Talk:Ballistics

message: I don't think ballistics is used outside the field of forensic science, so I suggest we merge forensic ballistics to the more commonly used and shorter ballistics to get rid of the unneeded "forensic". - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Your suggestion seems to me to imply that all firearms use is in criminal activities.  Forensic ballistics is a tiny application of external and terminal ballistics; by far the bulk of firearms ballistics work is done by firearms and ammunition companies,  handloaders, target shooters, police and militaries.  Ballistics in a broader sense also applies to airguns, paintball guns, archery, darts, baseball, football, frisbee, and any other sport where and object is shot or thrown through the air--while those aren't touched on here, they are still part of the science of ballistics, and definately unrelated to forensic ballistics. scot 12:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be completely correct, but the term "forensic ballistics" is a commonly accepted term in modern society, used in reference to toolmark analysis applied to firearms.  Because the public has accepted the term, it has started making its appearance in the forensics field, such as http://www.e-gunlab.com/.  Also, I would argue that some portions of forensics applied to firearms are in fact correctly labled forensic ballistics; for example, attempting to determine the location of the shooter from the evidence at the point of impact does involve reverse-engineering the ballistics of the cartridge; 800 fps impact may have been a .44 Special at close range, or a .44 Magnum at long range.  scot 22:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: My opinion is also that ballistics as to do more with ammunition manufacturing than forensic science. To me this very first page concerning this subject should be amended so that each areas (internal, transitional, external, final) be described a bit more thoroughly.
If nobody sees objection, I shall prepare a modified version of this page during january 2008.
--Mdeby (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification proposed 

message: I want to know where the information on the history of Ballistics came from. GETTA GET (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Can the term Ballistics be used for the corporate world? eg: Performance Ballistics  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.192.69 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this related to the article? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 19:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the term Ballistics be used for the corporate world? eg: Performance Ballistics 

message: None of the photographs included in this article shed any light whatsoever on the subject. The pic of the gun going off is spectacular but contributes nothing as far as explaining what the subject is about. Same applies to the battleship. The Schliere photo is for illustrating aerodynamic phenomena, such as shockwaves, and not for ballistic analysis. Only the gif at the head of the article has any relevance. The rest should be removed. Flanker235 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find better or more appropriate photos, I think you should go ahead and replace the bad ones. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE  16:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of replacing them as such. I have quoted several non-firearm examples already. The issue is not how the object becomes ballistic but its behaviour after the fact. An object it is accelerated onto a ballistic trajectory by any number of different means - by throwing or slingshot or gun or even by falling. That is not the issue. The issue is that its trajectory is subject to the laws of classical mechanics. For that reason the shots, spectacular as they are, are not relevant to the subject because it gives the impression that the subject is solely about guns rather than about the path of projectiles. To that end, the photos are misleading. Flanker235 (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not sure how to respond to this. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE  12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for example, I don't think the picture of the handgun with the bullets contributes anything at all. It's just a product shot. What do we learn about ballistics from it? Flanker235 (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Would someone investigate this please? Looks like vandalism. Flanker235 (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant photographs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ballistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226181400/http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/1/14.html to http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/1/14.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ballistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222224321/http://class.phys.psu.edu/p001projects/Project3/Spr07/48%20%20FinalPresentation.ppt to http://class.phys.psu.edu/p001projects/Project3/Spr07/48%20%20FinalPresentation.ppt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304090838/http://www.quincy.ca/timelines/forensic_firearms_tool_marks.html to http://www.quincy.ca/timelines/forensic_firearms_tool_marks.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 1-The attribution of "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" to Niccolò Tartaglia is incorrect. This treatise is of Sir Isaac Newton.
2-The attribution of the mathematical laws of motion and gravity to Niccolò Tartaglia are also incorrect. They were stated by Sir Isaac Newton.
3-There is absolutelly no mention to Galileu Galilei. He was who actually deciphered the law of ballistics, showing that it lays on the composition of mutually independent vertical and horizontal movements (see. e.g. Banfi, Antonio, "Galileu Galilei" (La Nuova Italia)).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celso ad (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some alterations to address this. (Hohum @) 15:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrections 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ahlluhn (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia Assignment