• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Where does the energy go?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I Agree with you Just J!

I really do!

The less spherical an object is, the more it might tend to yaw...
 
KodiakHunter said:
Hey there Just J!

A round ball yaws in a smoothbore ML, by bouncing around within all that bore space until it gets to the end of the muzzle, where it then takes on its path of trajectory. The more it strays from the imaginary linear axis formed between the barrel and the target, the more it yaws. Rifling theoretically eliminated the yaw in most cases and delivered greater accuracy to muzzleloading.

* I could say, the more it strays from the average parabolic trajectory between the barrel and the target.

I was simply describing deflection here, not yawing!

Thank you
 
Again, this was a very intelligent response to both the post and the problem.

However, we must first agree that internal ballistics is directly related to external ballistics. If there is something inhibiting you from complete combustion of your propellant then that's internal, but it reflects in your external ballistics. Less charge burned and used, the less KE will be converted to both translational and rotational energy. The less bore pressure within the barrel, the more your chances increase for incomplete combustion. That also translates into less KE converted.

Once we've established the muzzle velocities of each muzzleloader, we can then predict the theoretical optimum ranges based upon their respective heights. Since both muzzleloaders have identical heights, they should have very similar ranges unless there exist some form of internal interference.

Projectile deflection is most certainly a distinct possibility within a smooth bore muzzleloader.
 
Hey there Pletch!

Just because we have complete combustion, doesn't mean that all of that energy from 100% combustion is completely transfered to its intended object.

If it is transferred to its intended object, does the object then behave in an efficient manner?

Otherwise, I tend to agree with you about everything else.
 
I actually believe that what happened here was the smoothbore ball became deflected near the end of the barrel. The translational energy then took on an oblique direction via deflection, under the tow of translational energy. It then hit the ground, imparting thermal energy.
 
Trot said:
I believe when you have read about the shorter range of the smoothbore, it is about accuracy not the distance the ball will travel. When it is stated that a smoothbore has a hunting range of fifty yards or whatever, that is the limit of an ethical shot due to the accuracy of the gun. All else being equal I think the ball will travel just as far, but who knows where it will strike.


This could very well be true! :v
 
KodiakHunter said:
Hey there Just J,

In a vacuum or in the absence of air, both projectiles would arrive at identical horizontal distances. Therefore, they would both have the same range.

However, since we're dealing with a realistic scenario here, the spinning round ball will experience less drag due to gyroscopic angular momentum or rotational motion. Since the rifled round ball is the spinning round ball, it will have a decidedly shorter range than the round ball launched from the smoothbore.

While drag should affect both projectiles equally, the Magnus effect will be more prominent on round ball with spin. Just about anything less spherical and more bisymmetrical, would be more resistant to the Magnus effect.

When an object is observed moving off its center axis along the boreline to either side, it is said to, "yaw".
 
Yea ,yea I know that rough barrel have less surface area I know that but black powder does more exploding than burn when you contain it. The different black powders explodes at different pressures because of the grain size the 3f powder will build pressure faster than 2f but 3f will burn it's self out faster. 1f, 2f, 3f because they explode with a different rate is why the heavier the ball the slower the powder grade should be used. It's the reason we have different powder grades. Other wise why have different grades of black powder . Once it has exploded then what is left in the barrel will finsh burning but it isn't much.I know we got off subject and I am sorry for that It's my fault I guess for not fully understanding the question that started this post. :redface:
 
Just curious, KodiakHunter, have you ever actually fired a smoothbore?

Spence
 
George said:
Just curious, KodiakHunter, have you ever actually fired a smoothbore?

Spence

Hi Spence!

Yes I have. I fired many shotguns before. I own four.

Never a smoothbore ML, though...
 
ML's are a whole different world. I still think it has more to do with the thrust capacitator than anything else.
 
Micanopy, do you think the iterlocular counter rotating hemi-demi obfusacator has any influence on this?

I'm leaning in that direction at present but the quarto-polarity muons hold me back from committing 100%.

