Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Impulse

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

567 profile views

Impulse's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/3)

2

Reputation

  1. Yes, i hope you didnt misunderstood it. As said it wasnt meant impatient. The problem is my english isnt perfect. So what i write can be understood diffrent than i mean it, or just totally written with the wrong words, sry.
  2. The thing is, it seem to be meant for 1200meter as written in some papers. So i wonder if its supersonic to 1200m because of the great accuracy loss when going trans-subsonic. I give it a try (m123 v3000 e3333 | d6,7 ff0,954? bc0,264 | bl?) / (m123 v3000 e3333 | d6,7 ff0,954 bc0,264 | bl?) While the published chart shows 300ft lbs, but its at the end of the chart (does it exeed it or stops there?), i think it doesnt exeed it, its already enough over 7.62x51. This seem to be meant with 125grain, but velocity isnt noted. With 300ft lbs @1200m the form factor would be much worse, and 1200m/1312y supersonic range not reached. (additional Note: i measured a ~2,8cal nose with rather thick meplat, but not sure what weight version it was)
  3. Yes i know what you mean, but if we look at the first two units we automatically see that it is SCHV as example. While saying SCHV in general, even tough it describes a general concept can differ verry verry large in my experience. We both know how much SCHV can differ. (heavy projectile 5,8x42 vs superlight von' Karman 5,56x38 FABRL as example). Expecally talking about two or serval diffrent SCHV configurations, the concept alone wont set them appart, the individual data does, certain changes will sometimes greatly change the end result. Also it can be written Name - Concept - IAC-Sys , to use one of the described fields -> absolut perfectly uniform, clear visual shaped, high density data, all without long mixed up visually uneven lists of characteristics. All while staying really accurate. That enables extremly fast writing and comparing of rounds, which eighter exist or development concepts. As noted having dozends of diffrent development rounds can become a pure hard to overlook mess. As soon as i started using the system, i got extremly efficient and progress was a matter of seconds to a few minutes, and even days later i just look at the paper, having all vital data in such uniform dense shape, instead of reading into the entire topic again. I know what you mean with metric, but as sayd im really unsure about grains to gramms. Quote: "The large marked for bullets and ammo are the US , with grains, and accuratly converting grains in gramms results in dozends of numbers behind the , . Instead of just two extremly space efficient numbers. The advantage of grains is that the unit is over 15times smaller/finer. With the same velocity going a grain up changes already enough, but a gramm diffrence is worlds appart in therms of energy." Big thanks for taking a look. I basicly see You and me as the originator of this concept, simply because ive learned a lot of the more advanced ammunition math due to you, and your my alltime favorite writer in this area. Btw, could you write me the data of CT 6.5 to test the system? The 123grain 3000fps one (dont get what theyre going for...), im wondering about the form factor and G7BC. That would really interest me.
  4. Sorry Nathaniel, it wasnt meant impatient, just as fun. Im just exited to post this, before this great forum i never had someone to discuss with.. literally for years.
  5. I hope Sturgeon reads it, hes top notch on this. Maybe collimatrix comes online and takes a look too, i did send him an invitation for the thread. Yes in general i prefer the metric system, expecally in therms of lenght (mm, cm and m, instead of the "1/4 inch" madness etc.) But in firearms that changes. The large marked for bullets and ammo are the US , with grains, and accuratly converting grains in gramms results in dozends of numbers behind the , . Instead of just two numbers. The advantage of grains is that the unit is over 15times smaller/finer. With the same velocity going a grain up changes already enough, but a gramm diffrence is worlds appart in therms of energy. Thanks for taking a look and commenting.
  6. Breaking News: TFB comment section just is going totally nuts. https://s28.postimg.org/7dt99tgxp/TFB.jpg , while that has some humor https://s24.postimg.org/ifn17qy79/tfb.jpg
