The RPM Threshold

  • 6.9K Views
  • Last Post 16 January 2016
Larry Gibson posted this 04 January 2016

1. For the type of minor wrinkle or rounding that most of us reject what is the rpm where it causes a significant group enlargement. I asked this because it has been suggested that there is some kind of threshold which Vaughn's work doesn't imply.

2. Does anyone know of any testing that answers the above question or indicates that long distance magnifies the deflections caused by defects beyond a proportional to distance effect. Higher RPM does increase the deflection by defects. I have been conducting numerous tests over many years to answer just that question. Be advised there are 3 chapters to this tale. I’ll not engage in any discussion until I get all 3 posted. They are posted on the CBF forum and I am copying them here. The pictures and graphs have to be converted to .png to post so it takes some time…..so be patient before you begin question. The answers to most questions will be found by the time the 3rd chapter is posted. See attached pdf of tests. 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

Here's the M43 data print out from the test of the M118 (unaltered). The next is the 100 yard target of the balanced (unaltered) M118 and the unbalanced (altered) M118. Plain to see how inducing an imbalance in the bullet decreases accuracy.  I would show the 200 yards targets but suffice to say the unaltered M118 shot a very nice group right at 4” demonstrating linear expansion.  The altered M118 did not keep the 10 shots on the target (backside of a 100 yard military target - 23” x25") with 4 misses. That demonstrated non-linear group expansion as the range increases. LMG    

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

M118 Target

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 05 January 2016

LMG Interesting approach. Thank You. My particular Ballistic OCD just loves it when somebody else does the work. When I deduct what I consider truth from the work of  someone else, I have no moral guilt copying it from anybody. I don't go near any RPM threshold and have never had bullets fly apart. Reasonable recommendations from Lyman and Lee completely avoid that. My Rule: Spin bullets fast enough and they will hover if they are strong enough. I didn't write this for you to comment on before  you post Chapter 2. I did it for everybody else. Gary

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 05 January 2016

when i wuz programming i hated people that after i worked a complicated app into a beautiful creation indeed .... would add a function that was not in the original worksheet ....

so i will with much regret forward a request that results from channeling frank marshall .... and maybe harry pope .... and wonder what would happen if the unbalanced bullets were all oriented in the chamber the same ... ?

i most humbly apologize and realize that this has little to do with a professional scientific analysis of the unbalanced mass effect .... but dr. mann would say that the group might be about the same as the more perfect bullets ... but would they still be more than twice as large at double the range ??


your efforts in the furthering of our understanding of these naughty cast bullets are both very interesting and i am sure extremely appreciated . we will happily look over your shoulder and try to learn along with you.

thanks.

ken

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 05 January 2016

My first question regarding the testing is, who will the unbiased person be, doing the blind testing?

The second is why aren't we doing this testing with one rifle using 3 barrels of the same chambering (same reamer), contour and length?

Will there be at least four 10 shot groups with each powder charge, in each rifle?

Will we get at least two 10 shot groups, fired at 200 yds with each load, to get some idea of “linear expansion” of the grouping?

As JoeB would say, we gotta have data.

Though a lot of welcome work, I look forward to the scientific results.

Frank

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 05 January 2016

one simplification in testing that would expedite fact-finding

is that

small groups often are part of a larger group. but large groups are not likely part of a smaller group .

so especially when mean radius is used, large groups don't need as many shots to be highly significant . i think .

ken

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

Test Chapter 2; RPMTest; a tale with three twistsChapter 2;Test1 [311291 of 2/1 alloy]Yesterday broke clear with the promise of some warmth and little wind so I packed up the three rifles, the M43 PBL, the test ammo and the usual other necessary accouterments for the range and set off the Tacoma Rifle and Revolver Club to conduct the first test. The primary goal of this test was to see if we could determine what causes the 311291 cast bullet to loose accuracy at a certain level. On arrival at TRRC I proceeded to set up. The benches there are very solid benchrest designed and made. It was about 46-48 degrees in the shade of the firing line but was into the 50s in the sunshine. Wind was coming out of 11 oclock at 1-3 mph. The target distance was 103 yards. The testing was begun using the 10 twist rifle and then the 12 twist rifle and finally the 14 twist rifle. The barrels were cleaned between every two 5 shot groups with 2 foulers fired before testing was resumed. All data was collected via the M43 using pressure recording, muzzle screens and down range screens. Besides information on the rifle, load and test conditions the M43 provided data on the following information; Data recorded for each shot; see attached pdf.

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

That has long been a standard for cast bullets. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the cases for all three rifles were fire formed to the specific rifles and “match prepped” as such. The primers used are WLRs. Two powders were used. H4895, a medium burning powder, was used with a Dacron filler in 2 gr increments from 26 gr to 38 gr. This was expected, and did, to give velocities from 1700 fps or so up through 2500 fps.

