read this after reading Turb’s comment. If nothing else it’s an interesting physics tangent to go off on.
I hate to break it to you guys, but no “bullets” were involved, according to the article. The guy fired a shotgun; doesn’t say what it was loaded with, but presumably some kind of buckshot or birdshot. Has anyone attempted to study the effects of “shot” returning to earth? Presumably less than that of (rifle/pistol) bullets, one would think.
Not that this is likely to affect the legality of the situation.
I hate to break it to you guys, but no “bullets” were involved, according to the article. The guy fired a shotgun; doesn’t say what it was loaded with, but presumably some kind of buckshot or birdshot. Has anyone attempted to study the effects of “shot” returning to earth? Presumably less than that of (rifle/pistol) bullets, one would think.
Not that this is likely to affect the legality of the situation.
I hate to break it to you guys, but no “bullets” were involved, according to the article. The guy fired a shotgun; doesn’t say what it was loaded with, but presumably some kind of buckshot or birdshot. Has anyone attempted to study the effects of “shot” returning to earth? Presumably less than that of (rifle/pistol) bullets, one would think.
Not that this is likely to affect the legality of the situation.
Give property, guns, drones, airspace and sex to Americans who know no limits except their own interpretation of rights guaranteed by some hazy words 250 years ago and what izzat … Jazz?
Next step, drones that fire back, and believe me, you’ve got enough jackasses congregated in small assemblies to make it a thing and a right.
We call it the deadly game.
Give property, guns, drones, airspace and sex to Americans who know no limits except their own interpretation of rights guaranteed by some hazy words 250 years ago and what izzat … Jazz?
Next step, drones that fire back, and believe me, you’ve got enough jackasses congregated in small assemblies to make it a thing and a right.
We call it the deadly game.
Give property, guns, drones, airspace and sex to Americans who know no limits except their own interpretation of rights guaranteed by some hazy words 250 years ago and what izzat … Jazz?
Next step, drones that fire back, and believe me, you’ve got enough jackasses congregated in small assemblies to make it a thing and a right.
We call it the deadly game.
Thanks for the correction dr ngo. I retract my statement about this particular trigger happy fellow, though it might yet apply to the next one.
Thanks for the correction dr ngo. I retract my statement about this particular trigger happy fellow, though it might yet apply to the next one.
Thanks for the correction dr ngo. I retract my statement about this particular trigger happy fellow, though it might yet apply to the next one.
You only have rights to the airspace above your property up to 500 feet (I believe that’s 500 feet from the top of the tallest building, but IANAL). If the drone was above that, the guy has no complaint — and the drone owner may well have a legal case against him.
As with most new technologies, the law hasn’t yet figured out what to do about it. And will likely flail around for a while before something relatively sensible gets worked out.
You only have rights to the airspace above your property up to 500 feet (I believe that’s 500 feet from the top of the tallest building, but IANAL). If the drone was above that, the guy has no complaint — and the drone owner may well have a legal case against him.
As with most new technologies, the law hasn’t yet figured out what to do about it. And will likely flail around for a while before something relatively sensible gets worked out.
You only have rights to the airspace above your property up to 500 feet (I believe that’s 500 feet from the top of the tallest building, but IANAL). If the drone was above that, the guy has no complaint — and the drone owner may well have a legal case against him.
As with most new technologies, the law hasn’t yet figured out what to do about it. And will likely flail around for a while before something relatively sensible gets worked out.
If the drone was really hovering only 10 feet off the ground, the guy could have batted it down with the barrel of the gun. Using the gun as a club by holding on to the barrel might have been more effective, but probably a lot stupider.
My only real comment is that I wish I could un-ban our old buddy Brett just for this one thread.
–TP
If the drone was really hovering only 10 feet off the ground, the guy could have batted it down with the barrel of the gun. Using the gun as a club by holding on to the barrel might have been more effective, but probably a lot stupider.
My only real comment is that I wish I could un-ban our old buddy Brett just for this one thread.
–TP
If the drone was really hovering only 10 feet off the ground, the guy could have batted it down with the barrel of the gun. Using the gun as a club by holding on to the barrel might have been more effective, but probably a lot stupider.
My only real comment is that I wish I could un-ban our old buddy Brett just for this one thread.
–TP
THIS is why Amazon’s plan to deliver packages via drone is never going to work.
THIS is why Amazon’s plan to deliver packages via drone is never going to work.
THIS is why Amazon’s plan to deliver packages via drone is never going to work.
THIS is why Amazon’s plan to deliver packages via drone is never going to work.
Or rather, this is why the rest of the world will get to enjoy a more benign form of drone delivery than that visited upon them up til now…
THIS is why Amazon’s plan to deliver packages via drone is never going to work.
