The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Is more grains of propellant always == more velocityGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Is more grains of propellant always == more velocity | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
If we do not read or consult the work of others, we will be so much poorer. Just imagine if nothing was documented ever, then the only way forward was to have known Hot Core or his folklore being told from generation to generation and that would have covered a tiny speckle of the academic world where universities or research laboratries do not exist, but only the legend of the wisdom of Hot Core. Come to think of it, those that read and wear glasses should be killed by edict, like we have seen at some point in history, and then we can burn all books and libraries, take all children out of school and we can all work the fields to live a basic life of survival and become more in tune with animals. Around camp fires we would be telling the youth and would-be hunters about PRE, CHE and ELK, and they would be in awe listening to us. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
Straw Dog. He isn't able to even comprehend Jeffe's question, or how it relates to Velocity. Pitiful and Pathetic. Jeffe told him the Pressures would be "equal" in the question. So, this is another example of his total incapability of understanding the issue. ----- Then we get to a real laugher  Not in the same World humans live in. If any of you Beginners or Rookies believe ANYTHING these two fools post, remember they really do not have a clue about how the Internal Ballistic Research and Writings of others relate to actual Firearms. Double Pitiful and Double Pathetic. | |||
|
| one of us |
 | |||
|
| One of Us |
WOW !!!! I thought the only thing that mattered was that the bullet hit the target with enough energy to get the job done without the gun blowing up. SILLY ME | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hot Core, You are not paying attention boet, I did point out that it was an apples and orange comparison, but you must have missed it, following which Alf took us through a detailed example showing very clearly the difference in the EXPANSION RATIO of the two cartridges. You have either missed that too, or you simply ignored it as a non entity, yes? Well, but what have you done so far to teach the beginners and the rookies that you are so concerned about? Nothing ... nothing ... nothing whatsoever !!! Surely you could have given them a BLUEPRINT by now, considering the numerous posts that you have done? Where is the guiding light? It is no good that you ask the rookies to ignore us, but you do not come to their rescue. Did this aspect cross your mind? If your concern for the rookies were real, you would have given them a step by step explanation of how the internal ballistic event happens. I humbly submit that this is not your real concern, but a smokescreen. You simply wanted to ridicule me and Alf, as evidenced by your personal attacks of how pathetic we are and what fools we are. You wasted all your time on this, which could have been profitably spent to give us the blueprint that seems to evade us. Anyway you still have a chance to lay your disertation in front of us all here on AR for scrutiny, and refuting at the same time the simple trends that we have indicated and laid bare to you. The collective evidence of all the noteable and distinguihed authors qouted should also receive attention in your presentation, as to where they went adrift. Looking forward to your blueprint on this seemingly nebulous issue. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
HC do you have a theory or data to submit? If you carry the premise of adding powder and getting no velocity gain far enough, do you eventually get to a point where adding more powder reduces velocity? And finally do you get to a point where enough powder produces no velocity or even negative velocity??? | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
Yes, but only with specific combinations of components. This answer might be reduntant within this thread though. No. I'm a bit(but not completely) surprised you know that little about the situation. | |||
|
| One of Us |
HC I am not "surprised" you take a totally sarcastic post and believe it is real..... . . . | |||
|
| One of Us |
Good question SR4759. All the rookies and beginners would appreciate this too.
And so does the rest of the readers here, but so far he elected not to reply. He answered some of SR4759's questions, but not the the real question as quoted above. It is noteworthty that Hot Core did not give his theory or submiting real life data.