:hatsoff:

Illegitimi non carborundum
 
I think my problem with this is that I'm trying to think of a theoretical problem as a real range problem to be solved. If a friend came to me with this I'd be skeptical of anything I couldn't put numbers on. In this problem we have discussed many things, but we have ruled out nothing.

My first question would be what were the averages of your velocities. After all we didn't base this on a single firing of each gun - right? And we did chronograph the loads - right?

If not stop here and chronograph both guns - at least a 5 shot average. Adjust the load of one gun until it duplicated the other gun's velocity. If either gun has a wide variation we should look at loading methods, etc and clean up our proceedures. we don't care about ignition methods or charges used if our muzzle velocities are the same. If the veocities are 500 fps apart it will do no good to study the Magnus effect, tides, altitude, phases of the moon,etc.

With muzzle velocities ruled out as a variable (this is my bet), we can begin looking at exterior ballistics. Here we don't acccept anything we can't prove. The one thing I would accept is that the BC of a rotating ball and one that does not rotate is the same. I think this is universally accepted by ballisticians.

Now lets measure the differences between the locations of both balls. Here is where multiple shots can tell much. If the theory about a smooth bore ball doing strange things in flight is true, we should find them all over the place. If they are found in a reasonably small location, that may rule out some of our theories about knuckling.

At any rate the process must be one of progressing from one variable to another until we have controlled all we can. Some one suggested a "fudge factor". I reject this; I think a fudge factor is a previously unknown variable that needs to be found and controlled.

All of this is known, seat-of-the-pants science. Ballistics is an old science. Trying to solve this as a whole is folly. Break it down and methodically control one variable at a time. Starting at the beginning means internals first. The problem is likely to be found before you get to externals.

Nothing here you don't know already - just a way to think about solving this kind of problem.

Good Science is repeatable,
Pletch
 
Yes! That was my first guess, but I ruled it out because of the universal atmospheric dungflux option. :rotf:
 
Yea ,yea I know that rough barrel have less surface area I know that but black powder does more exploding than burn when you contain it.

It's nothing to do with roughness creating less surface area. It's about rough barrels holding the patch/ball combo tighter creating more initial resistance to movement which in turn results in a more efficient burn and use of the powder.

Same thing is at work when you look at the difference in velocities between a patched .50 caliber ball and a .50 caliber conical. Seventy grains of powder will send a 180 roundball down range at about 1600 fps. The same 70 grains of powder will send a 370 grain maxi ball down range at about 1300 fps. Maxi weighs more than 100% as much as the ball but yet it loses only about 18% in velocity. :shocked2: It's about inertia
 
alabamaboy said:
Yea ,yea I know that rough barrel have less surface area I know that but black powder does more exploding than burn when you contain it. The different black powders explodes at different pressures because of the grain size the 3f powder will build pressure faster than 2f but 3f will burn it's self out faster. 1f, 2f, 3f because they explode with a different rate is why the heavier the ball the slower the powder grade should be used. It's the reason we have different powder grades. Other wise why have different grades of black powder . Once it has exploded then what is left in the barrel will finsh burning but it isn't much.I know we got off subject and I am sorry for that It's my fault I guess for not fully understanding the question that started this post. :redface:

You need to shoot or read more books and type less.

Roughing the bore has absolutely nothing to do with the bore size its the SURFACE FINISH. The rougher surface results in higher initial pressure since the shot charge or patched ball will be harder to move initially. They also used to roughen them at the muzzle slightly to retard the wad to keep it away from the shot column.

BP, BTW, is a surface burning propellant it does not "explode" as modern detonating explosives do. It BURNS from the outside of the grain in. In firearms the charge is ignited at the breech end of the powder column (in most cases) and then burns forward toward the projectile. Percussion or primer ignition will light more powder initially that a flintlock will but it still burns the same unless the grains are crushed.
FFF will give higher velocity than FF given the same charge weight regardless of barrel length.

One reason? The FFF looses less heat to the bore since it is consumed faster.
FG Goex even in a 75 caliber Brown Bess requires a lot of powder to get descent velocity. FG is too slow for RBs of this caliber.
FF is better.
FF works very well in many RB guns having twice the burn rate of FG. FFF works well in a wide range of guns and may or may not produce the best accuracy though velocity will always be higher than the other two for a given charge of powder.

Dan
 
KodiakHunter said:
Yes! That was my first guess, but I ruled it out because of the universal atmospheric dungflux option. :rotf:
By george you might just be onto something!
 
The spinning creates stability, but at the same time the resistance to the ball to create the spinning action keeps the ball in the barrel "longer" than the smooth barrel. So, could it be that the rifle ball is using the total charge where the smooth does not(less velocity as it leaves the barrel). Gravity hits them both at the same time, but the rifle ball will be further out as it hits the ground... Sort of like the low brass spreads shot wider than high brass.They both spread at the same rate, but the faster moving shot has not had a chance to spread as it goes the same distance...
 
petsoman said:
The spinning creates stability, but at the same time the resistance to the ball to create the spinning action keeps the ball in the barrel "longer" than the smooth barrel. So, could it be that the rifle ball is using the total charge where the smooth does not(less velocity as it leaves the barrel). Gravity hits them both at the same time, but the rifle ball will be further out as it hits the ground... Sort of like the low brass spreads shot wider than high brass.They both spread at the same rate, but the faster moving shot has not had a chance to spread as it goes the same distance...


Several questions there:

I would not assume the "spinning action" keeps the ball in the barrel longer and such is not necessarily the case. A rifled barrel may contribute to greater pressure and more complete burn of the charge by very small degree, thus greater velocity, and therefore shorter barrel time but the amount is small. The energy required to spin a bullet via rifling is very, very small, less than .5% of total energy in a modern fast twist CF cartridge gun. Such minuscule variations in the energy budget may not be possible to assign to cause and effect in this discussion or any other so related. My sense of the issue is not whether the two balls in question will exit the muzzle at the same velocity but what transpires after the fact. In point of fact I rather doubt they will have the same exit velocities for reasons already discussed in this thread. What I am fairly certain of is that small changes or variables can and have been identified here, and while the significance has not been quantified, they exist nonetheless. They are issues solely related to interior ballistics and have nothing to do with the question of which ball splashes first, that being a question of exterior ballistics. To answer that one must reasonably start with equal velocity between smooth bore and rifled bore firearms. The answer to that question is known however...gravity does not care whether the ball spins or not, the rate of downward acceleration is the same. Should the smoothbore ball not deviate vertically in any way due to the magnus force, it will strike the ground at the same time and distance as the rifled ball.

I'm not sure I follow or agree with your analogy about low/high brass shot shells and the patterns they generate. In my experience that is not always the case and in every case higher velocity (supersonic) degrades shot patterns more, all else being equal.

I surely do not agree that the smoothbore round ball is destined to strike the ground before the rifle ball. It may or may not, depending on factors also discussed here.

One point that illustrates that is that the first "rifling" in muzzle loader history was straight, ie without twist. Such guns were easier to reload and more accurate because they eliminated bore induced random rotation of the ball and the effects of magnus force. The quest for accuracy drove that evolution, not range. Smoothbore muskets remained the predominant arm during the revolution due to ease (speed) of reloading, nothing more. Fortunately, George Washington deployed rifles and muskets to maximum benefit and we separated from the Crown.
 
The only way to realistically answer this question is to assume equal velocity and mass from both balls. Spin can be discarded as irrelevant. Both balls will hit the ground at the same time and go virtually the same distance since they have equal velocity; in fact, they will hit the ground at the same time regardless. Since conditions at firing are identical, they will also go the same distance. Such a combination of variables is virtually impossible so the subject is merely rhetorical. Change one variable and the results change. Though the math is complex, the progression of events is rather simple to follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top