Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Moly in barrels

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    1,253
    yes that is true,
    BUT
    IF YOU SHOOT LONG STRINGS WITHOUT CLEANING
    IT IS A CLEAR ADVANTAGE TO SPEND THE MONEY ON
    BOTH THE MOLY AND THE POWDER.

    i do not know if hbn gives the same long term
    no cleaning advantage. it does shoot well,
    but i have never done/needed a long string
    lately. that may change with the 800-2000 yd
    matches.
    Quote Originally Posted by Butch Lambert View Post
    You didn't comprehend my post. Let's try it this way. I will have to spend more money on powder with moly bullets. That ain't rocket science is it.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    washington.........STATE that is.
    Posts
    10,709
    Harold Vaughn (Who IS (was) a Rocket Scientist) and an actual factual Big Letter Engineer knows all of the "simple physics" and "conventional wisdom" to be WRONG........

    In simple FACT, provable mathematically and testable empirically, reducing friction increases velocity all things being equal.

    period


    Harold posted here 3 times that I know of. Henry Childs (Engineer) quit this board because he got tired of arguing with folks whose only credential was "common sense" and who simply could not accept the fact that there are no mysteries in the world of ballistics. I'm no engineer but I spend an inordinate amount of cash money testing "theories"......if anyone wants to join me in testing this "lower friction" thing, let's play

    (the last time I did it I pushed bullets through the bore manually to eliminate engraving force, got them sliding then fired them. Maybe there's a better way?)

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    washington.........STATE that is.
    Posts
    10,709
    And Melonite......does it lower friction or raise it?

    Does it lower velocity? Or raise it?

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    washington.........STATE that is.
    Posts
    10,709

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    1,253
    sorry you are wrong...you are not looking at the whole system.
    reducing friction ALONE would increase velocity if NOTHING ELSE CHANGED.
    but in this case things do change...partially because of the reduced friction.
    the bullet moves forward, easier intially. this increases the volume of the combustion chamber( volume behind the bullet).
    larger volume, less pressure,
    less pressure slower velocity..
    the " all things being equal" is what gets you...all things are not equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by alinwa View Post
    Harold Vaughn (Who IS (was) a Rocket Scientist) and an actual factual Big Letter Engineer knows all of the "simple physics" and "conventional wisdom" to be WRONG........

    In simple FACT, provable mathematically and testable empirically, reducing friction increases velocity all things being equal.

    period


    Harold posted here 3 times that I know of. Henry Childs (Engineer) quit this board because he got tired of arguing with folks whose only credential was "common sense" and who simply could not accept the fact that there are no mysteries in the world of ballistics. I'm no engineer but I spend an inordinate amount of cash money testing "theories"......if anyone wants to join me in testing this "lower friction" thing, let's play

    (the last time I did it I pushed bullets through the bore manually to eliminate engraving force, got them sliding then fired them. Maybe there's a better way?)

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by CMaier View Post
    sorry you are wrong...you are not looking at the whole system.
    reducing friction ALONE would increase velocity if NOTHING ELSE CHANGED.
    but in this case things do change...partially because of the reduced friction.
    the bullet moves forward, easier intially. this increases the volume of the combustion chamber( volume behind the bullet).
    larger volume, less pressure,
    less pressure slower velocity..
    the " all things being equal" is what gets you...all things are not equal.
    Since burn rate is a direct function of pressure (the exponent may be greater than 1 also) all things are NOT equal.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    1,253
    i happen to agree with that statement,
    and it is what i said, more volume,
    lower pressure.
    maybe lower pressure is longer burn,
    slower burn,
    bottom line things did/do change.
    velocity drops in this case , with a slicker bullet.

    Quote Originally Posted by brickeyee View Post
    Since burn rate is a direct function of pressure (the exponent may be greater than 1 also) all things are NOT equal.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    washington.........STATE that is.
    Posts
    10,709
    Saying I'm wrong, even in a firm loud voice is very different from showing me wrong. All either of you have shown me, all you've proven is that neither of you has actally tested your hypotheses.....actually, your GUESSES

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    1,253
    you are entitled to your OPINION.
    i am entitled to mine.
    mine is back by years of shooting coated bullets.
    an engineering background and a bit of common sense.
    how about you test and prove me wrong ?
    i am happy where i am.
    as i pointed out your quote is out of context, because
    coating the bullet changes the overall picture. a change.
    ya have a good day al.

    Quote Originally Posted by alinwa View Post
    Saying I'm wrong, even in a firm loud voice is very different from showing me wrong. All either of you have shown me, all you've proven is that neither of you has actally tested your hypotheses.....actually, your GUESSES

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •