Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 3662 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

This is kind of an obscure topic even for the Grill Room, but here it is.

 Today was the end of Muzzleloader season in Northern Michigan. As is always the case, I had to discharge my inline muzzleloader and decided to shoot at a target. I found an old BK cup in the back of my truck (damned kids!), placed it on a log upside down, not affixed to anything, and took a shot at it from about 30yds. 

When the smoke cleared, I thought I’d missed as the cup was in the same position. But when I walked up to it, I was surprised to see the round had hit but not dislodged the empty paper cup.

A charge of 100 gr of triple seven with a 240 gr 45 cal saboted bullet will produce a muzzle velocity of somewhere around 1900 fps. I don’t know what the energy is, but it's got to be pretty high.

I’ve done a fair amount of shooting at the range using various targets and I know bullets don’t always knock heavier objects over. But this was an empty paper cup! 

I'm a dumb-a$$ when it comes to physics, but it just seemed surprising. Was this an anomaly, or is the fact that the paper offered such little resistance that the energy wasn't transferred as the bullet went through?

45CalMuzzleLdr.jpg.30dc4b001e2b1a22ab5be

 

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Sounds like a kid's science fair project just waiting to happen!  "What's the coefficient of static friction ..."

Craig
What's in the :ogio: Silencer bag (on the :clicgear: cart)
Driver: :callaway: Razr Fit 10.5°  
5 Wood: :tmade: Burner  
Hybrid: :cobra: Baffler DWS 20°
Irons: :ping: G400 
Wedge: :ping: Glide 2.0 54° ES grind 
Putter: :heavyputter:  midweight CX2
:aimpoint:,  :bushnell: Tour V4

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
1 minute ago, Missouri Swede said:

Sounds like a kid's science fair project just waiting to happen!  "What's the coefficient of static friction ..."

Yeah, I'll bring that up to the school board. They're pretty cool about firearms in the classroom these days. C'mon Swede, it's not like I live in Missouri.

56 minutes ago, Chris E said:

Hey man, just enjoy your hobby. Thinking is hard. 

Wow. Kind of bored tonight Chris? I think there's some controversy brewing over in the Tiger Woods thread. Maybe you should mosey on over there. This is the Grill Room, after all. Have you looked at some of the threads in here?


I know, it's a stupid topic and question to most. It was directed more towards those who are into shooting.

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

1900fps from a muzzle loader!?! Wow!

My old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield rifle (Typically used stock 150 Winchester or Remington rounds) was able to do that with empty aluminum cans. Never tried a cup, but I'd imagine it would go clean through as well.

It's not an energy thing more than a pure velocity thing. The inertia of the cup just has to be higher than the penetration energy of the bullet into the cup. The higher the velocity the higher the chances of penetration without knocking the cup over.

I could probably work out the equations, if someone hasn't already. . .googled this topic and got https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282006_season%29 :-D

 

 

 

:ping:  :tmade:  :callaway:   :gamegolf:  :titleist:

TM White Smoke Big Fontana; Pro-V1
TM Rac 60 TT WS, MD2 56
Ping i20 irons U-4, CFS300
Callaway XR16 9 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S
Callaway XR16 3W 15 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S, X2Hot Pro 20 degrees S

"I'm hitting the woods just great, but I'm having a terrible time getting out of them." ~Harry Toscano

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

1900fps from a muzzle loader!?! Wow!

My old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield rifle (Typically used stock 150 Winchester or Remington rounds) was able to do that with empty aluminum cans. Never tried a cup, but I'd imagine it would go clean through as well.

It's not an energy thing more than a pure velocity thing. The inertia of the cup just has to be higher than the penetration energy of the bullet into the cup. The higher the velocity the higher the chances of penetration without knocking the cup over.

I could probably work out the equations, if someone hasn't already. . .googled this topic and got https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282006_season%29 :-D

Thanks Lihu. I almost expected someone to call BS on me because it seemed so odd.

I normally can't stand the Mythbusters show, but they did an episode where they debunked the "guy getting blown backwards through the saloon door scene" in Western movies. Everyone knows that's Hollywood BS.

That I get. Even if I don't understand the science, it seems like common sense. But the paper cup staying put kind of surprised me. I mean, a slight breeze would have knocked it over.

Regarding the muzzle velocity... the new inline muzzleloaders are a bit different than the old flintlocks and muskets. While often referred to as "black powder" firearms, that's not necessarily the case. You might find some of this interesting:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/difference_black_powders.htm

 

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
36 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Thanks Lihu. I almost expected someone to call BS on me because it seemed so odd.

