All of the silliness about clockwise & anti-clockwise spiral for water going down a toilet bowl or a drain has to do with the shape of the container and the initial direction that the water was put into the system. I did read somewhere that the huge artillery that fired high angle projectiles that the Germans used in WWI to shell Paris actually "did" experience the "coriolis effect" to some degree. This was due to the extreme distance involved and the comparatively long amount of time that the projectile was in flight.
I'll see if I can explain this, if for nothing else, to see if I remember the effect. We need to remember that the Earth is rotating continuously. If we fire at a stationary target, the Earth moves beneath the projectile (which if the period of flight is lengthy), will cause the target to rotate out of the aimed flight path. BUT to our eyes and our minds, the effect would be that the bullet veered to the right or left (depending on firing direction, speed of projectile, time of flight, wind, air drag, lots of factors to consider. Suffice to say, that the effect would be more noticeable at the equator--since the rotational speed of the Earth is greater than at any other place.
Many people try to use this "coriolis effect" to explain why certain gun barrels were rifled with a right-hand OR left-hand twist--depending on which hemisphere that were mainly intended to be used in. Since the designer of the gun could never know which direction and the exact location of where the projectiles would be fired--this whole theory borders on the ludicrous.
If we look at a centrally (nose) mounted single engine, propeller-driven plane, we have to compensate for the engine torque factor that is wanting to twist the plane (roll). Therefore the pilot allows for this, especially at takeoff and landing. where the plane could just "flip over". This effect was even more drastic in the "rotary engine" powered Sopwith Camel of WWI fame. The "entire" engine rotated around the center line of the crankshaft, and was a force to be reckoned with for the pilots. That is why many Camel pilots died during training and other non combat missions. BUT properly used to advantage in a dogfight, the Camel could perform a roll/turn much faster and to the surprise of some of the German pilots. The pilot of the Camel was then on the tail of it's enemy very quickly!
So to get back to round ball flight characteristics. No, I am no rocket scientist, though I have worked with many of them. Some of what I have written is fact, and some is my opinion also, but consider how severe the forces would have to be to cause really serious effects to the flight path of a smoothbore fired roundball.
I likewise believe the imperfections in the cast round ball have to be considered in any theories on how the projectile behaves in flight. Swaged balls "almost have" to be a much better choice, IF they are available, as they have eliminated some of the variables that could affect flight. Since swaging requires more equipment and expense than most individuals can bear to burden, we must learn to live with "less than perfect" cast round balls.
The smoothbore ball would still obturate under the forces of the expanding gas generated upon firing. There is no rifling to "fill in", so this obturation (IF it is severe) might NOT be the best thing for a straight flight path. The patched round ball in a smoothbore gains nothing but a better gas seal by virtue of the obturation and the lubricated patch. The patch in this case makes loading easier and may also prevent some leading. The optimum projecile(?) would be a lubricant impregnated swaged round ball that is a near perfect fit without a patch. I have some further comments on projectile design, which I will post under a new topic.
If you're as confused as I am about this, join the club. There has to be a much better way of doing things, but the right person hasn't gotten hold of it (the idea) yet! Maybe someday...
ALWAYS use a BIG enough gun & shoot safely,
WV_Hillbilly
