Gun nuttery involves math
Overboreness. My head hurts.
One Response to “Gun nuttery involves math”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 7th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
It’s a complete waste of time. I find it mildly amusing that they’re not taking barrel bore volume into account, which is a major factor, but even then it’s a waste of time.
If you want performance x and you want to have a clue about it ahead of time, then get an interior ballistics program. If we’re talking about existing cartridges, then look up the data– the work’s already been done.
So you have a certain barrel length and a certain bullet, and you want to accelerate that bullet to a certain velocity without exploding the barrel. Whatever it takes to get to that performance level, you do it. You want to maintain a relatively constant pressure inside the barrel until the bullet leaves the muzzle, which meas there will be a huge amount of wasted energy as that high pressure gas leaves the barrel and makes a lot of noise. If you have a really, super inefficient cartridge/gun combination, big deal. What– you’re concerned about saving money on powder in your big game rifle? OK, then– put away the calculator and get a .270 Win.
Overbore schmoverbore. Who cares? Game animals, Jihadists, and other varmints know next to nothing about overbore or ballistics anyway.