Or rather, this is why the rest of the world will get to enjoy a more benign form of drone delivery than that visited upon them up til now…
THIS is why Amazon’s plan to deliver packages via drone is never going to work.
Or rather, this is why the rest of the world will get to enjoy a more benign form of drone delivery than that visited upon them up til now…
Slightly OT, but genuinely curious as to how this will turn out, it seems as though the British Labour Party is set to elect as leader someone who is only on the ballot because the then presumptive front runner ‘lent’ him some of his nominations…
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-predicted-landslide-53-6230347
It will be interesting to see what the wider electorate makes of this in due course.
Slightly OT, but genuinely curious as to how this will turn out, it seems as though the British Labour Party is set to elect as leader someone who is only on the ballot because the then presumptive front runner ‘lent’ him some of his nominations…
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-predicted-landslide-53-6230347
It will be interesting to see what the wider electorate makes of this in due course.
Slightly OT, but genuinely curious as to how this will turn out, it seems as though the British Labour Party is set to elect as leader someone who is only on the ballot because the then presumptive front runner ‘lent’ him some of his nominations…
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-predicted-landslide-53-6230347
It will be interesting to see what the wider electorate makes of this in due course.
It sounds like Labour has the same sort of “opportunity” before it as the Republican Party does. 😉
Just to drag us back on topic, is Mr. Corbyn saying anything about subjects like drones?
It sounds like Labour has the same sort of “opportunity” before it as the Republican Party does. 😉
Just to drag us back on topic, is Mr. Corbyn saying anything about subjects like drones?
It sounds like Labour has the same sort of “opportunity” before it as the Republican Party does. 😉
Just to drag us back on topic, is Mr. Corbyn saying anything about subjects like drones?
“Give property, guns, drones, airspace and sex to Americans”
Yes, giving them sex was definitely a bad idea.
“Give property, guns, drones, airspace and sex to Americans”
Yes, giving them sex was definitely a bad idea.
“Give property, guns, drones, airspace and sex to Americans”
Yes, giving them sex was definitely a bad idea.
Presumably less than that of (rifle/pistol) bullets, one would think.
that would depend on the size of the shot. buckshot starts at about 1.5g per ball and goes up to roughly 20g. compare that to a .22 short: just under 2g; or a NATO standard 9mm bullet: 7-8g.
i assume they’d all reach terminal velocity on their way down.
Presumably less than that of (rifle/pistol) bullets, one would think.
that would depend on the size of the shot. buckshot starts at about 1.5g per ball and goes up to roughly 20g. compare that to a .22 short: just under 2g; or a NATO standard 9mm bullet: 7-8g.
i assume they’d all reach terminal velocity on their way down.
Presumably less than that of (rifle/pistol) bullets, one would think.
that would depend on the size of the shot. buckshot starts at about 1.5g per ball and goes up to roughly 20g. compare that to a .22 short: just under 2g; or a NATO standard 9mm bullet: 7-8g.
i assume they’d all reach terminal velocity on their way down.
There are a number of VERY thorough /. threads on this topic. (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/07/29/142227/kentucky-man-arrested-after-shooting-down-drone AND http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/08/10/2040211/new-video-shows-shot-down-drone-hovered-for-only-22-seconds ) The short version, as far as I can sum up:
The guy was charged with wanton endangerment first degree and criminal mischief.
He likely fired birdshot. If so, it’s basically harmless falling back to earth, terminal velocity is too low.
The drone was definitely not 500′ up, because that shot would be impossible to make with birdshot. Or really any type of shotgun ammunition. The drone pilot is claiming he was up 200′ or so…which would still be pretty hard to hit.
For the record, I view the drone as trespassing and the gun owner within his rights, assuming he discharged the weapon safely.
As to what this bodes for Amazon’s drones, I think it doesn’t change much. My understanding is Amazon has already considered the possibility of being shot down and plans to fly over 300 ft, which would be a hard shot to make for the majority of gun owners (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/02/tech/innovation/amazon-drones-questions/ ). You can’t plan on sending merchandise through an automated system without at least considering someone will try to steal it.
There are a number of VERY thorough /. threads on this topic. (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/07/29/142227/kentucky-man-arrested-after-shooting-down-drone AND http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/08/10/2040211/new-video-shows-shot-down-drone-hovered-for-only-22-seconds ) The short version, as far as I can sum up:
The guy was charged with wanton endangerment first degree and criminal mischief.
He likely fired birdshot. If so, it’s basically harmless falling back to earth, terminal velocity is too low.
The drone was definitely not 500′ up, because that shot would be impossible to make with birdshot. Or really any type of shotgun ammunition. The drone pilot is claiming he was up 200′ or so…which would still be pretty hard to hit.
For the record, I view the drone as trespassing and the gun owner within his rights, assuming he discharged the weapon safely.
As to what this bodes for Amazon’s drones, I think it doesn’t change much. My understanding is Amazon has already considered the possibility of being shot down and plans to fly over 300 ft, which would be a hard shot to make for the majority of gun owners (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/02/tech/innovation/amazon-drones-questions/ ). You can’t plan on sending merchandise through an automated system without at least considering someone will try to steal it.
There are a number of VERY thorough /. threads on this topic. (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/07/29/142227/kentucky-man-arrested-after-shooting-down-drone AND http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/08/10/2040211/new-video-shows-shot-down-drone-hovered-for-only-22-seconds ) The short version, as far as I can sum up:
The guy was charged with wanton endangerment first degree and criminal mischief.
He likely fired birdshot. If so, it’s basically harmless falling back to earth, terminal velocity is too low.
The drone was definitely not 500′ up, because that shot would be impossible to make with birdshot. Or really any type of shotgun ammunition. The drone pilot is claiming he was up 200′ or so…which would still be pretty hard to hit.
For the record, I view the drone as trespassing and the gun owner within his rights, assuming he discharged the weapon safely.
As to what this bodes for Amazon’s drones, I think it doesn’t change much. My understanding is Amazon has already considered the possibility of being shot down and plans to fly over 300 ft, which would be a hard shot to make for the majority of gun owners (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/02/tech/innovation/amazon-drones-questions/ ). You can’t plan on sending merchandise through an automated system without at least considering someone will try to steal it.
I started a company to employ ex Army sharpshooters to protect your home against corporate or individual drones. I pay piece work rates per drone and charge a retainer just in case one bothers you.
We have established fixed and mobile positions in all major cities to allow rapid response. What a country.
I started a company to employ ex Army sharpshooters to protect your home against corporate or individual drones. I pay piece work rates per drone and charge a retainer just in case one bothers you.
We have established fixed and mobile positions in all major cities to allow rapid response. What a country.
I started a company to employ ex Army sharpshooters to protect your home against corporate or individual drones. I pay piece work rates per drone and charge a retainer just in case one bothers you.
We have established fixed and mobile positions in all major cities to allow rapid response. What a country.
We have established fixed and mobile positions in all major cities to allow rapid response.
How does the mobile response work? Do your people take Uber?
We have established fixed and mobile positions in all major cities to allow rapid response.
How does the mobile response work? Do your people take Uber?
We have established fixed and mobile positions in all major cities to allow rapid response.
How does the mobile response work? Do your people take Uber?
Uber Black. Dependable and discreet.
Uber Black. Dependable and discreet.
Uber Black. Dependable and discreet.
“assuming he discharged the weapon safely.”
If you are shooting at something or someone, where does the safety come in?
Marty, I’ve started a company that supplies drones, equipped with tiny cannons and machine guns, to home and land owners who would rather engage the individual and corporate drone offenders in aerial dogfights, instead of shooting at them from the ground or out the bathroom window.
For night dogfights, we supply repurposed German spotlights salvaged from World War II.
The drones may be launched singularly or in great swarms, like the Japanese Air Force in WWII, to engage the enemy.
Our drones may be manipulated from the safety of the BarcaLounger via a TV remote type of device in the den.
Our drones can be programmed as well, instead of destroying, to intercept the trespassing drone and safely force its landing directly to the front door, perhaps via a drone-to-drone tether, if it carries payload that might be of interest to the homeowner, for example the five-meat pizza and a six-pack of Schlitz.
Now for the goat-owner living in the heart of the country, we can rig up an aerial net of connected drones, that will carry a live billy goat aloft and maneuver the animal within inches of the trespassing drone, and the goat will make quick work of the thing by swallowing it whole.
The goat is then released while aloft and dropped directly into a barbecue pit, onto a trampoline, or into the swimming pool, owner’s choice.
“assuming he discharged the weapon safely.”
If you are shooting at something or someone, where does the safety come in?
Marty, I’ve started a company that supplies drones, equipped with tiny cannons and machine guns, to home and land owners who would rather engage the individual and corporate drone offenders in aerial dogfights, instead of shooting at them from the ground or out the bathroom window.
For night dogfights, we supply repurposed German spotlights salvaged from World War II.
The drones may be launched singularly or in great swarms, like the Japanese Air Force in WWII, to engage the enemy.
Our drones may be manipulated from the safety of the BarcaLounger via a TV remote type of device in the den.
Our drones can be programmed as well, instead of destroying, to intercept the trespassing drone and safely force its landing directly to the front door, perhaps via a drone-to-drone tether, if it carries payload that might be of interest to the homeowner, for example the five-meat pizza and a six-pack of Schlitz.
Now for the goat-owner living in the heart of the country, we can rig up an aerial net of connected drones, that will carry a live billy goat aloft and maneuver the animal within inches of the trespassing drone, and the goat will make quick work of the thing by swallowing it whole.