The second powder tested was H4831SC, a slow burning powder, loaded in 2 gr increments from 40 to 46 gr to give from 90 to 100% loading density. The only sorting done with the 311291 bullets were to inspect them for wrinkles, voids of non fillout. None were weighed for segregation by weight.

The gas checks used were Hornady". They were pre-seated with the Lyman GC seater on a Lyman 450 with the .311 H die and then lubed in the .310 H die. The lube used was Javelina. At no time during the  test  was there any indication of leading or “lube failure".   All told in  Test  1 I fired 75 shots for record plus 10 foulers through each rifle for a total of 250 shots. After returning home it seemed a daunting task to sort through the data, measure groups and put it into some format that is easily presented on this forum. I could list all sorts of numbers in various manners but that would just get confusing. From the listed data the M43 provides on each shot plus the averages let me tell you I've got lots of numbers! I decided instead to put the pertinent data onto graph form.

That is a “visual" way to present information and it gives valid comparisons which are easy to see and make comparisons from. It is easy enough to pull additional information of the graphs if you want it. However the little squares of the graph did not scan well so if you want some specific information don't hesitate to ask. I couldn't get the graph on this computer to work right so I resorted to graph paper and hand plotted them.    Without further ado we might as well get to the meat and potatoes of this  test  . Graph #1 is a comparison of velocity and pressure. There was considerable consternation from some forum members that pressures would not be “exact” between the rifles. I stated that, disregarding the fact that there is always variation of pressures, even with the same load in the same rifle; the pressures need not be the same in each rifle. In fact they were not. When we graph out the velocity/pressure of the same increasing loads out of different rifles what we expect to see is a linear relationship between them. The linear lines for each (red = 10” twist, blue = 12” twist, green = 14” twist) should run fairly parallel. This gives us a valid comparison of the time pressure curves of each rifle with the other rifles time pressure curves. That's exactly what we see in graph #1. As the pressure increases the velocity increases pretty close for the 10 and 12&” twist rifles but the 14” had some problems. We also see a slight divergence as velocity increases. This is expected as the 12 and 14"; twist barrels were longer than the 10” twist barrel so velocity increased more as pressure was increased. Thus the comparison between the rifles is valid as the linear progressions are close to the same. Were one of them radically different then it would be obvious a comparison wasn't valid. However there is a slight anomaly with the 14” twist. We could pontificate as to why and probably come up with numerous reasons, most of which would probably be wrong. So let's what the data can tell us regarding that anomaly.


Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

The answer to the velocity/pressure anomaly with the 14” twist is rather simple and is demonstrated in graph #2. The relationship between pressure and velocity is encompassed in internal ballistics so we merely need to look at that data showing the consistency of the loads, i.e. how consistent the powder burns. Consistency of a load (given a test string of several shots) is most often expressed in Extreme Spread of velocity and Standard Deviation of the combined averages of velocity. SD tells us what a load may do but ES tells us what that load did do. Since I am interested in what the load did do I compared the ES consistency of the loads with the pressure. In graph #2 the loads of the 10 and 12” twists all had ESs of 50 fps or less. That is pretty good consistency given the spread of the loads velocities of 1700 fps through 2500 fps. The 14” twist had some early problems with the powder burning efficiently. We see the ES for the 2nd and 3rd test loads was considerably higher than the same loads in the 10 and 12” twists. That accounts for the small anomaly in the pressure curve of the 14” twist on graph #1. The other, and perhaps more important, piece of information graph #1 gives us is the time pressure curve of the same loads in the different twists. Obviously the curves are pretty close together and linear. Thus the time pressure curve or acceleration is very close to the same for each rifle.

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

Next let us consider the question; if the time pressure curves are the same then any deformation to the bullet due to acceleration will be close to the same. Thus if the deformation to each bullet is the same at the same rate of acceleration then any change to the form of the bullet will result in a change to the Ballistic Coefficient. Following that then won’t any changes to the BC be the same for each twist since any deformation of the bullet should be the same? To find the answer to that question we merely compare the BCs of the 3 different twists as the velocity increases (hence the acceleration increases and deformation of the bullet increases). Graph #3 provides the comparison of the BCs vs the velocities of each load in each twist. Let us remember that the BC in this case is a measured BC from the actual flight of the bullets not a guestimated one from some chart. These actual BCs measured the bullets ability to fly through the air efficiently. The higher the BC the less deformed and more stabilized the bullet was. It is readily apparent that the BCs stayed pretty much the same for all three twists during acceleration at all velocities and pressures. It is interesting to note that the BCs of the bullets from the 10” twist retained the highest BC at the highest velocity (acceleration). This is just the opposite what it would be as believed by some on this forum. The BCs from the bullets from all three twists stayed very close together and linear across the wide spectrum of velocity (acceleration) from 1700 to 2500 fps which obviously shows the acceleration remained constant regardless of the twist of the barrel. 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

So this is what we now know now about the same loads in the 3 different twists; the time pressure curve is very close to the same, the acceleration is very close to the same and the BCs remain very close to the same. 
 
