Impulse

My initial thought is that anything like this should be entirely in metric. Much of the time, small arms uses mixed units and those are an abomination.
 
I think I see what you're trying to do, but you will find that it will have very little descriptive power and will also not be a convenient shorthand. I studied similar ideas a few years ago, and the conclusion I came to is that essentially no shorthand is possible beyond what already exists with military load designations (e.g., M855).
 
More useful is to instead talk about classes of rounds, which is something I tried to help establish with the Modern Intermediate Calibers series. This groundwork would allow for greater fluency in conversations that compare the performance of different rounds, by giving anyone access to at least some kind of ballistic approximation and weight figures for different rounds.

Don't get impatient, the post has been up for a couple of hours and many of us here have lives.

I don't know much about small arms, so it might take me a bit to pick through it. Someone like Sturgeon, Ulric, or Collimatrix knows a lot more than I do.
 
I prefer the metric system to grains/fps, but that's just me.

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.

Don't you mean .270 deer-slayer-brush-killer-pig-hammer short?

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.

I actually like that scale just fine.

But, (slightly) back on topic, let's think about this here.
 
We need like a scale or something, call it the MRD scale or spectrum if you will (for "Military Reformist Demagogue" scale/spectrum), It could go like
 
 
Goddamn Irrational                                                                                                                            Fucking Lunatic
 
Tony Williams | Gary Roberts | Chris Murray | Pierre Sprey | BlackTailDefense (Alter ego) | Mike Sparks (Main Ego)
 
 
So we have a handy reference for more low key types, like "Jesus, he's going from Gary Roberts straight to goddamn Pierre Sprey any fucking moment at this rate!"
 
I can't decide if Tony Williams is worse then Gary Roberts though, that's a tough one, we must enter discussions to get our scale up and running for defensive purposes as soon as possible!

So I found this topic after checking the "Who's online" list. After reading this.... this dude designs cartridges!? No wonder the (military) firearms industry is shit.

Integrate a couple times in spherical or polar coordinates if I remembered right. 

Hi Impulse, welcome to SH.
 
 
Have you taken Calculus?  It's usually fairly straightforward to calculate the volume of a revolution of a curve.

Hello,
 
I'm not sure which nosecone variety your formula corresponds to, it doesn't look like any that I am familiar with (although it might just be in a different form).
 
Here is the formula for a tangent ogive (via wiki);
 



 
This site also has a discussion; http://tmtpages.com/tech/tangent_ogive.htm
Unless you make the ogive cover the whole semicircle, there will be a discontinuity in the curve at the nose (a point), is this what you meant by a true tangent ogive.
 
For whatever reason, most of the results when you google "tangent ogive" relate to bullet design, surprisingly few about rocketry or aircraft. Then again, most rockets probably use Sears-Haack bodies, which have less drag but are more complex to construct.
 
Finally, welcome to SH.

...
 
Unending thanks to Meplat for donating his booze money to keep the site running!

I'll rub your feet. 

I see Donald Trump needs to hire an aerospace engineer. If he's worried about costs, though, he could probably just settle for someone who posts at F16.net.
 

Everybody keeps saying that, meanwhile Trump appears to have packed his cabinet with McNamaras.
I hope that is what it is, but it also seems like Trump is especially vulnerable to reformer rhetoric.

All forum members are asked and encouraged to donate money to help keep the forum running. Every dollar helps. If you are interested in donating, please send money via PayPal to nfitch84@gmail.com. You have my thanks, and my assurance that your money will only be used to help keep the forum running, not for personal purposes. This is not e-begging; this site is run "FUBU" - for us by us. I will take care of any payment that does not get covered by the community, but help is wanted! Keep in mind that as the forum grows, the cost to keep it going will go up.

All contributors of any amount - even a just a cent - will get their names recorded below. If you do not want your name recorded, be sure to send me a PM saying so.

Unstart has already contributed, paying the full amount for this month's service, which has just been paid off. Thank you very much Unstart and anyone else who chooses to donate.