The goat is then released while aloft and dropped directly into a barbecue pit, onto a trampoline, or into the swimming pool, owner’s choice.
“assuming he discharged the weapon safely.”
If you are shooting at something or someone, where does the safety come in?
Marty, I’ve started a company that supplies drones, equipped with tiny cannons and machine guns, to home and land owners who would rather engage the individual and corporate drone offenders in aerial dogfights, instead of shooting at them from the ground or out the bathroom window.
For night dogfights, we supply repurposed German spotlights salvaged from World War II.
The drones may be launched singularly or in great swarms, like the Japanese Air Force in WWII, to engage the enemy.
Our drones may be manipulated from the safety of the BarcaLounger via a TV remote type of device in the den.
Our drones can be programmed as well, instead of destroying, to intercept the trespassing drone and safely force its landing directly to the front door, perhaps via a drone-to-drone tether, if it carries payload that might be of interest to the homeowner, for example the five-meat pizza and a six-pack of Schlitz.
Now for the goat-owner living in the heart of the country, we can rig up an aerial net of connected drones, that will carry a live billy goat aloft and maneuver the animal within inches of the trespassing drone, and the goat will make quick work of the thing by swallowing it whole.
The goat is then released while aloft and dropped directly into a barbecue pit, onto a trampoline, or into the swimming pool, owner’s choice.
In the event none of that technology is effective, we’ll come to your home personally and stake out the place.
When an unwanted drone appears, we’ll shoot Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin out of a cannon aloft (all sharp-edged skinny knees and elbows tumbling gristle over keester through the sky) to apply a vicious tongue-lashing to the offending drone.
We’re working on a top secret but more elegant propulsion system for the two of them.
Code-name: Operation Broomstick
For the budget-minded homeowner, we’ll place a stick figure scarecrow of Donald Trump in the backyard, complete with glistening hairpiece and a recording loop of Trump bellowing “I’m huge, I tell you!” into the firmament.
It seems to work against drones, but the crows keep swiping the hairpiece for their nests.
In the event none of that technology is effective, we’ll come to your home personally and stake out the place.
When an unwanted drone appears, we’ll shoot Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin out of a cannon aloft (all sharp-edged skinny knees and elbows tumbling gristle over keester through the sky) to apply a vicious tongue-lashing to the offending drone.
We’re working on a top secret but more elegant propulsion system for the two of them.
Code-name: Operation Broomstick
For the budget-minded homeowner, we’ll place a stick figure scarecrow of Donald Trump in the backyard, complete with glistening hairpiece and a recording loop of Trump bellowing “I’m huge, I tell you!” into the firmament.
It seems to work against drones, but the crows keep swiping the hairpiece for their nests.
In the event none of that technology is effective, we’ll come to your home personally and stake out the place.
When an unwanted drone appears, we’ll shoot Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin out of a cannon aloft (all sharp-edged skinny knees and elbows tumbling gristle over keester through the sky) to apply a vicious tongue-lashing to the offending drone.
We’re working on a top secret but more elegant propulsion system for the two of them.
Code-name: Operation Broomstick
For the budget-minded homeowner, we’ll place a stick figure scarecrow of Donald Trump in the backyard, complete with glistening hairpiece and a recording loop of Trump bellowing “I’m huge, I tell you!” into the firmament.
It seems to work against drones, but the crows keep swiping the hairpiece for their nests.
We are developing a Chris Christie droneclone too, but we can’t seem to get it off the ground.
In the interest of bipartisanship, we feature the Hillary Clinton defensive drone as well, which hovers near the trespassing drones and emits a continuous anti-drone droning sound.
After awhile, they get bored and fly away.
We are developing a Chris Christie droneclone too, but we can’t seem to get it off the ground.
In the interest of bipartisanship, we feature the Hillary Clinton defensive drone as well, which hovers near the trespassing drones and emits a continuous anti-drone droning sound.
After awhile, they get bored and fly away.
We are developing a Chris Christie droneclone too, but we can’t seem to get it off the ground.
In the interest of bipartisanship, we feature the Hillary Clinton defensive drone as well, which hovers near the trespassing drones and emits a continuous anti-drone droning sound.
After awhile, they get bored and fly away.
Slart:
I believe (although I could be wrong) those are ranges for horizontal firing. Range decreases when firing vertically.
And, just to add to point out the obvious wrinkle, what if the drone shoots back?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHrTtvFFIs
I’m sure that video has been linked from here before, but it seemed worth mentioning again.
Slart:
I believe (although I could be wrong) those are ranges for horizontal firing. Range decreases when firing vertically.
And, just to add to point out the obvious wrinkle, what if the drone shoots back?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHrTtvFFIs
I’m sure that video has been linked from here before, but it seemed worth mentioning again.
