Originally Posted By: volleyfire
Some here seem to prefer ridicule over pertinent information. The dynamics of smoothbore shot is not a new topic. To believe that only modern information or personal experience is valid, proves the height of arrogance. Our ancestors exerted much more diligent study of the topic than is currently being employed... and they were quite educated.

Benjamin Robins wrote the "New Principles of Gunnery" in 1742.
He was a MATHEMATICIAN who revolutionized our understanding of ballistics. His work was based on Newton's principles, pendulum testing, and gunnery fire. His most important contribution was proof that a BALANCED load exceeded all others. He also addressed the FLUID nature of burning gunpowder moving a solid,
and the relationship of the MASS of a load to the bore.

There is much to be learned from old gunning treatises, including the fact that a load longer than the width of the barrel "Flew like a brick," which they knew, because they actually shot bar loads.

The square load is a point of reference, much like the center of a circle or the value of zero. Here is a link for anyone interested in studying testing which infers a principle.

The rest of you can find the same thing by shooting various lengths of cigarette filter with a rubber band. Wonko get someone to help you measure.


http://arc.id.au/RobinsOnBallistics.html


I was gonna call it a day on this but the above is just too stupid to pass. 1742 and bar shot? WOW!! I wonder what has happened in the last 400 or so years? Oh, yeah - modern information is bunk and filtered ciggies and rubber bands will tell you everything you need to know. I don't even know what you mean by "point of reference"? For what?
I don't want you to think I'm being facetious. I'm quite serious - you don't have a clue.
As far as measuring goes, vollyfire should get someone familiar with calcs in the low two digits to assist him in figuring his IQ.

The point here is that I can explain it to you, vollyfire, but you're really on your own understanding it since I certainly can't do that for you. Do you think that 500 years from now today's information will be more respected? And the researchers of 2600 even more slack than they are now? Compared to 1742 of course since that is the authenticity baseline we all now know.

And it continues to astound me that none here seem to have any understanding of how a shot column degenerates and the string develops. I suppose I expect too much from a general group that doesn't even understand how a choke restriction functions.

have a nice day


Dr.WtS
Mysteries of the Cosmos Unlocked
available by subscription
Facisti Va Fan Culo