Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
5mm smc
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CatShooter" data-source="post: 159279" data-attributes="member: 7"><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p>CatShooter,</p><p>Can you tell me why the short fat cases use less powder for the same velocity with the same bullet weight as the longer skinner cases?</p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>They don't!!</p><p></p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p>I have several short fat rounds and their[sic] "equal" longer rounds and the short fat ones do seem to be more efficent, using less powder for same outcome. So if you have less powder to multiply by than you will have less recoil.</p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>What the hell does "...seem to be more efficent[sic]" mean? By what standard?</p><p></p><p>Your statement only applies if you have set up the comparison so all factors are equal, except the chambers, and you haven't!</p><p></p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p>Engineering on paper does not always work the same as real life experiences.</p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>Yes it does - if it doesn't, your "real life experiences" haven't been "experenced" the same way as your engineered on paper was done, so it doesn't match your your work on paper. </p><p></p><p>You cannot "engineer" something on paper, then "run an experiment" with different criteria, and then bitch that "real life experiences" don't match your paper work, when the experiences are NOT what you did on paper. </p><p></p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> Can't control or figure on all variables that will influence the outcome.</p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>Listen... don't talk this "engineering" crap, and then say you "Can't control or figure on all the variables".</p><p></p><p>If you can't control the variables, you aren't engineering ANYTHING - you are just blowing smoke and making noise.</p><p></p><p>Engineering IS controlling the variables.</p><p></p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> Not saying you don't know what you are talking about...</p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>Yes you are - you just don't have the stones to come right out and say it!</p><p></p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p>"... just that things on paper don't always work the same way in real life!" </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>That's because you aren't an engineer... if you were, you wouldn't make that statement.</p><p></p><p>A true story.</p><p></p><p>Some years ago, I got together a bunch of 308 rifles, and 100 rounds of 308 match ammo, same lot number, from the same case.</p><p></p><p>There were 4 rifles... none were junkers.</p><p></p><p>One had a 28" barrel.</p><p></p><p>Two had 26" barrels.</p><p></p><p>One had a 24" barrel.</p><p></p><p>The average velocities (20 rounds) were 2725 fps, 2685 fps, 2575, and 2550 fps.</p><p></p><p>Now I can, from the above facts, make the following statements.</p><p></p><p>"Well, long barrel lengths are faster than shorter barrel lengths"</p><p></p><p>Not true... we might assume that the 28" barrel went 2725 fps, and then we can assume that 24" barrel gave the 2550, but how does that explain one 26" giving 2575 and one giving 2685?? You CAN'T!!</p><p></p><p>OK... let's try the ol' "barrel friction" theory. It goes:</p><p>"Well, bullets only accelerate for the first 18" then slow down from friction"... we've ALL heard that line of BS (which applies to 0.002% of barrels with tiny cartridges).</p><p></p><p>So lets do the barrel friction thingie.</p><p></p><p>24" = 2725 fps</p><p>28" = 2550.</p><p>But Uh oh, we are back to 26" = 2575, and 26" = 2685?? It still doesn't play.</p><p></p><p>OK... lets try the "secondary explosion" theory... powder "burns, then goes out, then has a secondary "detonation".</p><p></p><p>So, 28" is back up to 2725 fps, and 24" is down to 2550 fps, and maybe one of the 26" was 2575, but the other 26" had a "Secondary detonation" and so the velocity went up to 2785 fps??? </p><p></p><p>Well, that means that sometimes, you get a "secondary detonation" and some times you don't... in the same barrel length???</p><p></p><p>It doesn't fly</p><p></p><p>Well now, MR engineer, match the velocities to the barrel lengths, and explain why?</p><p></p><p>You can't! And that's because barrel length is not the only factor.</p><p></p><p>The real numbers were:</p><p></p><p>#1 - 28" was 2725 fps</p><p>#2 - 26" was 2550 fps</p><p>#3 - 26" was 2575 fps</p><p>#4 - 24" was 2685 fps.</p><p></p><p>Now explain why???</p><p></p><p>You can't!!</p><p></p><p>The differences were that the chambers were cut to different reamer specs.</p><p></p><p>#1 and #4 were match reamers with tight throats, and #2 and #3 were "field" reamers with long throats.</p><p></p><p>If you take two of the same barrels (two Shilen select match), and then cut two chambers that are throated alike, but one with a short, fat case, and one with a long, skinny chamber, BOTH of the same case volume, and then cut the barrels so they measure the same FROM THE THROAT, you will get the same velocities, within the same variations as you will get from two of the same chambers.</p><p></p><p>So take your case and try to sell it somewhere else, cuz it doesn't float.</p><p></p><p>Go out and spend the money and do it. Cuz up to now, you haven't presented ANYTHING that remotely resembles "engineering on paper"... you have presented toilet paper theories, with nothing but "it seems...".</p><p></p><p>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CatShooter, post: 159279, member: 7"] [ QUOTE ] CatShooter, Can you tell me why the short fat cases use less powder for the same velocity with the same bullet weight as the longer skinner cases? [/ QUOTE ] They don't!! [ QUOTE ] I have several short fat rounds and their[sic] "equal" longer rounds and the short fat ones do seem to be more efficent, using less powder for same outcome. So if you have less powder to multiply by than you will have less recoil. [/ QUOTE ] What the hell does "...seem to be more efficent[sic]" mean? By what standard? Your statement only applies if you have set up the comparison so all factors are equal, except the chambers, and you haven't! [ QUOTE ] Engineering on paper does not always work the same as real life experiences. [/ QUOTE ] Yes it does - if it doesn't, your "real life experiences" haven't been "experenced" the same way as your engineered on paper was done, so it doesn't match your your work on paper. You cannot "engineer" something on paper, then "run an experiment" with different criteria, and then bitch that "real life experiences" don't match your paper work, when the experiences are NOT what you did on paper. [ QUOTE ] Can't control or figure on all variables that will influence the outcome. [/ QUOTE ] Listen... don't talk this "engineering" crap, and then say you "Can't control or figure on all the variables". If you can't control the variables, you aren't engineering ANYTHING - you are just blowing smoke and making noise. Engineering IS controlling the variables. [ QUOTE ] Not saying you don't know what you are talking about... [/ QUOTE ] Yes you are - you just don't have the stones to come right out and say it! [ QUOTE ] "... just that things on paper don't always work the same way in real life!" [/ QUOTE ] That's because you aren't an engineer... if you were, you wouldn't make that statement. A true story. Some years ago, I got together a bunch of 308 rifles, and 100 rounds of 308 match ammo, same lot number, from the same case. There were 4 rifles... none were junkers. One had a 28" barrel. Two had 26" barrels. One had a 24" barrel. The average velocities (20 rounds) were 2725 fps, 2685 fps, 2575, and 2550 fps. Now I can, from the above facts, make the following statements. "Well, long barrel lengths are faster than shorter barrel lengths" Not true... we might assume that the 28" barrel went 2725 fps, and then we can assume that 24" barrel gave the 2550, but how does that explain one 26" giving 2575 and one giving 2685?? You CAN'T!! OK... let's try the ol' "barrel friction" theory. It goes: "Well, bullets only accelerate for the first 18" then slow down from friction"... we've ALL heard that line of BS (which applies to 0.002% of barrels with tiny cartridges). So lets do the barrel friction thingie. 24" = 2725 fps 28" = 2550. But Uh oh, we are back to 26" = 2575, and 26" = 2685?? It still doesn't play. OK... lets try the "secondary explosion" theory... powder "burns, then goes out, then has a secondary "detonation". So, 28" is back up to 2725 fps, and 24" is down to 2550 fps, and maybe one of the 26" was 2575, but the other 26" had a "Secondary detonation" and so the velocity went up to 2785 fps??? Well, that means that sometimes, you get a "secondary detonation" and some times you don't... in the same barrel length??? It doesn't fly Well now, MR engineer, match the velocities to the barrel lengths, and explain why? You can't! And that's because barrel length is not the only factor. The real numbers were: #1 - 28" was 2725 fps #2 - 26" was 2550 fps #3 - 26" was 2575 fps #4 - 24" was 2685 fps. Now explain why??? You can't!! The differences were that the chambers were cut to different reamer specs. #1 and #4 were match reamers with tight throats, and #2 and #3 were "field" reamers with long throats. If you take two of the same barrels (two Shilen select match), and then cut two chambers that are throated alike, but one with a short, fat case, and one with a long, skinny chamber, BOTH of the same case volume, and then cut the barrels so they measure the same FROM THE THROAT, you will get the same velocities, within the same variations as you will get from two of the same chambers. So take your case and try to sell it somewhere else, cuz it doesn't float. Go out and spend the money and do it. Cuz up to now, you haven't presented ANYTHING that remotely resembles "engineering on paper"... you have presented toilet paper theories, with nothing but "it seems...". . [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
5mm smc
Top