Slart:
I believe (although I could be wrong) those are ranges for horizontal firing. Range decreases when firing vertically.
And, just to add to point out the obvious wrinkle, what if the drone shoots back?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHrTtvFFIs
I’m sure that video has been linked from here before, but it seemed worth mentioning again.
That’s quite a video, thompson.
I wonder how effective it might be if black residents of Ferguson, Missouri used it in self-defense against the Oath Keepers:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_08/just_what_ferguson_needs057037.php
That’s quite a video, thompson.
I wonder how effective it might be if black residents of Ferguson, Missouri used it in self-defense against the Oath Keepers:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_08/just_what_ferguson_needs057037.php
That’s quite a video, thompson.
I wonder how effective it might be if black residents of Ferguson, Missouri used it in self-defense against the Oath Keepers:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_08/just_what_ferguson_needs057037.php
Clearly, what the world needs are more free-lance private armies.
Clearly, what the world needs are more free-lance private armies.
Clearly, what the world needs are more free-lance private armies.
as long as they’re white, it’s A-O.K.
as long as they’re white, it’s A-O.K.
as long as they’re white, it’s A-O.K.
[…]M. Crassus negabat locupletem esse nisi qui reditu annuo legionem tueri posset.
(Pliny Historia Naturalis 33.134).
M(arcus Licinius) Crassus denied that anyone could be considered rich unless he could pay/maintain a legion out of his yearly income.
Didn’t I say in the other thread that there are more than enough Crassus candidates already in the US?
[…]M. Crassus negabat locupletem esse nisi qui reditu annuo legionem tueri posset.
(Pliny Historia Naturalis 33.134).
M(arcus Licinius) Crassus denied that anyone could be considered rich unless he could pay/maintain a legion out of his yearly income.
Didn’t I say in the other thread that there are more than enough Crassus candidates already in the US?
[…]M. Crassus negabat locupletem esse nisi qui reditu annuo legionem tueri posset.
(Pliny Historia Naturalis 33.134).
M(arcus Licinius) Crassus denied that anyone could be considered rich unless he could pay/maintain a legion out of his yearly income.
Didn’t I say in the other thread that there are more than enough Crassus candidates already in the US?
I actually think I like the Count’s plan to sell self-defense drones. But that may be because I am setting up a company to make and market that kind of drone. 😉
P.S. I’m also working on software that will allow you to jam and take over a trespassing drone’s radio controls. It is, I admit, based on a concept from a Castle episode. (Naturally, it comes with a notice that you cannot use it for illegal purposes — like if the drone is above 500 feet or the drone owner has a warrent. Sort of like the “Please drive responsibly” line in commercials for alcohol.)
I actually think I like the Count’s plan to sell self-defense drones. But that may be because I am setting up a company to make and market that kind of drone. 😉
P.S. I’m also working on software that will allow you to jam and take over a trespassing drone’s radio controls. It is, I admit, based on a concept from a Castle episode. (Naturally, it comes with a notice that you cannot use it for illegal purposes — like if the drone is above 500 feet or the drone owner has a warrent. Sort of like the “Please drive responsibly” line in commercials for alcohol.)
I actually think I like the Count’s plan to sell self-defense drones. But that may be because I am setting up a company to make and market that kind of drone. 😉
P.S. I’m also working on software that will allow you to jam and take over a trespassing drone’s radio controls. It is, I admit, based on a concept from a Castle episode. (Naturally, it comes with a notice that you cannot use it for illegal purposes — like if the drone is above 500 feet or the drone owner has a warrent. Sort of like the “Please drive responsibly” line in commercials for alcohol.)
Good point. I have no time to go do some investigation into shellshot drag for various sizes, but it’s probably true that you’re not going to get smaller shot to travel more than a couple of hundred feet, vertically, by which time it’ll be moving very slowly indeed.
Good point. I have no time to go do some investigation into shellshot drag for various sizes, but it’s probably true that you’re not going to get smaller shot to travel more than a couple of hundred feet, vertically, by which time it’ll be moving very slowly indeed.
Good point. I have no time to go do some investigation into shellshot drag for various sizes, but it’s probably true that you’re not going to get smaller shot to travel more than a couple of hundred feet, vertically, by which time it’ll be moving very slowly indeed.
From shotgun world commented:
There is no such thing that is usable; a pellet’s actual BC changes constantly during its flight path. It also changes dramatically based on launch velocity. A steel pellet flies horribly, you can forget a high BC. A round lead pellet flies horribly as well–just a lot less horribly than round steel.
Example I. #2 Steel, 1400 fps actual muzzle velocity.
40 yard velocity is 691 fps.
40 yard BC = 0.0071.
Example II. #2 buffered lead, 1400 fps actual muzzle velocity.
40 yard velocity is 817 fps.
40 yard BC = 0.0093.