Let’s now take a look at the results on target. After all what we are looking at in conducting this test is the accuracy at higher velocity and why that accuracy goes bad. Graph #4 shows us the group sizes vs pressure. Whoa there! Something is amiss….if the time pressure curves are the same, the acceleration the same and the BCs are the same; then if the groups get larger as we increase velocity shouldn’t the groups get larger by proportionally the same amount? [Note; by “proportional amount” is an amount to compare the accuracy of each twist to each other. The proportional amount factor of increase is found by dividing the increased group size by the smallest group with each rifle.] However, what we see is that the groups do not get proportionally larger as velocity increases. The inaccuracy of the 10” twist increases by a factor of 5.38 while the inaccuracy of the 12” twist increases by a factor of 3.14 and 14” twist increases by a factor of 2.08. 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

Hmmmmmm……pressure curve is the same, deformation of the bullet from acceleration is the same so then why doesn’t inaccuracy increase the same? Especially since graph #4 shows the group size vs pressure. But wait…there’s more (sorry, just couldn’t resist!). Doesn’t every one say that it is pressure that destroys accuracy? We do see that accuracy with all three twists is decreasing with the increase of pressure. If pressure was the only reason for the decrease in inaccuracy then the inaccuracy should be proportional and we find it isn’t. We also see a much greater increase of inaccuracy with the 10” twist than either the 12 or 14” twists. We also see the 12” twist’s inaccuracy to increase more rapidly than the 14”s inaccuracy. Again, if it was pressure that increased the inaccuracy then why doesn’t the inaccuracy of all three twists increase equally as the pressure increases? It seems there is something other than pressure adversely affecting accuracy and to a much greater extent.


Okay, let’s look at it one more way just to be fair. Graph #5 compares accuracy to velocity. Something wrong here again….that dreadful 10” twist is once again being more inaccurate by a greater proportional amount than either the 12 or 14” twists. How can this be? We know the acceleration is the same; the BCs are the same so the deformation of the bullet is the same yet the 10” twists inaccuracy is disproportional to the 12 and 14” twists. It should be the same amount of inaccuracy for each twist if pressure was the problem, right? The lines for each twist should be linear right? Yet we find the proportion of inaccuracy is not the same between the twists nor are the lines linear. Have we missed something? Is there another game afoot? We’ve a good handle on the internal ballistics. We know about the terminal ballistics as the group sizes are self revealing. But have we really looked hard at the external ballistics (the bullets flight)? We know the bullets are stable.  We know the BCs are getting smaller and the TOF gets longer as the velocity increases which is telling us there is some deformation from the acceleration. We know the 10” twist had the highest BC at the highest pressure and velocity so why isn’t it as accurate as the 12 and 14” twists? 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

Let us look at graph #6. It is a comparison of group sizes vs RPM. Note the very, very obvious adverse affect that the increasing RPM has on the accuracy of the 10” twist. That red line really climbs up there! Also note that area of RPM where the majority of accurate groups fall; it is in or below the RPM threshold. Also note that in or at the top end of the RPM threshold is where accuracy begins to deteriorate. 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

The tests with H4831SC seemed to be headed the same way but were inconclusive as top velocity was only 2287 fps with 100% loading density. The 10” twist velocity was 1928 fps through 2287 fps with groups running from 2.4” to 3.3” . RPM was 138,900 to 164,700. Conversely the 14” twist went from 1906 fps to 2265 fps. Groups ran .95” to 2.2” . RPM was 98,000 to 116,600. The highest peak pressure was 39,600 psi.M43. Thus I couldn’t get into a high enough pressure/RPM range with all three twists to make any comparison. 

I am not going to conclude that there is an RPM threshold as the test is not complete. I shall wait until I conclude the test before giving a firm conclusion. However, we see from the test so far that very firm evidence is being found to make a definite case that the RPM threshold is alive, well and readily producible. 