I normally can't stand the Mythbusters show, but they did an episode where they debunked the "guy getting blown backwards through the saloon door scene" in Western movies. Everyone knows that's Hollywood BS.

That I get. Even if I don't understand the science, it seems like common sense. But the paper cup staying put kind of surprised me. I mean, a slight breeze would have knocked it over.

Regarding the muzzle velocity... the new inline muzzleloaders are a bit different than the old flintlocks and muskets. While often referred to as "black powder" firearms, that's not necessarily the case. You might find some of this interesting:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/difference_black_powders.htm

 

Wow, they've come a long way, and certainly not like my old (design) Hawken 50. . .Nice! :beer:

:ping:  :tmade:  :callaway:   :gamegolf:  :titleist:

TM White Smoke Big Fontana; Pro-V1
TM Rac 60 TT WS, MD2 56
Ping i20 irons U-4, CFS300
Callaway XR16 9 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S
Callaway XR16 3W 15 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S, X2Hot Pro 20 degrees S

"I'm hitting the woods just great, but I'm having a terrible time getting out of them." ~Harry Toscano

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted

Think more along these lines:

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Wow, they've come a long way, and certainly not like my old (design) Hawken 50. . .Nice! :beer:

There's a muzzleloader club up here at one of the ranges. They use Hawkens, flintlock or cap locks. They frown upon those new fangled inlines, however.

34 minutes ago, iacas said:

Think more along these lines:

Makes sense. 

I saw it happen and figured it had to be the speed of the bullet combined with the material the cup was made out of, but I still wouldn't have expected it. If it were a plastic bottle, I don't think there's any way it would have stayed upright. Maybe I'd be wrong about that as well. 

But even on the test above, doesn't the fact that the objects have some weight make a difference. In other words, to accomplish the tablecloth trick with an empty paper cup, I assume you'd have to pull the cloth that much faster.

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

It's all about the strength of the cup material. The bullet has to push the entire cup to knock it over but if the cup material is too weak it won't transmit the bullet's energy to the rest of the cup.

It's actually a pretty complex problem involving the bullet's size and momentum, the cup material tensile strength, the mass of the cup (inertia), and other factors like where the bullet struck the cup. 

As someone ^^ said, sometimes it's much easier to just go 'wow' and not try to understand....

dak4n6


Posted
20 hours ago, dak4n6 said:

It's all about the strength of the cup material. The bullet has to push the entire cup to knock it over but if the cup material is too weak it won't transmit the bullet's energy to the rest of the cup.

It's actually a pretty complex problem involving the bullet's size and momentum, the cup material tensile strength, the mass of the cup (inertia), and other factors like where the bullet struck the cup. 

As someone ^^ said, sometimes it's much easier to just go 'wow' and not try to understand....

Good explanation in terms most people can understand, at least in what factors are involved (I'm glad you didn't offer a differential equation).

I was just curious if this was an anomaly or if repeated ten times, might the same result have occurred again. Sounds like there's a good chance based some of the replies. As I said previously, I half expected someone to call BS on it.

As far as not questioning weird stuff... sadly the older I get, the more I seem to do just that.

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
22 hours ago, dak4n6 said:

It's all about the strength of the cup material. The bullet has to push the entire cup to knock it over but if the cup material is too weak it won't transmit the bullet's energy to the rest of the cup.

It's actually a pretty complex problem involving the bullet's size and momentum, the cup material tensile strength, the mass of the cup (inertia), and other factors like where the bullet struck the cup. 

As someone ^^ said, sometimes it's much easier to just go 'wow' and not try to understand....

The only way I could see solving it is taking lots of data the Mythbusters way!

It certainly could be fun, then you work out some "simple" equations describing the penetration energy and lateral force on the cup at different penetration energies.

It'd take more than a lifetime to find analytical solutions. . .if even possible. :-D

:ping:  :tmade:  :callaway:   :gamegolf:  :titleist:

TM White Smoke Big Fontana; Pro-V1
TM Rac 60 TT WS, MD2 56
Ping i20 irons U-4, CFS300
Callaway XR16 9 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S
Callaway XR16 3W 15 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S, X2Hot Pro 20 degrees S

"I'm hitting the woods just great, but I'm having a terrible time getting out of them." ~Harry Toscano

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
37 minutes ago, Lihu said:

The only way I could see solving it is taking lots of data the Mythbusters way!

It certainly could be fun, then you work out some "simple" equations describing the penetration energy and lateral force on the cup at different penetration energies.

It'd take more than a lifetime to find analytical solutions. . .if even possible. :-D

Correct, you would have to make many measurements incrementally changing one of the variables while holding the others constant, then move on to the next variable, etc. If done with strict controls, one could develop an equation that would predict the threshold values of each variable (given values for other variables) at which the cup would fall over.

1 hour ago, JonMA1 said:

Good explanation in terms most people can understand, at least in what factors are involved (I'm glad you didn't offer a differential equation).

I was just curious if this was an anomaly or if repeated ten times, might the same result have occurred again. Sounds like there's a good chance based some of the replies. As I said previously, I half expected someone to call BS on it.

As far as not questioning weird stuff... sadly the older I get, the more I seem to do just that.

I'm getting the same way, and I am a scientist! I used to want to get to the bottom of stuff that made me go, 'huh?' But now, I'm more inclined to go, 'Hmmm that was weird, but I got a tee time in 1 hr, so whatever...'

dak4n6


Posted
47 minutes ago, dak4n6 said:

Correct, you would have to make many measurements incrementally changing one of the variables while holding the others constant, then move on to the next variable, etc. If done with strict controls, one could develop an equation that would predict the threshold values of each variable (given values for other variables) at which the cup would fall over.

The thing about loading ammunition is how much control you have over those variables, considering the velocities involved. I'm not talking about a muzzleloader, but hand-loaded brass cartridges.

I've seen a friend work up different loads and then measure the results with a chronograph that were surprisingly predictable.

You have the weight of the bullet and the velocity at a given yardage down-range (there are lookup tables). It should be easy to calculate the energy at impact, correct? In other words, the ballistics part of the equation would be under strict control.

Placing shots at different positions on the cup (you had mentioned that in a previous post) would be easy.

As far as the properties of the target (tensile strength, weight, etc. of the paper cup), I don't know how those are measured. Would it be difficult to gather that info?

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
3 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

The thing about loading ammunition is how much control you have over those variables, considering the velocities involved. I'm not talking about a muzzleloader, but hand-loaded brass cartridges.

I've seen a friend work up different loads and then measure the results with a chronograph that were surprisingly predictable.

You have the weight of the bullet and the velocity at a given yardage down-range (there are lookup tables). It should be easy to calculate the energy at impact, correct? In other words, the ballistics part of the equation would be under strict control.

Placing shots at different positions on the cup (you had mentioned that in a previous post) would be easy.

As far as the properties of the target (tensile strength, weight, etc. of the paper cup), I don't know how those are measured. Would it be difficult to gather that info?

Wait, so an inline muzzle loader uses brass cartridges? With primers and all? So what's the difference between this rifle and a regular modern one? 1900 fps is a heck of a velocity for a .45 projectile. That's about the same as a .44 mag from my 16" lever action carbine, which will leave my shoulder bruised if I shoot more than 30 rounds in a session. I love that little carbine, but it kicks my a$$ because it's so light.

So, the variables are: terminal bullet velocity, shot placement, shot angle, cup wall strength, and cup weight (I'm probably missing a couple). The wall strength would be the hardest to quantitate. You could devise something where you put a bullet at the end of a force transducer and measure the force while you push the bullet through the cup wall. Then you would have to create a whole series of cups with walls of incremental strengths. Then, there is the difficulty of being able to have walls of differing strengths while maintaining the same weight, and vice versa - walls of the same strength while varying the weight.

Much easier to just go, "Wow, that was weird!"

dak4n6


Posted (edited)

No @dak4n6, sorry. I meant the control would be easier if we switched from a muzzleloader to a rifle with brass cartridges. While you could vary the loads in a muzzleloader, it's a pain in the butt as often as you have to clean them. Your .44 mag would be a good substitute.

Spoiler

To clarify, a 45cal saboted round from a  Thompson Omega Muzzleloader using 100 grains of pyrodex pellets yields a muzzle velocity of 1840 fps. These rifles are capable of handling the pressures of 150 grains

Agreed, it's just easier to just accept it.

Edited by JonMA1

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3662 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Please see this topic for updated information:
    • Please see this topic for updated information:
    • When you've been teaching golf as long as I have, you're going to find that you can teach some things better than you previously had, and you're probably going to find some things that you taught incorrectly. I don't see that as a bad thing — what would be worse is refusing to adapt and grow given new information. I've always said that my goal with my instruction isn't to be right, but it's to get things right. To that end, I'm about five years late in issuing a public proclamation on something… When I first got my GEARS system, I immediately looked at the golf swings of the dozens and dozens of Tour players for which I suddenly had full 3D data. I created a huge spreadsheet showing how their bodies moved, how the club moved, at various points in the swing. I mapped knee and elbow angles, hand speeds, shoulder turns and pelvis turns… etc. I re-considered what I thought I knew about the golf swing as performed by the best players. One of those things dated back to the earliest days: that you extend (I never taught "straighten" and would avoid using that word unless in the context of saying "don't fully straighten") the trail knee/leg in the backswing. I was mislead by 2D photos from less-than-ideal camera angles — the trail leg rotates a bit during the backswing, and so when observing trail knee flex should also use a camera that moves to stay perpendicular to the plane of the ankle/knee/hip joint. We have at least two topics here on this (here and here; both of which I'll be updating after publishing this) where @mvmac and I advise golfers to extend the trail knee. Learning that this was not right is one of the reasons I'm glad to have a 3D system, as most golfers generally preserve the trail knee flex throughout the backswing. Data Here's a video showing an iron and a driver of someone who has won the career slam: Here's what the graph of his right knee flex looks like. The solid lines I've positioned at the top of the backswing (GEARS aligns both swings at impact, the dashed line). Address is to the right, of course, and the graph shows knee flex from the two swings above. The data (17.56° and 23.20°) shows where this player is in both swings (orange being the yellow iron swing, pink the blue driver swing). You can see that this golfer extends his trail knee 2-3°… before bending it even more than that through the late backswing and early downswing. Months ago I created a quick Instagram video showing the trail knee flex in the backswing of several players (see the top for the larger number): Erik J. Barzeski (@iacas) • Instagram reel GEARS shares expert advice on golf swing technique, focusing on the critical backswing phase. Tour winners and major champions reveal the key to a precise and powerful swing, highlighting the importance of... Here are a few more graphs. Two LIV players and major champions: Two PGA Tour winners: Two women's #1 ranked players: Two more PGA Tour winners (one a major champ): Two former #1s, the left one being a woman, the right a man, with a driver: Two more PGA Tour players: You'll notice a trend: they almost all maintain roughly the same flex throughout their backswing and downswing. The Issues with Extending the Trail Knee You can play good golf extending (again, not "straightening") the trail knee. Some Tour players do. But, as with many things, if 95 out of 100 Tour players do it, you're most likely better off doing similarly to what they do. So, what are the issues with extending the trail knee in the backswing? To list a few: Pelvic Depth and Rotation Quality Suffers When the trail knee extends, the trail leg often acts like an axle on the backswing, with the pelvis rotating around the leg and the trail hip joint. This prevents the trail side from gaining depth, as is needed to keep the pelvis center from thrusting toward the ball. Most of the "early extension" (thrust) that I see occurs during the backswing. Encourages Early Extension (Thrust) Patterns When you've thrust and turned around the trail hip joint in the backswing, you often thrust a bit more in the downswing as the direction your pelvis is oriented is forward and "out" (to the right for a righty). Your trail leg can abduct to push you forward, but "forward" when your pelvis is turned like that is in the "thrust" direction. Additionally, the trail knee "breaking" again at the start of the downswing often jumps the trail hip out toward the ball a bit too much or too quickly. While the trail hip does move in that direction, if it's too fast or too much, it can prevent the lead side hip from getting "back" at the right rate, or at a rate commensurate with the trail hip to keep the pelvis center from thrusting. Disrupts the Pressure Shift/Transition When the trail leg extends too much, it often can't "push" forward normally. The forward push begins much earlier than forward motion begins — pushing forward begins as early as about P1.5 to P2 in the swings of most good golfers. It can push forward by abducting, again, but that's a weaker movement that shoves the pelvis forward (toward the target) and turns it more than it generally should (see the next point). Limits Internal Rotation of the Trail Hip Internal rotation of the trail hip is a sort of "limiter" on the backswing. I have seen many golfers on GEARS whose trail knee extends, whose pelvis shifts forward (toward the target), and who turn over 50°, 60°, and rarely but not never, over 70° in the backswing. If you turn 60° in the backswing, it's going to be almost impossible to get "open enough" in the downswing to arrive at a good impact position. Swaying/Lateral Motion Occasionally a golfer who extends the trail knee too much will shift back too far, but more often the issue is that the golfer will shift forward too early in the backswing (sometimes even immediately to begin the backswing), leaving them "stuck forward" to begin the downswing. They'll push forward, stop, and have to restart around P4, disrupting the smooth sequence often seen in the game's best players. Other Bits… Reduces ground reaction force potential, compromises spine inclination and posture, makes transition sequencing harder, increases stress on the trail knee and lower back… In short… It's not athletic. We don't do many athletic things with "straight" or very extended legs (unless it's the end of the action, like a jump or a big push off like a step in a running motion).
    • Day 135 12-25 Wide backswing to wide downswing drill. Recorder and used mirror. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.