Kinda. Just not clearly.

Oh, and what you wrote can be understood by the majority of the population?

A guy who really wants to understand it will put in the time and effort to do so. It's one of those "approach" things I talk about now and then.

Some are not so interested in "why," and just focus on the art. That's okay, too. I'm just very interested in the science of it all. To be honest, I'm really not as good at the "art" side of things as a lot of guys are.

Curious minds do that. I find myself thinking, often, how does that work? Why does that happen the way it happens?

The only "art" is reading the wind, and at least half of that is still science. I can tell a person "look at the grass half way, the way it's leaning, look at the leaves on those trees, turn down your focus and get a good read on the mirage, ect, so I have to believe that really is science.

But all of that is after the bullet clears the muzzle. What's going on inside of the chamber is pure science, in my opinion.

But wait! Why do some barrels produce more velocity on a given load than a second barrel with the exact same specs? I just don't know.

It's that engineer side showing up, happens sometimes.

I keep thinking about a sports car (low center of gravity) being able to corner much faster without tipping over than, let's say a monster truck might do.

I think that there is a point of diminishing returns though, when this is applied to projectiles. If this were not so, then a round ball would be the most stable projectile possible. They are not because aerodynamics also influence how stable a given projectile might be.