Tuners some info.

Assuming the Da's are right and the rifle was truly completely in tune at 1000, was it half-way back into tune at 8000?

Or, is there enough slop that you're just conveying the general idea that the tune is sinusoidal?

Just trying to get a common sense handle in the Da idea.

Greg J.
 
Gene, you stated that DA related tune repeats at 4000 ft cycles. In my test there was a 2.25 cycle change which surely would have shown some state of tune difference. I have seen small changes in DA which should not account for the state of tune going away that occurs when RH changes of 20% or more. At the last NBRSA nats ( think it was 98)at Fairchance there was a HOF shooter shooting big round .250+s in the LV 100. A 2 degree temp drop and a 30+% increase in RH occurred between match 2 and 3. A short rain shower occurred. He shot the next 3 groups in the zeros with temp coming back up 3 degrees but the RH stayed up. I asked him what he changed and he said absolutly nothing but had no idea why the gun suddenly went to shooting as it did the early morning SP matches 1 and 2. The normal daily progress is increasing temp, DA and dropping RH. There a clue there. I think RH affects the powder fouling. When it is high the brush goes through easier than when it drys out. I believe this surface change is affecting the rise time and thus the exit timing. The bullet spends over half of the barrel time moving the first two inches. When I used a Oehler 43, the consistancy of the rise time was critical to grouping size. A powder fouled out barrel shows erratic rise times and graphs. I do not doubt that tuners can be used to compensate for what is going on. But, what is really occurring?
 
While following this interesting thread, I began thinking, "Wouldn't it be nice if you could simply make marks for known atmospheric pressures (DA?/barometric pressure?) on the tuner - adjust the tuner - go to a bench - and be in perfect tune?"

I suppose it couldn't be that simple.

Tony



Tony, I have a friend who has done exactly that. I hesitate to use his name unless he says it's okay but he has proven to me that it can be done; at least, pretty darn close. There are times in which his calculations have been off a little but I attribute that to factors beyond his control such as degree of barrel fouling, slight differences from one barrel to the next etc.

My tuners have only one reference mark and can easily be positioned just by eyeballing. If I asked you to place the reference mark in the 1:30 position, you could do that; couldn't you? Of course you could and if I then instructed you to make a quarter turn toward the breech, you would place the reference mark in the 10:30 position.

Simple; huh? :)

Gene Beggs
 
Assuming the Da's are right and the rifle was truly completely in tune at 1000, was it half-way back into tune at 8000?

Or, is there enough slop that you're just conveying the general idea that the tune is sinusoidal?

Just trying to get a common sense handle in the Da idea.

Greg J.


Congratulations Greg,

Your post tells me you are not only paying close attention but you also understand what I'm saying. :D

You are very observant to notice the half out of tune situation in my response to Jerry Hensler's post.

And yes, you are right, there is slop in these numbers and I'm only trying to point out that the tune is, as you say, sinusoidal.

During the past year or so, I have been getting away from referring to density altitude because so many are trying to make something hard out of it. I am also avoiding the use of formulaes, graphs, etc. This stuff is really not that complicated although many try to make it so. :rolleyes:

Oh, it's nice to understand this stuff in great detail but it's not necessary from a shooter's standpoint. All the shooter needs to remember is that no matter where he is or what the conditions are, he cannot possibly be more than a half turn out of tune when using a Beggs tuner. After fouling the barrel and getting the scope adjusted to his liking, the shooter fires a three shot test group on the sighter. The group/barrel will tell him one of three things:

1. I'm perfectly in tune! :D

2. I'm a quarter turn out of tune. :eek:

3. I'm fully out of tune. :mad:

Well, you have been paying close attention and know the rest of the routine. :) Pretty simple; huh? :cool:

Later

Gene Beggs
 
Gene,
I have always been told that a picture is worth a thousand words. When one of your responders started throwing out words that sounded like "sine wave", I went to Google and typed in "sine wave" . I picked the 1st entry which happened to be Wikipedia. About halfway down their page they showed a moving example(under "occurances"). I knew what a sine wave was, but wasn't sure about "sinusoid". Anyway, the animated example they show might look like a sine waves fundamental relationship to a circle, but to me it looked liked like a rifle barrel(the box) with a bullet going down the barrel(the circle) and the sine wave(the green thingie) as time/harmonics. Is this an illustrated example that might clear up to some people what you are saying or am I all wet? It looks like the time in the barrel could change where/when the bullet exits. Looks clear as a bell to me but then I have kind'a always thought out in left field ! :D

Best,
Dan Batko

"Where are we going and why am I in this basket?"
 
