My centerfire friends

K

Kathy

Guest
My centerfire friends:

Some thoughts about "muzzle devices"

Let's pretend, in some fashion or other, we could attach a ring weight to the muzzle of our rifle barrel......

Lets say we make up two, one ounce, ring weights, one of aluminum and one of steel.

If we attached the aluminum, one ounce ring weight, to the muzzle, it would have one degree of affect on the function of the muzzle device.

If we attach the steel, one ounce ring weight, to the muzzle, even though it weighs exactly the same as the one ounce aluminum ring weight, it has a slightly different affect on the function of the muzzle device.

Do you folks understand this? Have I made sense?

Now, if we add both of the one ounce ring weights to the muzzle, we get a different tuner function if the aluminum weight is placed first, than we do if the steel ring weight is placed first, against the muzzle.

Have I made sense here too?

I'm posting this thread for a reason......If the world don't end, in a very few days I will be testing a new muzzle device design......

More later, your friend, Bill Calfee
 
Logically aluminium will be more "dead" than steel and add less of it's own vibration to the barrel/tunner assembly. Ooops ..... muzzle device !! :)
 
Thank you Bill. Because I know exactly where this should go, and needs to. :D Assuming both weights are of equal ID and OD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
?????

I suppose what you are saying is different metals have different vibration characteristics,and different deading characteristics.
I hope you are not trying to tell us that in order to stop the muzzle, not only do we have to find the correct weight, but we also have to find the correct material for which to make the weight rings from.
I will say this up front. If the correct material is Plutonium, I am not fooling with it........jackie
 
Think "centroid" and "moment" - particularly as it applies to "Moment of Inertia".
 
I would guess for the the steel weight to be equal in weight to the aluminum weight it would be much thinner in width then the aluminum.

I will assume if you place the aluminum weight first then the steel weight it would bring you closer to stopping the muzzle than vice versa, since you are adding weight in small increments. How each weight is placed and where, will have a different reaction to stopping the muzzle. One is pushing the node out to the muzzle quicker than the other.

Bobby
 
That makes good sense Bobby.

I guess we will do the wait and see what comes next game before we find out Bill's thoughts !
 
Freind Bobby T

My friend:

I just came in from bedding a Spec rifle and saw your post.....

I won't quote from you, but you are exactly correct....

Bobby, and my Centerfire friends....the weight in front of the muzzle can be controlled in several ways....

I just got word, a few minutes ago, about the new muzzle device.....

The gentleman who is building them will, at some point, explain them, in detail..

Please my friends, I need to say something........just because we will be testing a new muzzle device, don't mean it will be worth a darn......

Read what friend Bobby wrote....he is correct...

The gentleman that is producing the new "muzzle device" has come up with a very clever way to add weight, or subtract it.....

My dear centerfire friends.....I'm an old guy, as dumb as they come...but...I love accuracy, more than anything in my life......why, I wish I knew...

Within three years, there will be a sub-tenth agg fired at 100 yards...in centerfire benchrest, with a rifle assisted by a muzzle devce..........

I will let you know what I think of the new muzzle device.....I will mix no words, good or bad....I mean, what have I to lose, either way...?

MY friends, I don't care who's right, or, who's wrong, I want killer accuracy, damit'..........Your friend, Bill Calfee
 
Bill

I just finished machining a 22 inch Krieger 1-13.5 twist, (one of my good ones), down to 4 pounds. Hopefully, this will knock off enough weight to to allow me to find the correct weight to "stop" the muzzle without going over 10.5 pounds. It looks sort of like a Sendaro Taper.
I will machine up some rings in 1/4 ounce increments. Maybe a 1/2 ounce, a 3/4 ounce, a one ounce, 1.5 ounce, two ounce, three ounce, four ounce, and five ounce. Of course, the three, four, and five will be from stainless.
I am going to thread a aluminum sleeve about 2.5 inches long with a .875 36 tpi on the inside. The OD will be 1 1/4 with a 36 tpi on it, ending in a shoulder. I will turn the end of the barrel down and thread it for a 1 inch length to fit the attachment. I will seat it against a small shoulder, and secure the threads with some JB Weld.
The rings will be bored to just slip over the OD of the sleeve, and be held in place with a spanner nut.
I will follow Lynn's advice on how to tune it. Anything you can add will be appreciated........jackie
 
My centerfire friends, continued

My centerfire friends:

Let's say we make up two, two ounce ring weights, one of aluminum and one of steel to go with our two, one ounce weights.