Lead has a 30% better BC than steel in this example, but both are horri-bad.
It varies in concert with velocity; the faster you push a round ball the more velocity erosion there is.
Example III. #2 buffered lead, 1100 fps actual muzzle velocity.
40 yard velocity is 698 fps.
40 yard BC = 0.0110.
Lower the launch velocity, BC improves. Comparing #2 1400 fps steel vs. #2 1100 fps lead, the far slower MV lead load actually has more strike velocity at 40 yards.
_________________
—
From shotgun world commented:
There is no such thing that is usable; a pellet’s actual BC changes constantly during its flight path. It also changes dramatically based on launch velocity. A steel pellet flies horribly, you can forget a high BC. A round lead pellet flies horribly as well–just a lot less horribly than round steel.
Example I. #2 Steel, 1400 fps actual muzzle velocity.
40 yard velocity is 691 fps.
40 yard BC = 0.0071.
Example II. #2 buffered lead, 1400 fps actual muzzle velocity.
40 yard velocity is 817 fps.
40 yard BC = 0.0093.
Lead has a 30% better BC than steel in this example, but both are horri-bad.
It varies in concert with velocity; the faster you push a round ball the more velocity erosion there is.
Example III. #2 buffered lead, 1100 fps actual muzzle velocity.
40 yard velocity is 698 fps.
40 yard BC = 0.0110.
Lower the launch velocity, BC improves. Comparing #2 1400 fps steel vs. #2 1100 fps lead, the far slower MV lead load actually has more strike velocity at 40 yards.
_________________
—
From shotgun world commented:
There is no such thing that is usable; a pellet’s actual BC changes constantly during its flight path. It also changes dramatically based on launch velocity. A steel pellet flies horribly, you can forget a high BC. A round lead pellet flies horribly as well–just a lot less horribly than round steel.
Example I. #2 Steel, 1400 fps actual muzzle velocity.
40 yard velocity is 691 fps.
40 yard BC = 0.0071.
Example II. #2 buffered lead, 1400 fps actual muzzle velocity.
40 yard velocity is 817 fps.
40 yard BC = 0.0093.
Lead has a 30% better BC than steel in this example, but both are horri-bad.
It varies in concert with velocity; the faster you push a round ball the more velocity erosion there is.
Example III. #2 buffered lead, 1100 fps actual muzzle velocity.
40 yard velocity is 698 fps.
40 yard BC = 0.0110.
Lower the launch velocity, BC improves. Comparing #2 1400 fps steel vs. #2 1100 fps lead, the far slower MV lead load actually has more strike velocity at 40 yards.
_________________
—
Based on my latest market research, three comments on OBWi, I am starting a ground based jamming system to disable radio control of all drones below 500′ to prevent drone to drone warfare over your house. Along with my new satellite based laser drone destroyer it provides complete protection of a 100 sq ft lot. With sharpshooter backup of course. I never liked Amazon anyway.
Based on my latest market research, three comments on OBWi, I am starting a ground based jamming system to disable radio control of all drones below 500′ to prevent drone to drone warfare over your house. Along with my new satellite based laser drone destroyer it provides complete protection of a 100 sq ft lot. With sharpshooter backup of course. I never liked Amazon anyway.
Based on my latest market research, three comments on OBWi, I am starting a ground based jamming system to disable radio control of all drones below 500′ to prevent drone to drone warfare over your house. Along with my new satellite based laser drone destroyer it provides complete protection of a 100 sq ft lot. With sharpshooter backup of course. I never liked Amazon anyway.
I’ve actually had birdshot land on me, from hunters in a nearby field. Tiny little pellets, no harm, once you brush ’em out of your hair.
Since it’s unlikely that one could keep watch 24/7 for drones
hovering around your property, then some sort of automated defense would be indicated…after all, what could POSSIBLY go wrong with radar directed shotgun blasts?
So instead I have a suggestion for those afeered of our new bright drone-infested future: Barrage Balloons. Make ’em festive colors, too.
I’ve actually had birdshot land on me, from hunters in a nearby field. Tiny little pellets, no harm, once you brush ’em out of your hair.
Since it’s unlikely that one could keep watch 24/7 for drones
hovering around your property, then some sort of automated defense would be indicated…after all, what could POSSIBLY go wrong with radar directed shotgun blasts?
So instead I have a suggestion for those afeered of our new bright drone-infested future: Barrage Balloons. Make ’em festive colors, too.
I’ve actually had birdshot land on me, from hunters in a nearby field. Tiny little pellets, no harm, once you brush ’em out of your hair.
Since it’s unlikely that one could keep watch 24/7 for drones
hovering around your property, then some sort of automated defense would be indicated…after all, what could POSSIBLY go wrong with radar directed shotgun blasts?
So instead I have a suggestion for those afeered of our new bright drone-infested future: Barrage Balloons. Make ’em festive colors, too.
