I can't even carry the books written about aeronautics and ballastics, much less understand them. But I did see the darndest thing one day that relates to your question.
Several of us had been shooting at a target at the other end of the field, 710 yards away. Our host said that he was going to shoot it with his 45-70 pistol. Being rather impressed at his abality with a 338 Yogi, I wasn't going to question his sanity, besides he had a loaded pistol and I didn't.
He laid down and got ready. I got behind him with his Licea spotting scope to call his hit. He adjusted his scope and took the shot. Dirt flew up at about 450-500 yards down the field. He adjusted the scope and fired again. Same result. He adjusted up all the adjustment he had and still hit in about the same area. He held over on a tree in line with the target until he couldn't see the tree in the bottom of the scope. He still hit in the same area. Finally his wothless spotter decided to watch for the trace instead of just the point of impact. I couldn't believe my eyes when I watched his bullet get to about 400 yards and suddenly veer up and to the right then make a big clockwise circle until the bullet dug into the field at about 500 yards. When I told him what I saw he didn't believe it either. He took the spotting scope and had someone else shoot the pistol and he saw it happen too. Everytime it took the same path and hit in about the same spot, directly below where he was aiming. When he got home he ran his calculations again and sure enough the bullet would go sub-sonic at about 400 yards. Evidently the short stubby bullets responded very badly to the turbulence and went a bit wobbly.
I decided that trying to get a bullet to go sub-sonic with any predicability may be a bit more of a challenge that I was up to. Good luck if you go there.
"When working with the public, there are two things you need to remember. - 1. The public is a bunch of ignorant morons. - 2. YOU and I are one of them!"