Highest theoretical BC

[sharpshooter1]

I have been thinking, what would be the Highest possible BC? 1.4 somethig like that? It would be neat to make a bullet so ballisticaly efficient that it pulls itself through the air [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Fiftydriver]

That would be called a self propelled rocket!!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Kirby Allen(50)

[BLASERMAN]

The thing that would he people like me if Richard would
publish the BC on his bullets.

[CatShooter]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been thinking, what would be the Highest possible BC? 1.4 somethig like that? It would be neat to make a bullet so ballisticaly efficient that it pulls itself through the air [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "highest BC"

The BC is just an arbitrary number assigned to a known projectile to use as a base line reference.

There are 8 (as I recall) BC reference projectiles and they are called G-1 through G-8.

Most of them are 2 to 4 pound artillery shells from WW-1 and WW-2.

When you take the BC of 1.00 that references a 2 pound 3" dia shell and apply it to a 2,200 pound, 16" dia, 6 foot long navel artillery shell, you get BC that runs 12.0 to 13.0 (depending on velocity).

.

[edge]

I don't know the smallest diameter that a hollow bullet can be made, but the Flatau design ( ring airfoil )swallows the bow shock-wave and has an incredibly high BC at high velocity. At low velocity the BC drops precipitously.

edge.

[CatShooter]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the smallest diameter that a hollow bullet can be made, but the Flatau design ( ring airfoil )swallows the bow shock-wave and has an incredibly high BC at high velocity. At low velocity the BC drops precipitously.

edge.

[/ QUOTE ]


Flatau's design was a 'theory" that never worked, and after the military spent a fair amount of money on in, dumped it. The problem is that you cannot have a rotating airfoil "with lift".

There were some soft riot control projectiles made, but they had very short range (40 yds), so they didn't do very well... it is now history, along with the perpetual motion machine.

It is physically impossible to "swallow the bow shock-wave", and the energy is lost when it is generated, whether it is "swallowed' on not.

If it were possible, then all supersonic aircraft would adapt this energy (and fuel) saving feature.

.