I have similar magazine subscriptions:
“Sucking Gut Wound Weekly”
and “Facial Bird Shot Scar Digest”
The latest issue of the latter ran a how-to article by Dick Cheney entitled “Tweezing Birdshot from the Cheekbone Of A Former Human Friend Before The Press Arrives.”
Subtitle: “Losing Friends While Perfecting Your Aim”, coauthored with George Zimmerman
Last year, he submitted an article about hunting the armored armadillo with armor-piercing ammo.
I have similar magazine subscriptions:
“Sucking Gut Wound Weekly”
and “Facial Bird Shot Scar Digest”
The latest issue of the latter ran a how-to article by Dick Cheney entitled “Tweezing Birdshot from the Cheekbone Of A Former Human Friend Before The Press Arrives.”
Subtitle: “Losing Friends While Perfecting Your Aim”, coauthored with George Zimmerman
Last year, he submitted an article about hunting the armored armadillo with armor-piercing ammo.
I have similar magazine subscriptions:
“Sucking Gut Wound Weekly”
and “Facial Bird Shot Scar Digest”
The latest issue of the latter ran a how-to article by Dick Cheney entitled “Tweezing Birdshot from the Cheekbone Of A Former Human Friend Before The Press Arrives.”
Subtitle: “Losing Friends While Perfecting Your Aim”, coauthored with George Zimmerman
Last year, he submitted an article about hunting the armored armadillo with armor-piercing ammo.
…you’re not going to get smaller shot to travel more than a couple of hundred feet, vertically, by which time it’ll be moving very slowly indeed.
Without doing the math, I’d guess it will have be going really, really slow at some point before it starts coming back down, at least as far as the vertical component is concerned.
…you’re not going to get smaller shot to travel more than a couple of hundred feet, vertically, by which time it’ll be moving very slowly indeed.
Without doing the math, I’d guess it will have be going really, really slow at some point before it starts coming back down, at least as far as the vertical component is concerned.
…you’re not going to get smaller shot to travel more than a couple of hundred feet, vertically, by which time it’ll be moving very slowly indeed.
Without doing the math, I’d guess it will have be going really, really slow at some point before it starts coming back down, at least as far as the vertical component is concerned.
gravity’s rainbow , etc.
gravity’s rainbow , etc.
gravity’s rainbow , etc.
Ok, sorry. Captain Obvious, and all that.
Basically the smaller the shot, the worse the performance in terms of ballistics. Because the mass goes up as the cube of the diameter, while the drag only goes up as the square.
Rifle bullets, because of their elongation and spin-stabilization, do much better. More mass per cross-sectional area.
Captain Obvious, again?
Ok, sorry. Captain Obvious, and all that.
Basically the smaller the shot, the worse the performance in terms of ballistics. Because the mass goes up as the cube of the diameter, while the drag only goes up as the square.
Rifle bullets, because of their elongation and spin-stabilization, do much better. More mass per cross-sectional area.
Captain Obvious, again?
Ok, sorry. Captain Obvious, and all that.
Basically the smaller the shot, the worse the performance in terms of ballistics. Because the mass goes up as the cube of the diameter, while the drag only goes up as the square.
Rifle bullets, because of their elongation and spin-stabilization, do much better. More mass per cross-sectional area.
Captain Obvious, again?
bcfor us beginners.
I had to look it up since Marty’s data indicated to me why so many hunters are opposed to banning lead pellets.
Also, camouflage netting is available through Amazon. Amazing, no?
bcfor us beginners.
I had to look it up since Marty’s data indicated to me why so many hunters are opposed to banning lead pellets.
Also, camouflage netting is available through Amazon. Amazing, no?
bcfor us beginners.
I had to look it up since Marty’s data indicated to me why so many hunters are opposed to banning lead pellets.
Also, camouflage netting is available through Amazon. Amazing, no?
Netting hung from barrage balloon would likely be more effective than radar directed shotguns – though probably not protected by the second amendment.
Netting hung from barrage balloon would likely be more effective than radar directed shotguns – though probably not protected by the second amendment.
Netting hung from barrage balloon would likely be more effective than radar directed shotguns – though probably not protected by the second amendment.
The biggest problem with netting hung from balloons would likely be neighbors unhappy about the impact on their views.
But there may be a way around that. If the home-owners association makes installing such netting a requirement (and heaven knows home-owners associations have come up with crazier requirements), you could protect entire neighborhoods.
Might even make a case that, since it is a requirement and intended to defend people and their privacy (albeit not from government necessarily) it amounts to a “well regulated militia” 😉
The biggest problem with netting hung from balloons would likely be neighbors unhappy about the impact on their views.
But there may be a way around that. If the home-owners association makes installing such netting a requirement (and heaven knows home-owners associations have come up with crazier requirements), you could protect entire neighborhoods.
Might even make a case that, since it is a requirement and intended to defend people and their privacy (albeit not from government necessarily) it amounts to a “well regulated militia” 😉
The biggest problem with netting hung from balloons would likely be neighbors unhappy about the impact on their views.
But there may be a way around that. If the home-owners association makes installing such netting a requirement (and heaven knows home-owners associations have come up with crazier requirements), you could protect entire neighborhoods.
Might even make a case that, since it is a requirement and intended to defend people and their privacy (albeit not from government necessarily) it amounts to a “well regulated militia” 😉
Transparent monofilament netting would have little impact on views – and something similar is used to protect old building facades from roosting pigeons.
A well regulated milieu – which is probably what the framers intended ?
Transparent monofilament netting would have little impact on views – and something similar is used to protect old building facades from roosting pigeons.
A well regulated milieu – which is probably what the framers intended ?
Transparent monofilament netting would have little impact on views – and something similar is used to protect old building facades from roosting pigeons.
A well regulated milieu – which is probably what the framers intended ?
netting, schmetting:
http://www.popsci.com/navy-wants-launch-drone-swarms-tubes-video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQzuL60V9ng
http://www.mb.com.ph/insect-like-drones/
netting, schmetting:
http://www.popsci.com/navy-wants-launch-drone-swarms-tubes-video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQzuL60V9ng
http://www.mb.com.ph/insect-like-drones/
netting, schmetting:
http://www.popsci.com/navy-wants-launch-drone-swarms-tubes-video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQzuL60V9ng
http://www.mb.com.ph/insect-like-drones/
I had to look it up since Marty’s data indicated to me why so many hunters are opposed to banning lead pellets.
The Army’s moved to lead-free copper-core bullets w/o sacrificing BC (indeed, it improves performance according to this and a number of other metrics), but the new ones are more expensive. Lead OTOH is cheap.
I had to look it up since Marty’s data indicated to me why so many hunters are opposed to banning lead pellets.
The Army’s moved to lead-free copper-core bullets w/o sacrificing BC (indeed, it improves performance according to this and a number of other metrics), but the new ones are more expensive. Lead OTOH is cheap.
I had to look it up since Marty’s data indicated to me why so many hunters are opposed to banning lead pellets.
The Army’s moved to lead-free copper-core bullets w/o sacrificing BC (indeed, it improves performance according to this and a number of other metrics), but the new ones are more expensive. Lead OTOH is cheap.
A well regulated milieu
We have a winner.
A well regulated milieu
We have a winner.
A well regulated milieu
We have a winner.
I hunted a lot of waterfowl as a child and adolescent and 50 yards with old lead shot (#4-6 in size or so — typical size) in a 12 gauge shotgun would be about the limit. Birdshot (#9 size) would barely get you 30 yards, if that. Most shotgun shells are now loaded with steel shot rather than lead (because of lead toxicity issues) and the range for those is even less than it is for lead. Hunters don’t like them because of this loss of range and the fact that they are hard on the barrel compared to lead.
Spent shot raining down on you doesn’t hurt, although I suppose it might if you were looking straight up and it hit you in the eye.
Bottom line — now way you’d bring down anything 200 feet (66 yards) up.
Other bottom line: all the places where I’ve lived have laws prohibiting discharge of firearms within city limits.
I hunted a lot of waterfowl as a child and adolescent and 50 yards with old lead shot (#4-6 in size or so — typical size) in a 12 gauge shotgun would be about the limit. Birdshot (#9 size) would barely get you 30 yards, if that. Most shotgun shells are now loaded with steel shot rather than lead (because of lead toxicity issues) and the range for those is even less than it is for lead. Hunters don’t like them because of this loss of range and the fact that they are hard on the barrel compared to lead.
Spent shot raining down on you doesn’t hurt, although I suppose it might if you were looking straight up and it hit you in the eye.
Bottom line — now way you’d bring down anything 200 feet (66 yards) up.
Other bottom line: all the places where I’ve lived have laws prohibiting discharge of firearms within city limits.
I hunted a lot of waterfowl as a child and adolescent and 50 yards with old lead shot (#4-6 in size or so — typical size) in a 12 gauge shotgun would be about the limit. Birdshot (#9 size) would barely get you 30 yards, if that. Most shotgun shells are now loaded with steel shot rather than lead (because of lead toxicity issues) and the range for those is even less than it is for lead. Hunters don’t like them because of this loss of range and the fact that they are hard on the barrel compared to lead.
Spent shot raining down on you doesn’t hurt, although I suppose it might if you were looking straight up and it hit you in the eye.
Bottom line — now way you’d bring down anything 200 feet (66 yards) up.
Other bottom line: all the places where I’ve lived have laws prohibiting discharge of firearms within city limits.