Smooth bore vs. rifled

[Old Timer 48]

You know, the Abrams tank has a smooth bore main gun. No rifling. That thing is deadly accurate. So, why is it that smooth bore BP guns are not as accurate as rifled guns?

 

[cynthialee]

because the bullets need spin to stabilize, no spin and the ball can start to do as it pleases after a distance, rifles imbue spin thus stabilization for a longer period

now as for tank barrels....I think it has something to do with the huge mass of the projectile, it doesn't need much stabilization when you are throwing such a huge amount of weight down range

 

[MountainRanger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_gun

that says that tank guns are high velocity, capable of firing kinetic energy rounds as well as HE. Modern powder for tank and artillery rounds enables the high velocity. BP is slower burning, hence, lower velocity

 

[BrownBear]

Modern tank rounds are finned for stability, the fins deploying after the bore-fitting sabot (horrors!) falls away upon exiting the barrel.

The better comparison would be with archaic smooth bore cannons firing round cannon balls. Accuracy could be pretty fair with a closely fitting cannon ball, but poor with a poor bore fit. Now that sounds pretty similar to smoothbore small arms, doesn't it?

 

You know, the Abrams tank has a smooth bore main gun. No rifling. That thing is deadly accurate. So, why is it that smooth bore BP guns are not as accurate as rifled guns?

You are comparing something like this to a roundball? Seriously? :shake:

 

[Old Timer 48]

Good pictures. I get it now.

 

[Artificer]

Good point, but I would add that a modern tank projectile is closer to the really early cannon and arrows they fired from them. Of course the fletching or fins on those arrows probably got damaged during firing, so they went to round stone balls and later Iron balls.

There has been a lot of discussion on smoothbore vs rifled guns on this forum from the time of the first colonists. Though many people did not seem to need rifled guns for hunting, rifles became the gun of choice most often on the frontier and especially by those who made their living hunting deer for the deer skins.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

...Though many people did not seem to need rifled guns for hunting, rifles became the gun of choice most often on the frontier and especially by those who made their living hunting deer for the deer skins.

And especially as people started moving west into open country where longer ranges were the norm.

 

[Artificer]

Bingo! :thumbsup:

Gus

 

[Stumpkiller]

Yet the rifle was developed in Switzerland and what is now Germany centuries before the West was "opened". For hunting little, bitty chamois deer that weigh 60 pounds.

Rifles make a smaller hole & further away for the market/pelt hunters. Smoothbores can be loaded faster when it's your hide that may have a hole made in it.

 

[hawkeye2]

Bingo! :thumbsup:

Gus

Double bingo! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Yet the rifle was developed in Switzerland and what is now Germany centuries before the West was "opened". For hunting little, bitty chamois deer that weigh 60 pounds.

Rifles make a smaller hole & further away for the market/pelt hunters. Smoothbores can be loaded faster when it's your hide that may have a hole made in it.

CORRECT!

And 28 shots to the pound of lead, and especially when you're talking 40 to 50 shots to a pound of lead plus added range, to obtain a deer, is pretty cost effective, when compared to 24 shots or less when using a smooth bore.

LD

 

[Docgp]

Most will know more than me, but I read one time that the tank computer (Abrams) constantly monitors and figures in about 11 variables while firing.

I do good if I can keep up with the front sight :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

Doc

 

[SgtErv]

Gyroscopic stabilization, fin stabilized projectiles, not to mention the optics...not sure they're in the same category.


UNLESS someone ' found' or more like 'wove' a tale about Simon Kenton hitting a Shawnee at 3 km while both were running. :rotf: