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
Reloading
OBT method, barrel length vs velocity
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="asd9055" data-source="post: 1999223" data-attributes="member: 73445"><p>I too load to SAAMI typically. It is interesting what you are finding. In my mind there are a couple of things.</p><p></p><p>1.<strong> I use QL with every load.</strong> IMHO, QL can not account for the different barrel contours, which would give different harmonics. So I take what QL suggests and work around that load to fine tune. Tune it the barrel/rifle/bullet/powder!</p><p>If you look at FEA (finite element analysis), you will see how barrel harmonics can be different, and in fact that is why people used various methods of barrel tuning, way back it was just a rubber ring on the barrel, the the Browning BOSS, and now many others on the market. A retired Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (engineer?) has some fine examples on line.</p><p>2. On the same line IMHO opinion is OBT. I believe in OBT. When Christopher Long came out with it, I am not sure if he considered all the different barrel contours and weights. It does make a difference. So I treat is as an approximate location for a node.</p><p>3. Bullet stability and external ballistics</p><p></p><p>I wills till use QL. With some of my rifles is right on. But some times I have to work more than others. Still it is better than the alternative.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="asd9055, post: 1999223, member: 73445"] I too load to SAAMI typically. It is interesting what you are finding. In my mind there are a couple of things. 1.[B] I use QL with every load.[/B] IMHO, QL can not account for the different barrel contours, which would give different harmonics. So I take what QL suggests and work around that load to fine tune. Tune it the barrel/rifle/bullet/powder! If you look at FEA (finite element analysis), you will see how barrel harmonics can be different, and in fact that is why people used various methods of barrel tuning, way back it was just a rubber ring on the barrel, the the Browning BOSS, and now many others on the market. A retired Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (engineer?) has some fine examples on line. 2. On the same line IMHO opinion is OBT. I believe in OBT. When Christopher Long came out with it, I am not sure if he considered all the different barrel contours and weights. It does make a difference. So I treat is as an approximate location for a node. 3. Bullet stability and external ballistics I wills till use QL. With some of my rifles is right on. But some times I have to work more than others. Still it is better than the alternative. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
OBT method, barrel length vs velocity
Top