5000 fps...and if so...why?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Redlg155

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
2,725
Location
NW Florida
I was looking through my newest Lee reloading manual and noticed that I did not see a load over 5000 fps or so. The fastest listed is a 20gr bullet at approx 4600 fps.

Does anyone make a heavier, lets say 55 grain bullet at 5000 fps, and if so, are there any practical uses?

What's theoretical or proven speed limit before bullets explode in flight?
 
Last edited:
It's not the bullets that limit the speed.

It's the burn rate and expansion ratio of smokeless powder.

The fastest you can shove a projectile of any weight of any construction, is limited by how fast expanding powder gas can push it at safe pressure limits.

5,000 is about it with known smokeless powders we have available to us.

rc
 
compressing hydrogen gas in the chamber
But like I said, smokeless powder available to manufactures and handloaders is the limiting factor, not the bullets.

Rail guns and particle accelerators can shoot very small things even faster.
But they use electrons, not smokeless powder.

rc
 
I've always thought a tiny amount of high explosive such as trinitrotoluene would make for a superb propellant in a shoulder fired small arm, in order to propel a projectile far faster than smokeless powder allows. Unfortunately the pressures involved would require much sturdier construction than is typically found in modern small arms.
 
Smokless propellants expand at a maximum rate of about 6,000 FPS. Of course, you have to account for friction, so the limit on small arms bullet speed using smokeless propellants is a bit slower, around 5,200-5,300 FPS.

This is why modern artillery is smoothbore; The 120mm sabot KE penetrator rounds like the KEW-A1 are cookin at about 5,700 FPS.

It takes explosives or electromagnetic propulsion to go faster. Electromagnetic railguns can hit 35k FPS last time I looked, probably more by now.
 
"I've always thought a tiny amount of high explosive such as trinitrotoluene"

That's been tried with mercury fulminate, nitrocellulose, and nitroglycerine. Those folks soon found that you do not want a shock wave as produced by a true explosive. Even a little of it.

The propellant for the caseless H&K G11 is/was allegedly a denatured explosive rather than a conventional propellant but the key word is denatured. It had explosive chemistry but had been toned down to deflagrate instead of explode.
 
rc said:
But like I said, smokeless powder available to manufactures and handloaders is the limiting factor, not the bullets.

Rail guns and particle accelerators can shoot very small things even faster.
But they use electrons, not smokeless powder.

Did you bother to read the article? They do discuss rail guns early in the article, but the one that is the one under discussion uses "a charge of burning powder" to drive the first stage up to about 150,000 PSI. I doubt that it is black powder. Any handloader with sufficient resources (maybe Bill Gates?) could build the same type of staged compression gun to get extremely high velocities, it's a simple pressure vessel. The secret to it is the way they apply the impulse to the projectile.

From http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/22/science/fastest-gun-on-earth-goals-go-beyond-planet.html

In the first barrel, 3.5 inches in diameter, a charge of burning powder drives a heavy plastic piston down the bore, compressing hydrogen gas in the chamber ahead of it. When the hydrogen reaches a pressure about 10,000 times that of the atmosphere, a barrier disk ruptures and the hydrogen blasts into the second barrel, one inch in diameter, to drive another piston.
 
Last edited:
Talk about fast, the Air force and Navy, have a 12,000,00 mph hyper engine jet, it flies 20 times the speed of sound, NY to LA in 12 minutes. Problem is they keep blowing up, I think they lost 2 so far, what a weapon system that is when they get it right. They said that the paint peeled off the wings.
 
Dam I have to take a better look at my new Lyman reloading book. That's a screamin velocity!
 
"but the one that is the one under discussion uses "a charge of burning powder" to drive the first stage up to about 150,000 PSI. "

You mean the ny times has finally discovered what a light gas gun is?

The problem is that they are not all that useful.

We have used them for many years to simulate objects impacting satellites.
 
Didn't the old Remington .17 get real close to 5k?
My grandad used a .17 Remi bolt gun for turkey .... Just aim for the head. It usually vaporized it.
 
Not the paint but the actual skin of the craft. Bernoulli really messed up that design for them.
 
Yup.
As Jerry P said of the test, it just goes to show why the ramjet-rocket ground to orbit ship is not a good idea. You do not want to go hypersonic in atmosphere very much.
 
It's well known in certain circles that a classified small amount of micropulverized unobtainium electrically bonded to granules of certain powders will permit velocities in excess of Mach 7. The problem is that everyone within 1500 meters dies, unless they get out of the area quickly in their scramjet.
 
Ok...but what do we get when use the following criteria?

1. Weapon must be shoulder fired and man portable. A .50 cal Barrett is man portable, so that leaves some room for a heavier weapon.

2. Able to use a cartridge case to comtain whatever firing compound used.

3. Somewhat capable of accuracy.

I for one would like to see a .50 BMG case necked down to about 6mm/.243.
 
Or a 50 BMG necked down to 17 caliber....

dscn2450.jpg_thumbnail0.jpg


I got up to 4400 FPS(chronographed) with my 22-250 using 36 grain Barnes Varmint Grenades and Varget. Its right at the the top of max published load data. It couldn't be that hard to squeeze 600 more fps out of something similar.
 
I hope not, please tell me you are planning a test rifle fireman

I am thinking like 2 shots before the barrel is shot out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top