Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

NEW: International Ammunition Classification System® - open Concept


Impulse
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detailed posts like these often take a few days to get the attention of the people who can comment and contribute. Not all of us are gud at mathz. I'll be following along with interest, but I have no intelligent comments to make as of yet because y'all are talking about shit that is beyond me so far. It's also the holiday season, so not everyone is around. Take a deep breath and be a little patient. I'll be you'll get some interesting discussion in a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ulric read it but did not comment. 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.

 

Please realise that most of us aren't hyperactive kids wanting to show our worth. Most of us take our time to reply so we can give useful and relevant information. You wont see us go "Wow amazing idea!!" in our first post in the thread and half a day later "Actually, this can be done way better". We just take a day or so before we reply with something along the lines of "Interesting idea, but it needs some attention to points X, Y and Z for the following reasons".

 

Sooooooo...

 

Interesting idea, but I just woke up so I need a little more time to formulate a proper answer.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a nice idea for a catalog system, but please make it SI/metric. If it's a completely new concept, why use imperial anyway? Death to imperial.

 

But I don't think it'll work in everyday use. Like Sturgeon says, something like M855, 556 NATO or something works way better and is easier to use. Look at how steel classification etc works. There are numbered systems like Sxxx and AISI xxxx in use or named systems like Domex xxx, Hardox xxx Armox xxx, etc. All of these say a little bit about the type of steel, but not everything. To know everything about it you need something like a Stahlschlussel (Steel Key), which is a book with more detailed information about the various types of steel, like the actual composition of the steel. I think you should try to do the same for cartridges. (Although an ammunition encyclopedia already exists)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...