Hot Core I am quite willing though to quote you in future, as an authority on this subject that you critize us for, provided you can come up with something better than the 9 references of authors that Alf came up with. And I should add that you should't read up on it, it should be your own original piece of work. Buddy, if you go out on attack, and call people fools, you must expect that we will be asking you for a blueprint on the matter. That's fair, not so? Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
The expansion ratio is the ratio of the usable interior volume of the case (that is, with a bullet seated) to the total volume of the case and barrel. It basically describes the amount of room in which the powder gas has to expand, hence “expansion ratio”. It is the expansion ratio that determines the velocity of the projectile in conjunction with the ratio of powder charge to bullet weight. Also, if all else is equal, a longer barrel gives a higher expansion ratio than a shorter one, simply because it has more internal volume and, thus, the gases evolving from the burning powder can multiply their volume more times before the bullet exits the barrel. W/V : SD = MMV W = Charge mass V = Combustion volume (Bore + chamber) SD = Sectional Density of the projectile MMV = Max Muzzle Velocity And here SD features again in internal ballistics. Example: a .22 Long Rifle has a much higher expansion ratio than a .220 Swift. The "inefficient" small-bore magnums such as the .264 Win., 7mm Rem., and .300 Weatherby are all low expansion-ratio rifles, with ER's around 5 or 6. The smaller cartridges with more modest velocity potentials like the 22 Hornet & .222 Rem and others, rate much higher on the ER scale; from 12 to 15.  Warrior | |||
|
One of Us |
It boggles my mind how this particular thread subject almost always evolves... 1. Someone will run into the phenomenon of where adding more of a particular powder when they are developing a load produced a lower velocity. 2. They will post here about their experience. 3. Some respondents will tell them it is their chronograph, how they have it set up, etc., but that it DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN. 4. Other rspondents (such as me) will give added examples of having run into exactly the same penomenon, though perhaps not in the same cartridge nor using the same powder. 5. Then the theoretical illuminati will jump in with pages and pages of graphs, "professional" published iopinions, etc. They say that based on that evidence, we ignoramuses who have experienced it happening should understand that it CAN'T happen (So we are seeing things that don't exist?). 6. Then the name calling, cheap shots, etc., begins. I do not know why the phenomenon occurs. Nor do I particularly care. But I DO know it occurs. I have experienced it myself using fairly good quality home experimenters' tools, such as Dr. Oehler's chonographs, properly operted electronic lab scales, and so on. I can only assume it happens because the powder charge which caused the phenomenon to occur involved circumstances which included one or more of some such causal factors as: - Using a powder unsuited for that cartridge at that charge level. - Using a less than ideal ignitor to begin the burn and accelerate it during the initial microseconds of its profligation. - Using it in an improper expansion ratio chamber and barrel for that charge. - Trying to propel a projectile of improper weight, sectional density, shape, diameter, or SOMETHING for that combination of chamber, barrel, and propellant. - Trying to use some combination of the above at an other than suitable temperature. - Trying to operate at a pressure level outside the design envelope for that powder. - And on and on..... Anyway, enough of the pissing match already!  IT CAN HAPPEN. IT DOES HAPPEN. I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN.  It probably means that it is an improper and perhaps even unsafe load.  My recommendation is to note its occurance,  go to some other load,  and move on...  - Most of my money I spent on whisky and women. The rest I just wasted... | |||
|
One of Us |
+1 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
We are all lucky that beautiful women like ugly men too... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Statistical analysis is there to assist us when we deal with numbers. We need at least 10 shots of the same load to reach a high confidence level, meaning to stabilize a mean value that we can trust. For example, a confidence level of 95% means that the result of an action will probably meet expectations 95% of the time. The measuring equipment itself has a certain error level in recording the velocity and pressure, but when enough shots are being fired at various load levels a trend becomes evident that we can more reasonably rely upon. The measuring of ballistic data is not as exact as buying a slab of chocolate weighing 125 grams. William C Davies was astutely aware of this fact, as we can see in his quotation. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
Post removed because small samples are statisticaaly beter than large samples ! | |||
|
One of Us |
 Look ,AC; the only thing you got going for you is Wisdom, Logic , Maturity and Experience.  rogerOld age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone.. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Unless you have a really peculiar process going a sample size of 30 will give a good estimate of the total population of data. BTW the US govt buys its ammo based on statistical performance. The statistical performance requirements for small arms ammo is readily found on the net. | |||
|
| one of us |
Words spoken by a generation that's trying to convince themselves they are still relavent! Lulling themselves into a self promoting sense that somehow their wisdom and experience counts for something ! Perhaps so but the fact is the world belongs to the youth , the brash! those who perhaps are too stupid to realize they are on dangerous ground and yet they proceed and much to the surprize of the old actually succeed , Not only do they succeed they actually outdo those who went before them! If it were not for that life as we know it would never and been and will never be in the future ! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Bumble bees can't fly. So whatever the theory behind that famous fact and who may have said it, we have to accept it as fact. That's so even though many, many of us have seen them do what sure looked like flying. Yassuh, boss. My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Alf, did I name you as a culprit? You need not wear the shoe unless you choose to put it on and it fits. Yes, I expect you (and everyone else) to be mature enough not to attack back when attacked. It makes the difference between having a useful public discussion, or an unuseful personal argument. As to listed max velocities being more than starting velocities, that is a tautology (true by definition). Of course the maximum velocities are by definition greater than the starting (lower) velocities. For all I know, the phenomenon of occasionally observed reversal may be caused by some sort of destructive energy-wave harmonics. Constructive harmonics add to wave pressures and the potential work force created; destructive harmonics can reduce them even though the total energy release of the propellant may be greater. But, and here I hope to give up on this subject, to not believe ones own eyes and experiences because of some theory or another may ultimately be a poor plan for getting through life when dealing with tools such as rifles. In fact, I also believe (and this is NOT specificlly aimed at you though you may take it that way if you really WANT to but it is not my intent) there is no fool like an over-educated fool. The church scholars did not believe Galileo (sp?) because they were so immersed in the universally accepted logic that the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo deduced through observation that was not so. Empiricism beats theory in most practical daily applications. Of course, most theories are developed to explain empirical observations,but if the "experts" haven't observed certain happenings, they don't try to explain or accept them...especially if they are contrary to the theories they truly believe in (just like the church "true believers" didn't accept Galileo's observations and proposed explanation). That's one of the sources of the humourous saying that "an expert is a former drip, under pressure". Postulated explanations of observed phenomena (theories) tend to become "laws" (of physics, psychology, whatever) over time and use. But they only merit that honour as long as they explain ALL the observed phenomena, EVERY time. When observations are made which are not explained by the "laws", it is time to take another look at those laws. Either the generalization which became "law" is wrong, or it is incomplete. I don't know which is at hand here, but the "laws" your learned experts are propounding do not seem to me to explain this particular phenomenon. So, perhaps they are either wrong or incomplete? Maybe we need to learn from what we are seeing? Anyway, have a nice evening. Sleep tight with your vast library of "facts". Tomorrow is another adventure since I note the world didn't end yesterday. My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | |||
|
| one of us |
Micromters rule ! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I find it hilarious that some people profess to gain REAL experience all by themselves without having to READ or to consult the avialable collective body of knowledge that exist, no matter the topic. I am astounded to say the least - never thought that some posters here could actually take such a position to just rely on their very own real experience and cast aside the the work of great ballisticians. Warrior | |||
|
Moderator |
this is called first hand experience. lots of people trust this more than sanitized published results. they also have a smaller agenda since no one universally demands they have perfect knowledge, this is an odd phrase about havin first ahnd experience? Chris, i trust that what you write is about what's between your ears, not just regurg of someone else's work ever heard "ymmv" or "every gun is a rule to itself?" .. if people blatantly state that some barrels are slower than book, then some must be faster. In other words, where pressure all there is, then going slower than published vels would mean a low pressure condition- THIS COULD BE A FLASE STATEMENT AND JUDGING PRESSURE BY VEL IS AN UNSAFE PRACTICE. Never asume that just because your load doesn't make book vels that its safe. pressure and vel are NEVER "equal" and the last 100 fps of any load is remarkably higher in pressure than the 100fps before.. and so one
you mean, the great first hand experience guys, that you are telling other persons to ignore their own? thats a circular fallacy. max pressure does NOT mean max vel. we all agree on this can you have a load that is heavier in charge and lower in vel than some before it, that are lighter charge .. of COURSE you can.. most persons have seen this. is that load higher in prssure than the lighter one? if you believe that "vels = pressure" then no ... and if you have 1/2 a brain, you know that more powder is ALWAYS more pressure. in other words, you can't drink yourself sober. opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| Moderator |
really? you can't measure pressure with a micrometer? then how did the "greats of the past" measure CUP and LUP? with a micrometer. opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| one of us |
SR, I am "surprised" you take a totally sarcastic post and believe it is real..... So basically you are saying it is OK for "you" to be sarcastic, but it is not OK for me. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Jeffe, I am sure we agree on a lot of things, and yes we observe some times funny things, but as indicated we have to interpret and view numerical results statistically and see the trend on which we base our conclusions and not on all the marginal exceptions and state that as the rule or norm. Most all of us have first hand experience, and we all try to interpret it ourselves and draw conclusions. This is the normal way we behave, right? But sometimes some of the technicalities escape us as our experience is limited or our knowledge is limited. In fact most all of us suffer from this on many different things in life. That is why it is necessary to consult our peers and reference works by people that made a deeper study on a particular subject. With regard to guns the military academies and laboratories are a good source of information or those that research a particular phenomenon be it an institution, a professor or just a lay person whose hobby or interest it is. Yes and some observations are truly a first and we can start with Earnest Rutherford who was a chemist and physicist who became known as the father of nuclear physics. He proved that radioactivity involved the transmutation of one chemical element to another, and also differentiated and named alpha and beta radiation, which was the basis for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry he was awarded in 1908 for his investigations into the disintegration of the elements, and the chemistry of radioactive substances. There is always a first., but today there are scientists that have gone far beyond his work. And so we can go on and on to mention one scientist after the other that contributed a great deal to society. We as hunters fall way short as a general rule - most of us do not dedicate our lives to the study of ballistics and for that reason we have a great deal to learn from those that do. That is to say if we are inclined to read and study the observations of their research projects, which may just temper our own interpretations or it may even be radically different. One man can only experience so much in life, and if he does not consult reference works he is just so much less able. I am very much aware of how little we actually know about the laws of the universe and by reading we attempt to widen our sphere of knowledge. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey AC, I realize you said the above is not aimed at alf. But, I just gotta disagree that alf is educated(in regards to Internal Ballistics). That implies he has actually learned something. Same-E-Same with warrior. Pitiful and Pathetic. If they actually went out and did some "first-hand shooting" they would eventually see the issue of Pressure going down with an increase in Powder - for some specific component combinations - but it appears that either of them doing anything besides Transcribing things they do not understand is never going to happen. | |||
|
| one of us |
  | |||
|
| Moderator |
Chris, Your post i am replying to belittled first hand experience. When what *I* see is different than what is published, I first attempt to recreate the results. If i can do so, at will, then the reference material is incomplete. and to answer the OP's question "is more grains of propellant always == more velocity" (which i read to ask is it ALWAYS/eaxctly equal -- with the double = meaning the same as the triple equal sign (ascii 240 ≡ )which has a VERY specific meaning) ) NO, not ≡ opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hot Core, You make out as if we (Alf and myself) don't own guns and never shoot and that we are the biggest fools around and hardly educated as well. It is all assumptions on your side, but what is more important, we are awaiting your blueprint on the subject, and we are curious to know if we are ever going to see it, as we have requested this numerous times - not cryptic statements but a proper treatise. You see, we do have no desire to launch personal attacks on you, but would rather welcome you sharing your experience with us, even it if it is different as long as you motivate your opinion, and hopefully we find it convincing. An attitude of sharing and caring is much better than snotty and degrading comments that seems to be your style. So please by all means let us be civil and stick to the subject at hand and refrain from making nasty comments that is counter productive. Please lay out your point of view in detail so all the beginners and rookies can understand, and I am quite content to throw myself in that category. Warrior | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Jeffe, a) I am in no way looking down on first hand experience as you alluded to - that would be silly. In fact quite the opposite is true. The point I made is that we have to be careful who and how we interpret what we see, and the point being that not all hunters are equally equiped to always draw the correct conclusion. There is seldom if ever a problem with what we see, but the scientifically gifted are better able to analyse and interpret what has actually happened, as they have the time, resources, tools, money and laboratories at their disposal that most hunters do not have. b) We do agree here - any reference material can be challenged, and should be challenged to make progress and there are many examples around in all spheres, like in the medical world is perhaps the very best example. Strides in the engineering world. Even scientific theories are being challenged and turned on its head or simply improved or better defined. One of the scientific principles is that a certain event must be able to be recreated - repeatability is at the core to study a given phenomenon. I think we agree on most points, but we are splitting hairs here that is not helping the reloader in any way. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Warrior - Perhaps you should read and think a bit more about my post before you react to it. I was not suggesting we ignore the work of ballisticians. I WAS suggesting that as we are experiencing phenomena which their theories suggest cannot exist, perhaps their theories are only partial explanations of the physics of shooting. They deal with linear progressions quite well, but they don't seem to accomodate non-linear results. So, I would suggest they are incomplete as a basis for understanding what may occur when powder charges are increased under certain circumstances. And, Alf - my comments were not in reference to SEE, but that may be as good a proof of the incompleteness of today's "ballistic laws" of hand loading as any. The mere fact that SEE is very rare has nothing to do with it. There are many rare occurances in nature which can be explained, once our understanding of them is complete enough to do so. I think for instance of the recent applications of "chaos theory" (fractal geometry) to fluctuation of game populations (and weather forecasting). Again, I would say that the inability to explain the whys, wherefores, and specific conditions leading to SEE occurances simply denotes the incompleteness of our knowledge and the weaknesses of our currently circumscribed "laws of ballistic physics". That stance is not intended to insult or dishonour anyone or their work. It is merely intended to point out that not continuing that work, and believing that what we have learned so far is all there is to know, ever, is the same sort of fool's confidence that the Catholic Church displayed when it had to contend with Galileo. It fumbled that ball for several hundred years, but there is no need that we do so also. Best wishes.... My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | |||
|
| Moderator |
Please quote me in context, son. How is CUP and LUP measured? NOT by a pressure sensor (directly) but by measuring expansion(width) and compression (height) of a slug.. with a caliper. Your BLANKET statement that you can't measure pressure with a caliper is false. opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| one of us |
Just going by ALLLLLLL the total Ignorance you two put to print. Transcribing info that has no tie to a question is indeed about as Stupid as it gets. I'd say the Highlighted portion of your statment is the most Accurate thing I've ever seen you post. Along with 45cal rifle Bullets "Breaking Up" on Elk.  | |||
|
One of Us |
 Carry on please.... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hot Core, We eagerly await your guiding light ... your blueprint. Give us the beef! Not your one-liners that serve no purpose here. Step up, or step back, man.  Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
 Till now I thought you might have something on th ball;;;; you don't. Oh! In passing *** also the horse you rode in on.  rogerOld age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone.. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Is more grains of propellant always == more velocity
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia