"Ballistic Balance"?

gelandangan · Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

I have read the article,

here are my thoughts, as the village idiot, I try to comprehend things by breaking them up to pieces.

For example lets take the first equation sprouted from the article.
"divide muzzle velocity by muzzle energy. The closer the result to 1 the more balanced the cartridge."

I think the author thrown in a mixture of UNITS and called it an equation, and I think this is NONSENSE.

Muzzle velocity (Feet / second)
-------------------------------------- = X
Muzzle Energy (Foot pound)

It is alleged by the author, if X is closer to 1 the more balanced the cartridge is going to be.

My first thought is that for any study of an unknown, you start with the study of UNITS,
for any usable result, the Units of the result must make sense or applicable in real life.

Feet / second is the displacement of 1 feet over the lapsing time of 1 second
Foot Pound is is the energy transferred on applying a force of 1 pound-force (lbf) through a displacement of 1 foot

The units in the alleged equation is, Foot or Feet = unit of length (L) , seconds = time (T) and pound = weight (M).

applying this to the equation, (L/T) / LM = 1
re arranging this make L/T = LM
next, simplifying 1/T = M
and thus MT = 1

That makes the equation of balance to have the unit of Pound Second,
BUGGER if I know what Pound Second represent??
it is NOT pound PER second which is associated with unit of flow (quantity over time)

So, what is this unit represent?
Well, simple, it is the units of amount of beer consumed multiplied by the weight of the neighbor's dog and divided by the ability to spot leprechaun in Bushy's garden..

so There..

slimjim · Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:22 pm Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

Yeh, I'll take a few more quesses as the author asks. First, its a table not a graph. Second, the math doesn't check so there must be something missing from the stated formula quoted in the article. You can check it real quick for the first one for the .223. Overall balance should be 2.53 according to the article. The others don't check either.

But lets look past that. According to the author, the .308 165gr and .30-06 180 gr are perfectly "ballistically balanced" and the .257 Roberts +P (first time I heard +P used on a rifle cartridge) is only 2% from perfect. What does ballistically balanced mean if these rifles have identical balance but they feel different when you pull the trigger and the 180 gr .30-06 will certainly have a flatter trajectory with more smack-down power than the other two.

When I did my three favorite loads for my .270, e.g., 110gr (1.20), 130gr (1.12), and 150gr (1.07), the calculation says that the 150gr was the most balanced. I think my 130gr load is the best "balanced" or overall performer out to 500 yards.

slimjim · Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

Oh, for my 77gr SMK to be ballistically balanced in my AR, its velocity has to be 5845 fps. My actually velocity is less than half of that with a BB or 2.17.

Ominivision1 · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:48 am Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

Interesting Slim, I was looking at the chart you posted and noticed the 30/06 load with 180gr bullet is is almost 200fps faster then anything I've loaded with the /06. Misprint maybe, new powder we don't know about? hmmm. Also thats the first time I ever seen a rifle load with a +P designation.

Vince · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:49 am Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

I go back to my original comment...Sounds like someone has been smoking his own "product" mate. Definitely an answer looking for a question.

I tried balancing my loaded rounds on a knife edge (nice and sharp so there are no complaints) and guess what...none of my rounds would balance exactly in the middle...in fact I couldn't get any of the buggers to balance anywhere. Also tried to balance the components on my scales that I weigh shot...nope, no luck there either. Didn't matter which way I shuffled the components around (case, primer, powder, boolit) I couldn't find that magical #1.

Ahhhhhh.....my head hurts.

Cheers, Vince

Pumpkinslinger · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:43 am Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

Well, y'all seem to have about the same thoughts I did about this, the main one being "Why?"

In some respects it is similar to the Taylor Knock Out Value in that you end up with no recognizable units, just a relative number for comparison. There are other formulas out there used for comparison purposes that don't really give you a real physical unit when you get done. Some time back I picked up a book called "Handgun Bullet Stopping Power, Beyond the Hyperbole of Cartridge Advocacy" by George Bredsten. It has eighteen different "Stopping Power Concepts/Formulae" for determining the best defensive handgun load. (I found the book to be awfully poor reading but the formulas, etc. are interesting.) However I'm not exactly sure what "Ballistic Balance" is comparing.

By the way, while looking at Taylor KO and "Optimum Game Weight" online I found one I haven't heard of before, Thornily Stopping Power.

www.beartoothbullets.c...ornily.htm

stovepipe · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:27 am Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

"A ballistically balanced load offers the most power and the flattest trajectory with the least amount of recoil in a sporting-weight rifle." ...

Want more speed and less recoil safely?

Hornday's Light Magnum loads.

Nuff said.

Too much math not enough bang people!

Elvis · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:16 pm Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

now there is a formular out there relating to bullet weight bore size and twist rate that HELPS to find the most efficient projectile wieght for your calibre its been around for years . If my memory serves me right it puts the .308 somewhere around the 145grn & the .270 around the 120grn &the .243 around the 90grn. one of you clever fellas will have the figures around somewhere.

stovepipe · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:55 pm Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

I'm loadin' a 200gr MK .308 to about 2700'/ps...recoil aint that bad...is that a blaanced laod? Should it even reach the target?

MY HEAD HURTS! Laughing

slimjim · Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

stovepipe wrote:

MY HEAD HURTS!

I thought your shoulder hurt!?

stovepipe · Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:28 am Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

That too!

High-power, 6-27-11, damn the stiches, full steam ahead matey...*KABONG!!!*

chambered221 · Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:57 am Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

.257 Roberts +P................ When the .257 first appeared on the market it was limited to about 45,000 cup / 54,000 psi.
The +P designation came about in recent years when ammo makers finally decided to give this cartridge the performance capability it deserved, about 50,000 cup / 58,000 psi.

Nobody seems to really know why this was done but everyone seems to agree it was a mistake that has hurt the cartridge for years !!!

IMO it had something to due with the fact the parent case (7x57 Mauser) operated at the same lower pressure.

stovepipe · Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:05 am Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

Buddy!

Hiya Chambered! Wave

camel · Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:25 am Post subject: Re: "Ballistic Balance"?

I ran into Winchester + P in my hunt for new brass for my Ruger 257 Rob in the late 80's. Was told that the brass was made harder so you could load to higher pressure. Sorri to change topic. Ballistic balance to me just means that you dont blow your guns up when you reload, and it hits with enough force to do the job required.