  7. The radar chart is an interesting idea, and im testing it now, the large disadvantage is its not fast writeable with a keyboard, but takes time to draw a picture, and pictures are not always possible to post on plattforms. As sayd, "The post looks large at first glance, but the System itself is really small. It wont take long for you to get used to it, and write it fast. => fast high data density" (m62 v3150 e1852 | d5,7 ff1,169 bc0,151 | bl20) Getting used to it a bit, and it seems much clearer. But the radar chart will be a great additional concept for a pure visual comperasion.
  8. International Ammunition Classification System® - Concept This topic, is meant to be discussed by Us, and not yet talked about elsewhere until the concept is perfected by us. (It might contain a lot of typos, sry, i edit them out when i find them) Prolog: I think all of us, having to do a lot with ammunition (overall research, engineering, talking), know the annoying search for data, verry few numbers available at the manufacturers site, with resulting calculation and quessing of measurements. Also when talking about ammunition configurations, data becomes verry large and visually uneven when going into detail. So i asked myself: how to shrink all important data of a configuration into a small visually standartised shape. The result was a concept i want to talk about and perfect with your opinions and sugesstions: IAC-Sys® ( = International Ammunition Classification System® - open for other name sugesstions) As example: (m62 v3150 e1852 | d5,7 ff1,169 bc0,151 | bl20) Instead of writing a long mixed up list or text about round characteristics. Theyr shrunk down in a standartized, fast and practical shape. This could visually standartise manufacturer data. Help in conversations/comperasions on diffrent rounds. Really shrink down information but with high data density and accuracy. And greatly help in development (a pure mess when having a lot of concepts with a ton of mixed up data). Units: (SU) standart units, and (aU) for special additional information (additional/advanced Units). -> Energy formula information: m = mass in grain (gramm is a pain in the ass to use because the many numbers behind the -> , <- and when translating grain in gramms). v = velocity in fps (most of the people that potentially would use the system do use fps, and its a good unit + works good with grains) e = Kinetic Energy, this is a tough one, most engineers seem to use Joule and all of my reference points of any cartridges i know are in Joule too. Ofcourse grains and fps result in ft lbs a bit more easy, there are calculators widly available taking grains and fps both showing ftlbs and J at the same time. -> Ballistic information: d = diameter ,eighter millimeter or inch? AND . or , ? Also the main question is lands or grooves? I usually use the true diameter like .224/ 5,7mm instead of "5.56". And .264/ 6,7mm instead of "6.5" What do you think? (+s m ) = sabot (if used) diameter and mass, written "(+)" because its an "aU" unit directly added in between standart units after the projectile diameter. This ofcourse is not writen with normal rounds. ff = Form Factor , so why does it come before bc? Simple: because it shows how efficient a projectile is shaped, good form factor projectiles have less heat flux while still having the same aerodynamics, than comperable bad shaped projectiles that have high weight for theyr diameter. Ofcourse not if the limit of using too light material is overstreched. bc = as we all know the ballistic coefficient (!G7BC!), resulting from diameter, weight, and form factor. -> Further optional/additional Information Untis: ow = overall cartridge weight in gramm (or do you think grain is better?), to not be blinded by other cherry picking performance areas when the weight actually is unsuitable. r = recoil , that might be a bit more complicated and im not sure if it should be included. It solves like ow, to not be blinded by other performance area, when recoil is unsuitable. But recoil has serval seperate units, and some of them differ depending on weapon weight. So whats in your opinion the best and solid recoil unit for comperasion? Recoil Impulse -> doesnt change Recoil Velocity -> does change with diffrent weight Recoil Energy -> does change with diffrent weight So Impulse seems the most usable and important unit. So should it stay r, or become ri as unit? Bl = barrel lenght in inch, that might even should be a SU - standart unit, because trowing around performance data that might actually differ in barrel lenght without noting it doesnt make much sence. Like when performance might look good but the barrel lenght is actually unsuitable. The entire round configuration in general would be imprecise and out of context, when no barrel lenght is given. p = propellant / propellant charge , the amount of propellant used in grains, for comparing loadings, estimate or calculating heat flux, and verry clearly show efficiency. For some additional "superduper advanced" units... KE/mm² = kinetic energy in Joule per mm² , mpbr = maximum point blank range (suggestions at what target size? i would say 6") , pp = chamber peak pressure, e@1000 = kinetic energy @1000m (or yard?) , t@1000 = trajectory/drop @1000m (zeroed at mpbr). Ofcourse all other ranges can be used, like t@800. Thats it, any sugestions on reducing, or adding additional units are welcomed, even tough i came up with it, i see it as a project of Us. ->Short recap of what we got: (m , v , e , d , ff , bc , bl) And optionally ow , r , p ->Now lets think about visual writing, it should be shrunk down but visually clear, as said containing high data density. I just abolished the basic visual concept because this is in a better visual order: Concept with the given units, space button to keep it clear (- and / make it less visually clear) and | as order for main unit areas: (m62 v3150 e1852 | d5,7 ff1,169 bc0,151 | bl20) With additional units and . instead of , = (m60 v3150 e1852 | d5.7 ff1.169 bc0.151 | bl20 |+ow12 p27) (Note: ~ff1,169 is what i got from .224 and 1,51 G7BC) How should the place of the space should be at the | ? -> (m62 v3150 e1852 | d5,7 ff1,169 bc0,151 | bl20) -vs- (m62 v3150 e1852| d5,7 ff1,169 bc0,151| bl20) -vs- (m62 v3150 e1852 |d5,7 ff1,169 bc0,151 |bl20). no space between | make it slightly more compact, but doesnt seem worth the disadvantage in visual clearance. So the current visual shape is (m62 v3150 e1852 | d5,7 ff1,169 bc0,151 | bl20) with depending measurements of your round. The name of the round is simply written infront of it. The post looks large at first glance, but the System itself is really small. It wont take long for you to get used to it, and write it fast. => fast high data density -> So what could be better to test the system than using your favorite historical cartridges, lets test if people can quess the cartridge! Or come up with some smoking hot wunder-loads, you always dreamed of. Now lets talk about the IAC-Sys® concept and refine it! Have fun.
  9. Starting now to write on the topic i spoke of yesterday. Im done in one or a few hours, depending on if i get distracted. DONE: http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1451-new-international-ammunition-classification-system%C2%AE-open-concept/#entry85617 have fun
  10. Thanks. Did just read the definition of Hoop Stress, etc, known the physic behind it but not the math. Now found this calculator http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stress-thick-walled-tube-d_949.html, there seem to be no savety factor notes. Also theyr always called "calculation for thin/thick walled cylinder". Which one should i use thin/ or thick? Chamber: 55000psi , 10mm case diameter, 22mm Chamber diameter (6mm walls). Used data: 55000psi ; 14,69594878psi as standart atmospheric pressure ; 0,19685" inside radius ; 0,433071" outside radius ; 0,314961" radius to the middle of the wall. Axial Stress: 14304 Hoop: 41376 Radial Stress: -12767,5 Does the results make sence? Is it safe/or unsafe with verry high quality steel? How to include savety factor.
  11. Tomorrow i will bring up a really interesting idea and topic, something im working on a while but never had the chance to talk about with the right people. Stay tuned.
  12. Dang. How much did you paid for the Steyr SCF? I got so desperate a year ago, that i even tried to handmade a SCF and Flechette . Maybe i do some photos the next days on a few of my cartridges.
  13. The thing is, i dont even have a problem with it in therms of hunting. If some people think they need it (price is questionable for its performance), they can go on. Its just an individual choice that doesnt matters for anyone else. But... for me everything ends when people promote, heavy, slow, TOTALLY shitty ogive, poor aerodynamic, brass bottleneck cartridges for the "new military replacement". Thats literally my worst nemesis topic in existence.
  14. 6.8SPC haters club? Count me in! Im damn right here.
  15. I did read almost everything of him on TFB. Im like 40times a day on there. Also did read everything on 196800rpm. Still thanks for recommending it in case. ___NEW Topic: about Barrels-> whats the minimum wall thickness thats save for a chamber (55000psi). + what would be the smallest that even would hold up. And whats the wall thickness you would use on an automatic Rifle (not for the "automatic rifleman", just for a rifle that can technically shoot fullauto).
×
×
  • Create New...