Note; a change of the testing direction was done after the original thread was posted. I switched from the 311291 (177 gr) to the 311466 (155 – 160 gr). The reason for the change was to increase velocity with a change to slower burning powders and to use a bullet with a design more conducive to HV accuracy.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Scearcy posted this 05 January 2016

My question is on a tangent - but a related tangent to be sure. The 308 Winchester has pretty much pushed the 3006 out of the Production and Hunter class matches. The 3006 standard factory twist rate has been 10” universally. For some reason there have been and continue to be many 12” twist 308s being sold. Are we suggesting that this is likely a contributing factor to the 308s dominance in our factory chambered classes. Has anyone ever combed through the match results to separate the 10” twist results from the 12” twist results?

Attached Files

Scearcy posted this 05 January 2016

I looked at the results of the 2015 Nationals. The 308s represented were both 10” and 12” twist. Unfortunately the Savages were 10” twist and all else was 12” twist. It appears brand will muddy the water of any comparison.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

RPM Test; a Tale with Three Twists

Chapter III; Test 1 [311466U]
 
The testing of the Lyman 311466U cast of linotype, #2 and 80/20 linotype/lead alloys focused primarily on the Palma rifle with the 14” twist chambered in .308W.  The reason was simple; the RPM threshold has already been established so the question becomes just how fast can we push a bullet cast of ternary alloy while maintaining useable accuracy (defined as 2 moa or less) and linear group dispersion size to at least 300 yards.  The 311466U was chosen because it has the design attributes for high velocity.  
 
This chapter is somewhat short because success at higher velocity keeping under the RPM Threshold came rather quickly and easily in the 14” twist Palma rifle.  Ten shot group sizes of sub moa to 1.5 moa became quite common at velocities between 2500 and 2550 fps.  The average ten shot group size was running right around 1.5 moa and was holding linear group dispersion to 300 yards.  I know that’s not setting any CBA records but pure accuracy was not the goal…..usable accuracy at as high a velocity as we could was the goal.  Here is a typical 10 shot group pushing the 311466U cast of #2 alloy right up to the top end RPM Threshold at 2656 fps (136,594 RPM).

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

I received my excellent made NOE 310-165-FN (30 XCB) mould from NOE about the same time. I had ordered a 4 cavity aluminum cut for #2 alloy to drop the bullets right at .3105 to .311. That is exactly what the bullets drop at. I have to congratulate the folks at NOE for their excellent product. I also at that time had completed my search for a quality 16” twist .308 barrel that would be at least 30” long. My experience thus far with the 14” twist Palma rifle and computer calculations showed a potential velocity of 2800 – 2900+ fps was possible with excellent accuracy. The key to that would be controlling the RPM by keeping it under the RPM Threshold. Now the RPM Threshold for the 16” twist is 2666 fps to 3111 fps. The 16” twist will also stabilize the XCB bullet at 1800 fps so I chose to order a Broughton barrel with a heavy Palma contour. It took about 4 months for the barrel to be delivered to goodsteel so in the meantime I conducted extensive testing of the 30 XCB bullet in my .308W Palma rifle with 14” twist barrel 27.6” long. Initial testing of the 30 XCB bullet showed excellent accuracy potential at high velocity immediately.

See attached pdf.

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

Shooting through two sets of screens simultaneously takes a bit of getting used to and I had a few “called” shots in the first couple test strings.  I had to get over the tendency to look at the screens instead the aiming point.  I shot the 1st 5 shots with the starting load on a different target to make sure of the zero.  Still, until you get used to it threading the bullet through all those screens, especially the down range screen opening which looks awfully small from 100 yards.  Those 1st 5 shots went into 1.1” which was looking good.

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 05 January 2016

The start load of 45 gr AA4350 started out very well though I pulled 2 shots “down and away” 
Total group size was 2.45”  with the 8 good shots in 1.6” .
The start load of 45 gr AA4350 started out very well though I pulled 2 shots “down and away” . 
The unforeseen problem was the psi 40,300 which is close to the top end for cast bullets of this alloy for best accuracy.
Obviously the full length bearing surface and minimal lube groove width had increased the psi.
The muzzle velocity was 2480 and the measured BC was .246. 
The 46 gr test load gave 42,500 psi, 2531 fps and a BC of .233.
The group size was 2.25”  with one for sure called down and away and another very good probable.
The 47 gr load, which I was anticipating to be the “accurate load” , did not disappoint me.
I put 8 of the 10 shots into 1.2” .
Two shots went high and were not “calls” ” ¦.all 10 shots were good shots.
Looking at the data I see those 2 shots (#7 & #9) were high end velocity wise (#7 was the high velocity) and both shots had the low end BCs” ¦.pretty low actually.
That indicates something was wrong with, or happened to those 2 bullets.
Give equal velocity the lower the BC the less stable in flight.
The muzzle velocity for this load was the desired 2605 fps but at 45,500 psi!
The BC was .231 and would have been higher except for those 2 low ones of #7 & #9 shots.”

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Close