If we use the two, one ounce weights together, first with the aluminum against the muzzle then reversed with the steel against the muzzle, we have two different degrees of affect on the function on the muzzle device. (in our attempt to move the exact center of the paralled node to the crown)

If we remove the two, one ounce ring weights and install the 2 ounce aluminum ring weight we have a third degree of affect on the muzzle device.

If we remove the aluminum, two ounce ring weight and install the Steel, two ounce ring weight we have a forth degree of affect on the function of the muzzle device.....

In all four cases, the added weight is the same, two ounces.....and it continues if, using two ounces of weight, in any of the four combinations of ring weights, the parallel node has not been moved to the crown............

We then can use the steel, two ounce ring weight and the steel, one ounce ring weight, for a total of three ounces...........

Or, we can use the aluminum, two ounce and the aluminum one ounce ring weights.....in both cases the total weight will be three ounces but there will be two different degrees of affect on the function of the muzzle device.

And then we can use a combination of steel and aluminum ring weights, all still weighing 3 ounces for two more different degrees of affect......and on and on........

MY friends, one question that Roger von Ahrens posed to me was this...what if we wind up "between weights" and need a little final adjustment? That is a question a lot of folks ask, rightly so, when discussing solid, non adjustable,
muzzle devices.

My answer to Roger was this: I don't feel it an issue, but the muzzle device Roger is producing will have six, screw-in weights, three of aluminum and three of steel.......I know nothing about math, but in my crude way I have come up with 65 combinations of weights/placements so far........

In other words my friends, the clever use of two different weight, rings weights, I believe, will allow any "final small adjustment", if necessary.

I have contacted Mike Sherrill. Mike has an awesome test facility and has agreed to let me fit Roger's muzzle device to one of his proven benchrest guns......I will not be a part of the test. I've instructed Mike to let the chips fall where they may......it either works or it don't. If the world don't end first, we should have a report from him in a few days, weather permitting.

Your friend, Bill Calfee
 
Kathy said:
My answer to Roger was this: I don't feel it an issue, but the muzzle device Roger is producing will have six, screw-in weights, three of aluminum and three of steel.......I know nothing about math, but in my crude way I have come up with 65 combinations of weights/placements so far........
Click to expand...
6 weights?
3 oz of each plus the 2s and ones, or an extra set of ones?
 
Kathy said:
My centerfire friends:

one question that Roger von Ahrens posed to me was this...what if we wind up "between weights" and need a little final adjustment? That is a question a lot of folks ask, rightly so, when discussing solid, non adjustable,
muzzle devices ...

..... In other words my friends, the clever use of two different weight, rings weights, I believe, will allow any "final small adjustment", if necessary.

Your friend, Bill Calfee
Click to expand...

Bill,

In my testing I added .36 ounces of stick-on weights (3 partial 1/4 ounce weights totalling .36 ounces) evenly spaced (120 degrees apart) around the forward most edge of a Harrel tuner. Adding this weight moved the "Sweet Spot" from around the 0-100 setting on the tuner to the 300-400 setting. Meaning that adding the .36 ounces at the end of the tuner moved the sweet spot around 2/3 the full 0-500 range of the tuner.

That was why I had asked Roger to give me 1/2 ounce increments when he created his current design. It would give me a continous 0-500 tunability each time I added a weight. I'm still a little skeptical about the adjustability of moving aluminum vs steel wieghts around ... I believe that smaller increments are needed ... but in all honesty it doesn't matter to me either way. I like the concept of a solid tuner .... ask Roger, I've even complained to him about the slot towards the bottom of the tuners, on the part that clamps to the barrel, the one that is used to create a "clamp" that grabs on the barrel ...

Bill .... no matter what we call it ... or how we get there .... it don't really matter ... as long as we get there .... and I for one think we are REAL CLOSE.

Fred
 
Big Macky

Fred I'm using Rogers aluminum and stainless tuner weights as well but haven't played with the order in which I attached them.
The 0.5 ounce weight can only be out in front unless you have a different set.I did make my "muzzle devices" body length long enough to run through a whole weight tunability wise.Have you had any problems with the weights vibrating loose? And did you test on a centerfire a well?
Lynn
 
Hey Lynn,

I haven't gotten to play with Rogers weight kit yet. I think I got the first prototype, right after he and I worked on the design, but until I get down to his place the weather has had the best of me here in New York.

