Why do some powders work better than other in certain chamberings?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Question:
Why do some powders work better than other in certain chamberings?
Answer: Thermodynamics

Cartridge performance is a function of three generic parameters: case capacity, bore size, and bullet weight. Neck angle, case length, and all that other stuff is just fluff for gun writers, add men, and blogs like this to expound on - they have very little real effect, some perhaps, but not much.

The concept of an “ideal powder speed” is a function of those three key parameters listed above and nothing else. The geometry of the cartridge and bullet seating depth come into play, but only in that they impact case capacity.

Link to an online Powley Computer that will do a lot of what Quckload will do, and costs you nothing:

http://kwk.us/powley.html

Sadly, the links to the supporting pages aren’t coming up today. Hopefully, that‘s a temporary issue they‘ll get corrected. There was a lot of good information there. (Update: all the links are working now).

Some of the math is explained on the Internal Ballistics Home Page:

http://www.mindspring.com/~sfaber1/

The scientific study of internal ballistics goes back to at least the 1880’s, when some of the best minds in physics, chemistry, and engineering worked for the military to develop the basic equations that are still used today in the simple thermodynamic models like Quickload, Load-From-A-Disk, and Powley‘s equations.

It’s funny. You can read some of these old text books and published papers that are over 100 years old, and you’d think you were reading from a recent copy of Handloader magazine. The basics haven’t changed. That’s not to say the science has stood still. The models that powder companies, ammo makers, and the military uses now are so advance it’s become nearly incomprehensible to the layman.
 
Last edited:
Just because. Some things ya gotta just believe. Who cares why. We could not predict it anyway. Most calibers have been around long enough that there are universally acknowledged powders that work well in most guns of that caliber.
 
ranger335v said:
Taking just your point 3, how/why do you believe a program is any more informative/correct than a manual, even given the book's gaps? And many manuals do give ballistics tables, some out very far. But others don't bother because they KNOW such computed tables are little more than guesses past maybe 250 yards. Inside that distance, trajectory rarely matters.
Internal ballistics program, like QuickLoad, calculates what is happening before bullet leaves the barrel. Its XX century counterpart is loading manual. Both provide muzzle speed either to external ballistic program, like QuickTarget, or ballistic tables to calculate bullet drop. The tables do not answer what the variation of the muzzle speed to expect from the weight/OAL imperfections.

In the above example of .1 grain and .007" OAL - how do you find with the loading manual or ballistic tables do you need to buy better scale or take care of the OAL? Or you see that your chrony gives 20fps spread, is it because of powder, OAL or anything else? Internal ballistics program can help you to figure out where to look next. With "shoot-to-test" approach you may spend a bit more for better equipment just to figure out that it is neither powder weight nor OAL.
ranger335v said:
A program certainly can't do any really valid projections largely because of the various tolerance differences you mention. In fact, that's a large part of WHY any such program is just a fancy WAG machine. Even the program's ballistic path projections are no more than approximations, partly because the B.C. changes in unpredictible ways as velocity changes. No one can program unpredictibles! Playing computer ballistics at home can be fun but it's little more accurate than most other computer games.
I do not need to predict muzzle speed up to thousands of an inch per second. I do not need to know bullet flight path up to microns - you are right, there are too many factors to consider absolute accuracy. Good program, however, at this time gives way better accuracy in the external ballistics than published ballistic tables, and can resolve more in the internal ballistics than a loading manual can.
ranger335v said:
Therefore, the only way to know much of anything is to range test it.
Ultimate Scientist believes that everything, including bullet, rifle and powder, know The Laws of Physics and obey. The Laws are so good that no unrest can ever be thought of. Sancta simplicitas.
 
jimkirk - the reason I haven't absorbed their knowledge is because I don't visit this subforum very frequently.

Bullfrog - I have Lee's book. Good read, I want more now.
 
Scythefwd
I really didn't mean anything by it. I just find it educational to visit most of the subforums on this site. Like I said, I read almost anything reloading-ballistics related, understanding is another matter

Jimmy K
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top