tails on balls

So, this would be like adding fletching that folds for loading and deploys on launch?

Rifleman!
You're dead right.
Ounce a projectilr leaves a rifled bore it continues in a straight line ( gravity & windage excluded )
Old Ford

GoodCheer said:

So, this would be like adding fletching that folds for loading and deploys on launch?

Click to expand...

No, but it would be like shooting a ball from a curved barrel.

As far as fletching or tails on a round ball, I am highly doubtful that it would make any difference. Fletching works on an arrow or other elongated projectile by keeping the tail end behind the nose end which does tend to make those projectiles fly straighter.
I don't think the same physics would apply to a round ball. Which end is the front? Why would it matter? Convince me that I'm wrong.

Jethro224 said:

GoodCheer said:

So, this would be like adding fletching that folds for loading and deploys on launch?

Click to expand...

No, but it would be like shooting a ball from a curved barrel.

As far as fletching or tails on a round ball, I am highly doubtful that it would make any difference. Fletching works on an arrow or other elongated projectile by keeping the tail end behind the nose end which does tend to make those projectiles fly straighter.
I don't think the same physics would apply to a round ball. Which end is the front? Why would it matter? Convince me that I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Was trying to picture what was the idea. A screw with something stuck on it would be the "back" if drag ever succeeded in tugging on it. The round opposite side of the ball the "front".
It's hard to see how any arrangement would provide sufficient stability as to prevent a change in direction at the very beginning of it's flight. But, the shotgun slug with the fiber wad screwed to it's backside worked.

Wonder if the red coats could see those things coming at them from the matchlocks of the Pashtoon insurgents.

"I will try 1/2 inch and 1 inch.'

Be cautious of the "tail" preventing the ball from being seated tight on the powder or it may be a problem if a void is created.A screw head may not go into the powder but stand untop of it? Just do not want to hear about an accident or damaged barrel/forum member

Actually, I think that he had run the screw through a wad or card to keep the screw from ever contacting the bore and damaging it. I am still trying to recover some of his work or make contact with him, but his phone number is disconnected...
:shocked2:
CS

GoodCheer said:

Jethro224 said:

As far as fletching or tails on a round ball, I am highly doubtful that it would make any difference. Fletching works on an arrow or other elongated projectile by keeping the tail end behind the nose end which does tend to make those projectiles fly straighter.
I don't think the same physics would apply to a round ball. Which end is the front? Why would it matter? Convince me that I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Was trying to picture what was the idea. A screw with something stuck on it would be the "back" if drag ever succeeded in tugging on it. The round opposite side of the ball the "front".
It's hard to see how any arrangement would provide sufficient stability as to prevent a change in direction at the very beginning of it's flight. But, the shotgun slug with the fiber wad screwed to it's backside worked.

Wonder if the red coats could see those things coming at them from the matchlocks of the Pashtoon insurgents.

Click to expand...

The way I look at it, the shotgun slug with the attached wad is a cylinder, NOT a round ball but an elongated projectile. Longer than it is wide, even if just a bit. By attaching a wad to the rear of the slug the projectile becomes even more elongated AND more weight-forward while having a bit of drag applied to the rear. This would keep the slug from tumbling. If the slug tumbles during flight it loses accuracy.
A round ball, on the other hand, would not be affected by tumbling because it is round. In my mind all a tail would do is slow the ball down due to the increased drag.

If you were to throw an arrow, even sideways, the weight of the arrows head will tend to pull the front of the arrow forward while the fletching drags on the rear of the arrow. This will tend to straighten the flight path of the arrow.
You can't throw a round ball sideways because it is a ball. There is no weight-forward. You could create a weight-forward situation by putting a tail on the ball but I don't see how it would help in any way. Seems to me the solution of putting a tail on a round ball would only cure the situation that it caused and in doing so would add the problem of lost velocity and wasted energy.

Now if there were a way to get the ball to spin around sideways to help stabilize the effect of any small variables in balance, without adding drag/resistance, it would probably make that ball shoot more accurately... but you'd have a rifle. :wink:

This is just my theory and I've never been to a physics class. :idunno: It would be interesting to see the results of testing.

I think Jethro is right on that point, a conical and a round ball are not comparing apples to apples no matter what you add to them.

OK, I do have a theory as to why a tail might be an aid to accuracy with a ball from a smoothbore. Being smooth the barrel will still impart some forces on the ball as it moves towards the muzzle. More than likely it will sorta drag on the bottom of the bore and impart a downward spin. Or, if the ball is loose, not patched, it could bang and slap against the bore multiple times along the bore and be affected by it's last bump against steel causing it to spin in an unpredictable direction. A 'tail' could, probably would, stop that spin and stabilize it in flight. Actually, my thinking (remember this is only my theory) is the tail would be more beneficial with a loose, unpatched ball than a patched one. I might experiment for fun but do plan to use patches in mine....when I get it.

I kinda wonder if it will have more impact at long range than short- longer than we typically shoot muzzleloaders. I say that because of what some call the "knuckleball effect" in RBs as they slow down.

It reminds me of those early experiments with artillery shells that drizzled some liquid (diesel?) from their bases in flight to help break the vacuum that develops right behind them. Memory is a frail sister, but mine sezz that was more about increasing range, but it certainly makes me wonder if the artillery research folks didn't try tails in smoothbore cannon. Those artillery guys are real creative, and have been for centuries.

