.56 renegade f.p.s.

[Rebel]

Ok, that makes sense to me. :thumbsup:

 

[Runner]

I shoot a tight fitting load in all my guns, so maybe that is the difference. I have never recovered a ball that did not have rifling marks on it.

 

[taylorh]

If reloading the gun wipes the barrel totally clean, then why do consecutive shots gain velocity? I know from experience that using natural lubes effectively swabs the barrel between shots. But even when I don't use natural lube, recoil increases modestly from first to third shot, and I've read repeatedly that consecutive shots increase in velocity. I can't prove it, but I doubt that rotational velocity, imparted by the rifeling, increases the forward momentum of the projectile in and of itself. This is because energy that could be spent pushing the ball down the shoot, is used to impart rotational motion on the projectile. In other words, because spinning the ball requires energy, the ball should move slower from a rifled barrel. I'd like to see the science behind the idea that rotational speed increases forward velocity, then I will believe. After all, rotational velocity doesn't change the cross sectional density of the bullet, therefore it can't change the drag coefficent of the projectile. Also I don't think that patches just hang in the lands friction free. The increased surface area presented in a rifle must increase friction. Have you ever seen a smoothbore shooter use a short starter? Of course not! We load without them because we don't need them. I think (thats scary) that rifles build up more pressure in them and go 'pop'! Smoothbores go 'phoot' because less pressure builds up in them before the projectile is released. What about barrel thickness in shotguns vs rifles. Arn't they an indicator as to which weapon builds up a greater head of steam before going BOOM!! Someone out there with two pressure barrels, bored for the same ball, should figure this out.
Respectfully, and willing to admit I could be wrong,
Taylor in Texas

 

[thomas]

The guestion of which is the faster shooting rifle or smoothebore was anwered long ago.

Benjamin Robins, mathematician & Engineer-General for the East India Co. He laid the foundation of modern scientific gunnery by his invention of the ballistic pendulum.

In 1747 he read a paper that he wrote [and later published] before the Royal Society in England. The paper was called "Observations of the Nature and Advantage of Rifled Barrel Pieces". In the paper many ballistic guestions were anwered & proven, One was that the smoothbore shoots faster than the rifle [if all is the same for each gun] because of less friction.

There is alot on this subjest out on the web & in books if your still a disbeliever. One last thing our army's new tanks big gun is a smoothbore & they get some super high velocity out of them.

Thomas

 

[roundball]

As I've stated a couple times...I don't know and am not debating the points...I'm asking questions out loud to enjoy participating in this discussion.

As to the response from the guy at TC, I also raised an eyebrow...that's why I made the closing statement: "I can only assume he knows what he's talking about"...meaning, I'm not sure I buy it and don't have a clue if what he said is right or not.

PS: I can't start a patched ball in my smoothbore without a short starter...no question the walls are like a mirror after I seat the lubed patched ball. (.530 ball + .015" lubed patch in a .54cal smoothbore)

 

[rudy parnell]

Have not read the paper. Am not an expert. Just wondered which gun shoots the greater distance and which is the more accurate [putting my money on the rifle]. This is a great discussion and I am enjoying the mystery, as well you can imagine it was just as spellbinding for early peoples. Doubt if common man had much to say about it though... I've notice that there is no rifle in battleship guns of days gone by. Maybe the payload is a function of this formular? I have noticed that 8" self-propelled guns are smoothbore. But, the tube for a mortor is smooth also. Finally, can't imagine that a round ball could provide us all with so much pleasure...after say 500 or 600 years. Anybody know how long people have fired them? I don't, but I sure like mulling over the many subjects. :shocked2: Finally, I can report that I have a gyroscope among my most treasured possessions...I can spin the thing and it will stand up [under it's own power...or what ever?]but when the spin leaves...it falls down. I think that spin will magnify the velosity of any traveling body...or any mass not at rest. I've had some physics but I must admit that I would have never guessed that T/C had set 100 grains of powder as a maximum load for the 56 cal. smoothbore. I am thankful that we have disclosed this safety concern...I intend to follow it. thanks :v

 

[musketman]

I've wondered the same thing and the main possibilities I can think of are:

2) There's more friction in the smoothbore as it's rubbing the bore walls with it's full circumference, instead of only being in contact with the half dozen lands of a rifled barrel.