And yes ... the aluminum add-on only goes on the end .... I am relying on the adjustment range of the Harrel Tuner rather than swapping weights (aluminum vs steel) ... BUT I did change it a tad and I lock it down with a set screw to help "solidify it" rather than relying on the "set screw, spring, ball bearing" setup that it comes with.

I'm hoping to get down to Factoryville the W/E of 03/15 .... so I can't help you much with any info on testing the "Tuner Tuner"

I'm only going to be using mine on Rimfire ...

Fred
 
Moment of inertia - beams.

If anybody wants to know more about "why" there is a difference between a 1 oz steel ring and a 1 oz aluminum ring, or magnesium ring, or tungsten ring, or brass ring, etc., it's because of the length of the material required to achieve 1 oz.

Materials with less density will have to be longer (if the ID and OD stay the same) to keep their weights the same. In turn, the centroid will move farther away from the action of the rifle. Again, in turn, this will increase the moment of inertia away from the action, essentially creating a longer "lever" for the weight to operate on.

If you do a google search for the terms "moment of inertia beams", you will find some good illustrations and explanations.

It's easier than taking a Mechanics of Materials class.

SteveM.
 
Jetmugg said:
If anybody wants to know more about "why" there is a difference between a 1 oz steel ring and a 1 oz aluminum ring, or magnesium ring, or tungsten ring, or brass ring, etc., it's because of the length of the material required to achieve 1 oz.

Materials with less density will have to be longer (if the ID and OD stay the same) to keep their weights the same. In turn, the centroid will move farther away from the action of the rifle. Again, in turn, this will increase the moment of inertia away from the action, essentially creating a longer "lever" for the weight to operate on.

If you do a google search for the terms "moment of inertia beams", you will find some good illustrations and explanations.

It's easier than taking a Mechanics of Materials class.

SteveM.
Click to expand...
And I'll bet he is going to be greatly surprised when the 3oz of solid steel has less effect than the 2 oz of aluminum. (If my down and dirty quick calculations are correct - taking the moments about the muzzle). The order of incremental increases is not at all intuitive. And he is going to need that extra set of 1 oz weights to fill in some gaps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Beyond moments

You are right on track, Vibe. Intuition can only get you so far before it's time to break out the calculator and the books.

I was just looking for a good table of values showing properties like density and modulus of elasticity for various engineering materials. I believe that there will be some benefit to using a VERY stiff sleeve to mount the weights. Some ceramic and carbon materials have modulus values much higher than steel.

My 2 cents,

SteveM.
 
I was using 1.568 oz/in^3 for AL
and 4.5298 oz/in^3 for Steel (Stainless) 0.9"ID, 1.9" OD
 
Rule of thumb.

My "rule of thumb" for steel vs aluminum comparisons has always been that Al is about 1/3 the density of steel, and about 1/3 the strength of steel. It's a very "ballpark" rule of thumb, but it works to get some rough values. I have no doubt that the density values you posted are correct.

I like to use www.matweb.com for materials related searches. They have a very comprehensive database of materials and properties, plus it's free to use.

I'm thinking that a very light, stiff tuner sleeve (think ceramic composites or metal matrix composites) with weights made from verious metallic materials would be an effective combination without gaining too much weight. (Plus they would look cool.)

SteveM.
 
jackie schmidt said:
I just finished machining a 22 inch Krieger 1-13.5 twist, (one of my good ones), down to 4 pounds. Hopefully, this will knock off enough weight to to allow me to find the correct weight to "stop" the muzzle without going over 10.5 pounds. It looks sort of like a Sendaro Taper.
I will machine up some rings in 1/4 ounce increments. Maybe a 1/2 ounce, a 3/4 ounce, a one ounce, 1.5 ounce, two ounce, three ounce, four ounce, and five ounce. Of course, the three, four, and five will be from stainless.
I am going to thread a aluminum sleeve about 2.5 inches long with a .875 36 tpi on the inside. The OD will be 1 1/4 with a 36 tpi on it, ending in a shoulder. I will turn the end of the barrel down and thread it for a 1 inch length to fit the attachment. I will seat it against a small shoulder, and secure the threads with some JB Weld.
The rings will be bored to just slip over the OD of the sleeve, and be held in place with a spanner nut.
I will follow Lynn's advice on how to tune it. Anything you can add will be appreciated........jackie
Click to expand...

Jackie, Why not have 2 jam nuts so you can move the whole stack of weights in and out if you wish. Something like Shelley's rings with varying weight washers in between.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top