Rifleman1776 said:

Or, others dig into the ball and fasten a string to trail.

Click to expand...

I recall reading an article in one of the gun magazines some decades ago where someone documented doing exactly this in cartridge shotguns, to improve accuracy by eliminating random-spin curve-ball or no-initial-spin knuckle-ball effects. The author was using a hole with a dowel plug (and possibly glue??) to affix a several-inch-long tail of ribbon or twine on a round ball. It did reduce the group size significantly, but I cannot recall by how much. I would expect it would notably increase drag, though, affecting longer-range trajectory. The author did note that cotton twine when used for the tail shed badly, and gave the effect of the ball plucking a chicken while going downrange. In contrast, woven ribbon produced no notable in-flight debris.

More vaguely, I recall discussion of this having been tried successfully in a muzzle-loader, but I cannot recall the venue or any further details.

Regards,
Joel

Further on a couple of other points:

On contact with the barrel inducing random spin producing random curves, this has long been noted. I recall reading in some late-18th century writings, possibly by Robins, that some of the better gun makers would give the barrel of a "gun" (i.e. smoothbore) intended for ball a slight downward bend at the muzzle. This had the effect of making the last contact of the ball with the barrel at the top of the ball. This, in turn, produced spin in a consistent direction for accuracy, and that spin was a "back-spin", producing a curve in the upward direction, notably reducing the drop over normal ranges. Naturally, this could not be done to a gun that was also intended to fire shot charges.

Concerning the effects of fletching on arrows, there is more than just drag at the back end. Fletching is and was most often applied at an angle to deliberately induce spin for accuracy. This spin was discussed or at least remarked on by authors going back into antiquity. Even straight fletching with feathers will tend to induce some rotation due to differential drag on the two surfaces of the feathers.

Regards,
Joel

Joel/Calgary said:

I recall reading in some late-18th century writings, possibly by Robins, that some of the better gun makers would give the barrel of a "gun" (i.e. smoothbore) intended for ball a slight downward bend at the muzzle. This had the effect of making the last contact of the ball with the barrel at the top of the ball. This, in turn, produced spin in a consistent direction for accuracy, and that spin was a "back-spin", producing a curve in the upward direction, notably reducing the drop over normal ranges. Naturally, this could not be done to a gun that was also intended to fire shot charges.

Click to expand...

This is essentially what's done with today's airsoft guns with the installation of a "kicker" as they call it. As I understand it the kicker is a very small hump in the otherwise smooth bore which induces spin as the pellet exits. My nephew is the "expert" in all this, building his own guns and impressive "long range" sniper rifles. He demonstrated the effect with and without the kicker, and the group size/range possible with the kicker installed was truly impressive. Without it he got shotgun patterns rather than groups to about 40 yards and couldn't reliably hit the target paper beyond. With the kicker he's shooting really surprising groups to well past 100 yards.

It looked like a really effective cheat for smoothbore muzzleloaders.

Well the smoothbore 120mm gun on the Abrams tank uses a fin stabilized projectile and they are amazingly accurate at a range of several miles. Of course that is dependant on the precision with which the projectile is made and that is no kitchen table project.

OK.....I did not get to test this on Sunday. Our church was given free pews, so I spent the day moving heavy objects. I will Try as soon as I can. I will keep you guys up to date.

A lot of the structures being mentioned here are substantial and a good percentage in weight of the projectile. Bore sized wads attached to slugs, metal fins, etc. They are also rigid structures that serve to move the overall projectile's weight forward (FOC - forward of center - the latest buzz-word in archery). Like a badminton shuttle it gets the weigh to the nose for stability.

But a floppy string in the turbulance of a much larger ball is not rigid. I'd bet on firing it passes the ball, being lighter and in the blast at the muzzle, and has to whip back once the air resistance effects it. Then there is the natural curl and twist of the string that will make it flutter like a Mr. Twister in the water. The streamer-effect drag will reduce the ball's speed and distance; though again probably insignificant unless it's a long string.

So what are we talking? A few inches of string? A foot? Does it have to be lubed so it doesn't burn off or a wad between the ball/string and the powder.

In the effective range of a sightless smoothbore and most shooters ability to point one accurately will it make a gnat's armpit hair worth of difference? Enquiring minds want to know.

"In the effective range of a sightless smoothbore and most shooters ability to point one accurately will it make a gnat's armpit hair worth of difference? Enquiring minds want to know."

I agree, enquiring minds do want to know but from the posts here it is apparent that not all minds are "enquiring", most seem to dismiss the idea out of hand. And it's worth mentioning that not all smoothbores are sightless.
I have a smoothrifle which to date has never produced a decent 50 yard group using conventional patched balls with or without an over powder wad. I tied up five balls in large patches so that the excess material flared out behind like a shuttlecock. Loaded with the tail to the rear atop an over powder wad I got four holes touching with one flyer (second shot fired) which opened the group to over four inches. Still that is the best group I have gotten to date with this gun.
Certainly any "tail" will add to the drag and make the ballistically inefficient round ball even less efficient but if the accuracy gain is there it may be worth the trade off. Perhaps. :idunno:

Best indicator yet that there may be substance to the notion.

Rifleman1776 said:

Best indicator yet that there may be substance to the notion.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And so far the most practical and do-able. A variation of the Baker balls as a matter of fact.