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
The Solid Bullet Debate
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="noel carlson" data-source="post: 289574" data-attributes="member: 16138"><p>Grit,</p><p> </p><p>...A very pragmatic request, which will have to be subordinated to higher priority short-term considerations. There are multi-track patent, and other time sensitive issues involved. For preliminary performance results, and early prototype photographs, search the threads at Sniper's Hide. In the alternative you can contact me about signing an NDA, as this remains a work(s)-in-progress. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Bryan, </p><p> </p><p>I believe your assumption of excessive spin induced dispersion is placing unfounded limitations upon the gains captured by extreme projectile length. Think rather of "fitting" a velocity dictated mass within an aerodynamically optimized shape. The key to in-bore cant mitigation is in the interaction of rifling geometry, and progressive engraving-band deformation. In essence, the ZA "floats" within a continually renewed bearing surface for incredible axial alignment. This was an unexpected surprise benefit of the gain-twist, and provides a good example of system interdependence. I am thinking the best way of propagating this thread is to cover individual components, and bring them together in an order which makes the interactions clear.</p><p> </p><p>"Debate" at both the sub-component, and systemic levels will be easier.</p><p> </p><p>Incidentially, I have found no density variation within the copper rod stock.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>*IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS PROPELLANT*</p><p> </p><p>Since this will be the first coherent public summation of the project, I need to credit the late Hays Zeigler, a supremely talented ballistician, and senior research director at ATK's propellant lab. He inspired this project back in 2004 by making me aware of RDX/HMX based propellants, which have as their <em>only</em> shortcoming; a propensity of "eating small arms barrels for lunch".</p><p> </p><p>This family of propellants unleashes a tremendous amount of energy in a flat pressure curve, and allows either the use of short barrels and equivalent velocity, or extreme velocity with standard length barrels. Every other component follows logically from this foundation.</p><p> </p><p>Tomorrow I will cover barrel development in a qualitative manner, and answer questions to the degree possible without compromising confidentiality.</p><p> </p><p>Best,</p><p>Noel</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="noel carlson, post: 289574, member: 16138"] Grit, ...A very pragmatic request, which will have to be subordinated to higher priority short-term considerations. There are multi-track patent, and other time sensitive issues involved. For preliminary performance results, and early prototype photographs, search the threads at Sniper's Hide. In the alternative you can contact me about signing an NDA, as this remains a work(s)-in-progress. Bryan, I believe your assumption of excessive spin induced dispersion is placing unfounded limitations upon the gains captured by extreme projectile length. Think rather of "fitting" a velocity dictated mass within an aerodynamically optimized shape. The key to in-bore cant mitigation is in the interaction of rifling geometry, and progressive engraving-band deformation. In essence, the ZA "floats" within a continually renewed bearing surface for incredible axial alignment. This was an unexpected surprise benefit of the gain-twist, and provides a good example of system interdependence. I am thinking the best way of propagating this thread is to cover individual components, and bring them together in an order which makes the interactions clear. "Debate" at both the sub-component, and systemic levels will be easier. Incidentially, I have found no density variation within the copper rod stock. *IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS PROPELLANT* Since this will be the first coherent public summation of the project, I need to credit the late Hays Zeigler, a supremely talented ballistician, and senior research director at ATK's propellant lab. He inspired this project back in 2004 by making me aware of RDX/HMX based propellants, which have as their [I]only[/I] shortcoming; a propensity of "eating small arms barrels for lunch". This family of propellants unleashes a tremendous amount of energy in a flat pressure curve, and allows either the use of short barrels and equivalent velocity, or extreme velocity with standard length barrels. Every other component follows logically from this foundation. Tomorrow I will cover barrel development in a qualitative manner, and answer questions to the degree possible without compromising confidentiality. Best, Noel [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
The Solid Bullet Debate
Top