I was just three dimensional thinking and came up with this, the patch also must fill in the grooves to seal the bore, otherwise there will be gas blow-by, plus take up all the space between the lands and grooves (depth of rifling), so the patched roundball actually has more area contact with rifling than with a smoothbore...

 

[taylorh]

EXACTLY! And I have heard reference to the paper that Thomas is refering to. But that still doesn't explain why T/C lists their .56 smoothbore as shooting significantly slower than their rifled barrels, or why fould barrels shoot faster. I assume that they are shooting .550 balls in their .56 vs .535 in their .54. Could this possibly cause a difference of 555fps? I don't think so. Something stinks. I'm going to go find my manual.
Taylor in Texas

 

[taylorh]

According to T/C...
.530 ball/230gr/80grFFG=1654FPS/1397ftlbs
.530 ball/230gr/100grFFG=1855FPS/1758ftlbs

.550 ball/265gr/80grFFG=1195FPS/840ftlbs
.550 ball/265gr/100grFFG=1300FPS/995ftlbs

The differences between these two sets of loads is HUGE! There is a difference of 555fps and 763ftlbs with the 100 grain load. This is more than can be accounted for by 35gr of lead. Kind of makes you wonder. I hope this discussion keeps up, because I would really like to know the answer to this mystery. Lets keep searching
Taylor in Texas

 

[roundball]

I've wondered the same thing and the main possibilities I can think of are:

2) There's more friction in the smoothbore as it's rubbing the bore walls with it's full circumference, instead of only being in contact with the half dozen lands of a rifled barrel.

I was just three dimensional thinking and came up with this, the patch also must fill in the grooves to seal the bore, otherwise there will be gas blow-by, plus take up all the space between the lands and grooves (depth of rifling), so the patched roundball actually has more area contact with rifling than with a smoothbore...

By contact, I was comparing the area of pressure that the ball directly makes (against the patch)against the steel...surface area of the smoothbore wall vs. surface area of the lands.

I agree that excess patch material is wedged down into the grooves of course, but surely it can't be under as much compression / pressure, subsequently friction, as the ball makes (against the patch) against the hard steel walls or lands themselves.

 

[taylorh]

I don't know what to say. I use the same load (80 grains) in my .56 as roundball does, except that I use a .18 patch (he uses .15) and a .535 Hornady ball (he uses a .530 ball). And I have never found that I needed a ball starter. Mine slide down the shoot smoothly, leaving a mirror like finish on the inside of the barrel. Maybe my bore is less pitted or larger, I don't know. But again, if smoothbores result in greater friction (and thus greater pressure), then why are shotgun barrels thinner than rifled barrels? And why does the .56 shoot slower than the .54?
Taylor in Texas
:hmm:

 

[roundball]

I don't know what to say. I use the same load in my .56 as roundball does, except that I use a .18 patch (he uses .15). And I have never found that I needed a ball starter. Mine slide down the shoot smoothly, leaving a mirror like finish on the inside of the barrel. Maybe my bore is less pitted or larger, I don't konw. But again, if smoothbores result in greater friction (and thus greater pressure), then why are shotgun barrels thinner than rifled barrels? And why does the .56 shoot slower than the .54?
Taylor in Texas
:hmm:

Texan, your post here indicates it was a response to me but I'm having a hard time correlating it to a previous post of mine...pitted bores, etc...or were you just making a post and it happended to fall in after mine?

 

I've wondered the same thing and the main possibilities I can think of are:

2) There's more friction in the smoothbore as it's rubbing the bore walls with it's full circumference, instead of only being in contact with the half dozen lands of a rifled barrel.

I've been sitting here a listening and this is what I think is happening...
Besides the greater surface area of the patched RB in a rifled bore (as Musketman has stated) vs. a smoothbore the ball in the rifled bore is meeting with more resistance because it's moving against the pitch of the rifling as opposed to just being pushed out of a smooth surface thus the higher pressures and the higher velocity. The faster twist rifle is going to produce more pressure and higher velocity than a slower twist barrel with the production of less velocity with everything else being equal. I am no ballistics expert either, but this makes sense to me. Maybe there is a Scientist here that can help clear this up.
Don

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Has anyone considered the possibility that there is a much simpler answer? T/C's numbers are totally out-to-lunch! :grin:

 

[roundball]

Has anyone considered the possibility that there is a much simpler answer? T/C's numbers are totally out-to-lunch! :grin:

I actually raised that question to the guy at TC yesterday and he said they are correct as listed.
:shocked2:
And I still wonder about that myself...because even though what I'm about to say has no science behind it, I'd bet you'll agree that after shooting several thousand round balls you get a "feel" or a "sense" for how a rilfe is performing.

When I shoot the same hunting loads in my .54cal smoothbore, that I normally use in my .54cal rifle, if I dodn't know better I'd think I was shooting the rifle...can't believe there's several hundred FPS less coming out of my .54cal[url] smoothie...in[/url] fact, I don't believe it.

The good news is I now have a chronograph and this will be an excellt warm weather project for this year.

 

[taylorh]

My load remarks were not directed at any one particular remark, or anything you specifically said in this string of conversation. I have however been following your previous remarks and praise about the .56 smoothbore. When I got my .56 I used your loading data as a starting point (.530/80grFFg/thicker sized pillow ticking). Am I mistaken? I find the .550 balls are just too hard to shove down the shoot. Thanks for the benefit of your experience. I am very happy with my .56. I just wish the comb were a little lower, tends to slap me in the cheek. Probably wouldn't happen if I wern't firing from my butt!! :rotf: But seriously I tend to think that either Cooner is right or that the data must be a misprint. But it seems unlikely that TC would misprint this kind of data and not catch it.
Taylor in Texas

 

[taylorh]

That sounds like a great idea! I don't have a chronograph, so I'm grateful that your willing to figure this out. I'll be awaiting your results.
Taylor in Texas

 

[Tracy]

Texan you are right it cant be the 35 grn. increase in lead becausethe book lists .58 279 grn.rb.at 1428 fps.with.100 grns.of powder an increase of 128 fps.over the 265 grn..56 rb.

 

[roundball]

My load remarks were not directed at any one particular remark, or anything you specifically said in this string of conversation. I have however been following your previous remarks and praise about the .56 smoothbore. When I got my .56 I used your loading data as a starting point (.530/80grFFg/thicker sized pillow ticking). Am I mistaken? I find the .550 balls are just too hard to shove down the shoot. Thanks for the benefit of your experience. I am very happy with my .56. I just wish the comb were a little lower, tends to slap me in the cheek. Probably wouldn't happen if I wern't firing from my butt!! :rotf: But seriously I tend to think that either Cooner is right or that the data must be a misprint. But it seems unlikely that TC would misprint this kind of data and not catch it.
Taylor in Texas

Unless I made a typo in some old post, in the brief time I experimented with a .56 S/B, I used 70grns Goex 3F, Oxyoke wonderwad, .015" prelubed Oxyoke plain cotton patch, and Warren spruless .550 balls...required a very sharp rap on a short starter to seat it but was extremely accurate.

In my current .54cal Flint smoothbore I get best accuracy with the same power/wad/patch, but use a Hornady .530 ball...also have to punch it in with a short starter, shoots a single ragged hole at 50yds.

If I do run some comparison tests between .54cal rifle and .54cal smoothbore, and there is a difference, that'll tell us one thing but it still won't tell us why
:shocked2:

 

[taylorh]

Sorry to misquote your load data Roundball. It could have been a reply to you from someone else, or somebody else completely different, but in the same discussion string that I am remembering. Either way I am grateful for the chat as it allows me learn from others experience.
Taylor in Texas