Question For Geo.Ulrich

Hey George, when you initiated this thread you said,

"This will probably generate some interesting responses."

It HAS done that; hasn't it? :D

I'm certainly looking forward to meeting and visiting with you. :)

Gene Beggs
 
Gene, sorry I ruffled your feathers. I wasn't trying to do anything but point out that it's the weight of air, or that is the inertia of the weight of air, that causes the bullet to compress the air. So when you say the weight is not important, you are wrong - the weight is almost all important. I'm not knocking your writing skills or your use of words. I'm simply pointing out a principle of physics.

Incidentally these principles have nothing to do with who I am or what I have done in the past, nor do they have anything to do with who you are, or what you've done. Why is it when somebody makes a statement in this forum and someone else points out it violates scientific laws, they immediately take it as an insult pointed at them personally.

It's kinda like Bill Calfee - whenever somebody made fun of Bill's crazy understanding (misunderstanding) of natural laws, they think they're taking a dig at bill himself!
 
Last edited:
Pacecil

Do you really enjoy taking the air out of every room you enter? Perhaps you thought they were all filled with Nitrogen as well, eh ?
 
Last edited:
Pacil and vibrate, I understand that both of you are experts or you pretend to be. Have I seen your name on any winning list? I have followed you both for a bit and all I have heard is everything the successfull shooters have found is not true. It sounds to me in your rebuffs is that you can tune a rifle and nothing that is happening changes. What are we missing? Are all of the guys going to hell in a hand basket when things change because of their weird minds and no other reasons? You seem to try to refute all these things, but in all of your infinite wisdom, where is the answer?
Butch
 
If we had to deal only with the WEIGHT of the air in the bore it would indeed be insignificant but it's not the weight that we have to deal with, it's the fact that the air must be compressed and pushed out ahead of the bullet against the weight of the atmosphere.

Comments? Questions?

Gene Beggs

Gene,
I am glad we can agree that the change in weight of the air in the barrel is insignificant. (For the record, the air in the 22" 0.308" diameter barrel at 20C and one atmosphere of pressure weighs 0.498 grains, but the CHANGE in weight with temperature, altitude, etc. is much less.)

OK, so let's look at the force required to push the air out the barrel. There is about 50,000 psi pushing on the base of the bullet, which is in turn pushing on the air in the barrel. What these two must push against is the air in the atmosphere, which under standard conditions is pushing back with a pressure of 14.7 psi. The driving pressure is thus 50,000 - 14.7 = 49,985.3 psi. Now let's decrease atmospheric pressure by 2 psi (a large amount, by atmospheric standards). This increases the driving pressure to 49,987.3 psi, a 0.004% increase that would result in a change in muzzle velocity from 3050 to 3050.1 (from post #63). Not large enough to explain anything.

So what could the important effect be? Gene, as you asked me to, please open your mind and consider this: The thermal capacity of an 80 oz stainless steel barrel is 1135 joules per degree Kelvin. Compare this to the amount of energy that we get out of the gunpowder, for the 30BR, about 2200 ft lb or 2983 joules. So the barrel, by soaking up enough heat to raise its temperature one degree Kelvin quenches over 1/3 as much energy as we get out of the charge! :eek: That is a huge effect.

Now how can the amount of heat that the barrel quenches change? By changing in temperature! Gunpowder burns at about 800 K, and a barrel at 80 F = 300 K gives a temperature difference of 500 K. Convective and conductive heat transfer is proportional to temperature difference, so a 10 K increase in temperature will cause a 2% decrease in heat quenched. Less heat quenched means more energy to drive the bullet to higher velocity. By the proportions above, a 0.76% increase in muzzle velocity from 3050 fps to 3073. Now that is enough to affect tune!

Granted, these are back-of-the-envelope (literally!) calculations, but they suggest that barrel temperature could be the important factor that changes tune. Jerry's experiments also suggest that it is temperature and not atmospheric density. Denton Bramwell's experiments show the same thing.

What do you think?:)

Cheers,
Keith

Jerry,
Your idea about the drag of fouling increasing with humidity is interesting. Maybe it could be tested by measuring muzzle velocity from clean and fouled barrels in both low and high humidity, at the same temperature. Have you already done this?
 
Actually I think internal drag decreases with high humidity based on how the first pass with a cleaning brush feels. Relatively easier and less likely to squeak on the powder fouling when the RH is high. Powder fouling squeak occurs a lot quicker in dry air. I just specifically found a dramatic decrease in velocity with rising RH with the new 8208. I had not noticed it before one way or the other with other powders. I have not been looking for that either though. But, it was so pronounced with this new powder that I noticed it right away.
 
Last edited:
Actually I think internal drag decreases with high humidity based on how the first pass with a cleaning brush feels. Relatively easier and less likely to squeak on the powder fouling when the RH is high. Powder fouling squeak occurs a lot quicker in dry air. I just specifically found a dramatic increase in velocity with rising RH with the new 8208. I had not noticed it before one way or the other with other powders. I have not been looking for that either though. But, it was so pronounced with this new powder that I noticed it right away.

Oops, yes, decrease with humidity. I saw that but didn't type it correctly. Humidity's effect on air density and internal ballistics doesn't seem like the right alley to be looking down. The bullet drag concept seems more plausible. So maybe the new 8208 is worse than other powders in this regard?

I am looking for a copy of this paper:pROJECTILE SLIDING FORCES IN A RIFLED BARREL. Stiffler, A.Kent Source: International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, v 25, n 2, p 105-119, 1983. Maybe it will talk about the effects of fouling.

Cheers,
Keith
 
Gene,
I am glad we can agree that the change in weight of the air in the barrel is insignificant. (For the record, the air in the 22" 0.308" diameter barrel at 20C and one atmosphere of pressure weighs 0.498 grains, but the CHANGE in weight with temperature, altitude, etc. is much less.)

OK, so let's look at the force required to push the air out the barrel. There is about 50,000 psi pushing on the base of the bullet, which is in turn pushing on the air in the barrel. What these two must push against is the air in the atmosphere, which under standard conditions is pushing back with a pressure of 14.7 psi. The driving pressure is thus 50,000 - 14.7 = 49,985.3 psi. Now let's decrease atmospheric pressure by 2 psi (a large amount, by atmospheric standards). This increases the driving pressure to 49,987.3 psi, a 0.004% increase that would result in a change in muzzle velocity from 3050 to 3050.1 (from post #63). Not large enough to explain anything.

So what could the important effect be? Gene, as you asked me to, please open your mind and consider this: The thermal capacity of an 80 oz stainless steel barrel is 1135 joules per degree Kelvin. Compare this to the amount of energy that we get out of the gunpowder, for the 30BR, about 2200 ft lb or 2983 joules. So the barrel, by soaking up enough heat to raise its temperature one degree Kelvin quenches over 1/3 as much energy as we get out of the charge! :eek: That is a huge effect.

Now how can the amount of heat that the barrel quenches change? By changing in temperature! Gunpowder burns at about 800 K, and a barrel at 80 F = 300 K gives a temperature difference of 500 K. Convective and conductive heat transfer is proportional to temperature difference, so a 10 K increase in temperature will cause a 2% decrease in heat quenched. Less heat quenched means more energy to drive the bullet to higher velocity. By the proportions above, a 0.76% increase in muzzle velocity from 3050 fps to 3073. Now that is enough to affect tune!

Granted, these are back-of-the-envelope (literally!) calculations, but they suggest that barrel temperature could be the important factor that changes tune. Jerry's experiments also suggest that it is temperature and not atmospheric density. Denton Bramwell's experiments show the same thing.

What do you think?:)

Cheers,
Keith

Jerry,
Your idea about the drag of fouling increasing with humidity is interesting. Maybe it could be tested by measuring muzzle velocity from clean and fouled barrels in both low and high humidity, at the same temperature. Have you already done this?



Keith, for you and I to discuss this any further would be frustrating and futile in my opinion. Your train of thought is completely different from mine and the reason for this is because we come from completely different backgrounds.

Evidently you are a well educated man who is skilled in math, physics, engineering, etc., while I am one who has spent a a great deal of my 67 years airborne in both small and large aircraft. I have LIVED in the air, I KNOW what it FEELS like and have experienced first hand the affects of temperature, barometric pressure, velocity, altitude, mach numbers etc. It is easy to understand why you and I are on different tracks with this rifle tune thing. I respect your point of view and can understand why you cannot see what I see. So I guess it would be best if we just agree to disagree and mosey on down the pathway of life in our own worlds. :) Best of everything to you my friend. :)

Sincerely,

Gene Beggs
 
Last edited:
Jerry's hypothesis that humidity's influence on internal ballistics due to the changes it produces in the physical characteristics of powder fouling seems to me to be original in the field of smokeless powder shoulder arms, and until others have actually experimented along those lines, it would seem to me that conjecture as to its validity is premature, sort of like folks who have never tried a tuner having strong opinions on that subject. Maybe, at some point, it would be better to actually do a little experimenting and come back to the discussion with the results.

One thing his theory does remind me of is the breathing tubes that some serious black powder shooters use to keep powder fouling soft between shots, and thereby improve accuracy, due to an improved uniformity of internal ballistics. Wait a minute...that would mean that in another area of shooting, his theory is already accepted as the basis for procedures that are in common use. That can't be right.:D BTW, lest we forget, an effect can have more than one cause, each of which contributes to the result. Also, we tend to attribute the greatest importance to causes that are most visible and which we have the tools to most easily measure. I have no idea whether Jerry is right, but I sure do admire his thinking out of the box approach, in much the same way that I do Gene's work on barrel indexing.
 
Even as an Aussie, I must say that the powders brewed by Mulwex here are about the foulingist that I've experienced this side of black & Winchester 785, in which case I wouldn't dismiss Jerry's observations out of hand. Having said that, we find that among our home grown stuff, the smaller the granulation (faster the powder) the cleaner the burn.
 
Pacil and vibrate, I understand that both of you are experts or you pretend to be. Have I seen your name on any winning list? I have followed you both for a bit and all I have heard is everything the successfull shooters have found is not true. It sounds to me in your rebuffs is that you can tune a rifle and nothing that is happening changes. What are we missing? Are all of the guys going to hell in a hand basket when things change because of their weird minds and no other reasons? You seem to try to refute all these things, but in all of your infinite wisdom, where is the answer?
Butch
Butch. Please be so kind as to leave me out of that grouping, the association doesn't fit. I'm of the opinions that tuners WORK. I may argue the WHY theories, but not the fact. I'm trained in engineering and dabble in shooting so I do not argue what works and what doesn't - though I will argue the WHY when it is crossways of proven physics. I firmly believe that Gene's tuners work exactly as he describes them. I'm of the opinion that we as a group will get farther with a good understanding of the physics behind what works faster than continuing the hunt, peck and copy route.
 
So I guess it would be best if we just agree to disagree and mosey on down the pathway of life in our own worlds. :) Best of everything to you my friend. :)

Sincerely,

Gene Beggs

Gene,
You are probably right, but let me give it one more shot, this time with no equations.

Flying and external ballistics have a lot in common, but internal ballistics is different. Instead of a relatively weak motor to just barely match the air drag force so that you can maintain constant air speed, you have in the rifle barrel an ENORMOUS thermochemical reaction happening at your tail. So large that air drag is puny by comparison. It is just your mass and a big PUSH from behind creating rapid acceleration. Think of riding a Saturn V, but thousands of times faster. Just you and all that rocket fuel, no matter whether there is atmosphere or not, you're going somewhere fast! Heat transfer to the barrel is like taking some of your fuel away, it has a direct effect on how quickly you accelerate.

I can appreciate your looking for answers in flying, but this is different. Reminds me of a joke (I hope you won't be offended): A man encounters a blond looking at the sidewalk under a street lamp and asks her what she is doing. "I dropped my keys when I got out of my car," she says. He asks her where her car is. "Over there." Well, why aren't you looking over there? "I can't see anything over there, silly, it's dark!"

All the best to you, too, Gene.:) Hope we get to meet in person sometime.

Cheers,
Keith
 
Back
Top