Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AR Barrel twist: Bullet stability or accuracy

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by no_problem, Mar 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. no_problem

    no_problem Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    When the AR began life back in the 60's, they came with 1:14" twist. This twist rate, when used with a 55 grain bullet, barely stabilized the bullet. The result was that the bullet tumbled upon impact, causing great bodily harm. As the AR modernized, barrels got shorter, and twist rates got faster. Today, 1:9" and 1:7" are common. These new faster twist rates stabilize the bullets much more, in some cases lighter bullets in these twist rates might twist so fast that they heat up and begin to deform from the heat of the fast twist.

    There is little argument that today's faster twist rates do much more to stabilize the bullets, increasing their accuracy at farther distances. But the faster twist rate seem to negate the heavier damage that a tumbling slower twisting, lighter bullet can do.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2008
  2. no_problem

    no_problem Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    Edited to add:

    The original AR's had 1:14" twist rates, but they soon changed to the 1:12" twist rate which saw service throughout the Viet Nam conflict. The 1:12 twist rate seems to stay in the M16 A1.
     
  3. JWarren

    JWarren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,632
    Location:
    MS and LA
    You failed to mention that the faster twist barrels were developed to stabilize heavier grain bullets.

    It becomes an apples and oranges discussion.


    -- John
     
  4. wilson

    wilson Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    203
    Dont all FMJ bullets tumble.
     
  5. JWarren

    JWarren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,632
    Location:
    MS and LA
    Not necessarily.



    -- John
     
  6. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    Lighter bullets may spin so fast they fly apart from the force exerted on them, it is not a heat related failure.

    Twist rate has nothing to do with the bullet tumbling once it enters a body. Twist rate is not a component of wounding.
     
  7. Coltdriver

    Coltdriver Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Colorado
  8. no_problem

    no_problem Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    Good observation, JWarren. Newer, faster barrel twists ARE designed for heavier bullets. So today's AR, with it's heavier bullets flying at a faster twist rate, makes for a heavier and more accurate projectile that has a longer distance. But is that a more effective battle rifle round than a slower, lighter bullet that may tumble once it hits it's target?

    Also, today's heavier bullets which flies faster, more stable and farther, and also has no cannelure, is less likely to break up upon impact. The older 55 grain bullets had a cannelure, and sometimes tumbling bullets may split or break up at the cannelure thus creating two projectiles.
     
  9. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    The heavy OTM bullets that are popular for defensive use today upset and fragment easier than the usual mil rounds making them a better choice for short barreled weapons.

    There is a lot of missinformation you seem to have. I would strongly recommend you register at http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi and read the terminal effects forum. There is a lot of really great work there by people like Dr. Gary Roberts, and I mean quality work too, stuff's that been published in peer reviewed journals following proper procedures.
     
  10. no_problem

    no_problem Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    "There is a lot of missinformation you seem to have. "

    Thank you for your opinion and your sources. I too have my sources. These comments resulted from the article in Tactical Shooter magazine, Vol 3, No 7.

    I am not sure what I did to deserve an insult, but I feel that I have brought a legitimate and pertinent discussion to bear.
     
  11. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    Heh. OK. Care to quote?

    Mike
     
  12. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Failing to agree with your unnamed source of information is not an insult.
     
  13. no_problem

    no_problem Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    To avoid plagirizing, please purchase the magazine yourself. Tactical Shooter, Vol 3 No 7

    The discussion in the copyrighted article begins on page 79.

    The topic is about the Armalite/Colt design that barely stabilizes bullets of typical weight and length and discussions of complete disembowelment with torso hits and heads and arms being blown completely off
     
  14. no_problem

    no_problem Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    << Today, 11:32 PM #12
    Bartholomew Roberts
    Moderator


    Join Date: 12-26-02
    Location: Texas
    Posts: 9,327

    Quote:
    I am not sure what I did to deserve an insult
    Failing to agree with your unnamed source of information is not an insult.>>

    Point taken, No Problem.

    Sources and citations from copyrighted materials provided.

    Tactical Shooter magazine
    222 McKee Street
    Manchester Ct. 06040
    Phone (860) 645-8776
    President: Dr. Richard Maretzo
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2008
  15. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    What is the date of this publication?

    Mike
     
  16. no_problem

    no_problem Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    342
    Aug 2000
     
  17. ny32182

    ny32182 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,733
    Location:
    Clemson, SC
    Plagarism means that you try to take credit for the writings of others. If you quote it in context and don't try to take credit for writing it, it isn't plagarism.

    After more extensive reasearch, you will find that it is widely accepted that the weight distribution of a bullet determines if it will tumble, and its construction determines if it will break apart during a tumble. Twist rate alone has nothing to do with it.

    Also, modern heavier bullets tend to be fired a relatively lower velocities than the M193 type 55gr rounds. Their construction allows them to break up at lower velocity than M193, which is why they are said to work well in short barrels...
     
  18. mc223

    mc223 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    Just Down the Road
  19. Hunter0924

    Hunter0924 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    North Carolina
    As I understand twist rate it is not really the bullet weight but length that determined ideal twist.
    Longer bullets (usually heavier but not always) require a faster twist to stabilize.
     
  20. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    There is no insult intended I'm just pointing out that articles published in wound ballstics jounals by the experts in the field today contradict what you read in an 8 year old magazine article. I then pointed you to a source where you could find up to date research based on good scientific methodology. What you do with that information is entirely up to you. More importantly to me is that the 3rd party see there is another side to the story and can make an informed choice of their own.

    At the very least I would urge you to examine some of the other claims maid by the article such as the one that says heat is what causes rounds to fly apart. If that is wrong, do you trust the other stuff in the article?
     
  21. whistler

    whistler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    fort worth
    how could anyone design a bullet to tumble on impact when the angle of impact will always be unkown?
    rate of twist depends on length and speed of a bullet.
     
  22. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    This is addressed well in the link above, its the natural behavior of the bullet because its center of gravity is toward the rear. The spin from the rifling can keep the bullet stable in flight, but not in tissue. When it hits tissue the bullet wants to yaw so the heavier end of the bullet can be in the front. For the rounds we're likely talking about the velocity will be great, the forces on the bullet stronger than it can take, and then the bullet fragments. The back wants to swap ends with the front and the angle you fired it into the tissue at doesn't change that.
     
  23. rangerruck

    rangerruck Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    8,374
    Location:
    Texas, baby!
    once again, we can thank the air force, seems they screwed us all 100 yrs ago, When we were first thinking of the 6mm lee-navy. then , when everyone first liked the ar, before it got all screwed up, the air force decided that the ar didn't work past 10 degrees below, and would not adopt it, until changes were made. This brought the first twist change down to 1/12, which as you know , really stabilized the 55 grain bullet, which pissed off the testers, the origional designers, the first dudes with feet on the ground in Viet Nam, etc.,...
    If you want to read a great article, get the latest issue of Small Arms Revue. There is 1 of a 3 part series of intervues with Jim Sullivan; He was one of the dudes who worked on the Stopette,ar10, stoner 62/63, chiclette gun, chain gun, ar 18, ar 16, etc. He is still griping about problems, that congress has never bothered to make sure got fixed, on the ar's.

    At least we got the 220 Swift out of the 6mm Lee.
     
  24. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    ny32182 is correct. This is mythology. In order to stabilize a bullet in a mostly liquid medium (and the human body is mostly water), you would need rifling that looks like a machine screw. The difference between 1:14 and 1:7 is pretty insignificant.

    The good thing is you don't have to take my word for it either. Just go find a round that fragments in gel or water filled jugs in 1:14 and then fire it through a 1:7 - it will fragment there too.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page