Author Topic: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1  (Read 15554 times)

Joe S

  • Guest
Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:01:13 PM »
Two statements that come up from time to time are that a dished breech plug will increase muzzle velocity, and that accuracy decreases as the flash hole size increases above 0.062”.  I conducted a series of experiments to test these hypotheses by chronographing muzzle velocity.  

Dan Phariss supplied the barrel and did all of the necessary machine work.  Thank you Dan.

Disclaimer – Only one chronograph was injured or killed while collecting these data.

Breech Plug Face Shape Experiment

Experiment Conditions:

38” .50 caliber barrel (Getz)
70 grains Goex FF
Coned flash hole
0.062” flash hole diameter
15’ from muzzle to chronograph
Spit lubed 0.018” pillow ticking patch
0.495” Hornady ball
80 – 90 degrees F
Flat faced breech plug
Breech plug face dished in hemispherical shape with 1/2“ ball end mill.
Sample Size – 15 for each breech plug

Table 1




This was the first time I had chronographed black powder loads, so I wasn’t sure what to expect.  For these data, the standard deviations were 27 and 30 feet/second, and the ranges were 100 and 112 feet/second for the dished breech plug and the flat faced breech plug respectively.  I’ve seen similar standard deviations and ranges with factory loaded centerfire ammunition, so I feel confident that my loading procedures were reasonably consistent.

The mean muzzle velocity for the dished breech plug and the flat breech plug were 1,609 fps and 1,522 fps, a difference of 87 fps.  This difference is statistically significant, that is, the difference in muzzle velocity is real.  These results are very robust – you can expect to get a statistically significant increase in muzzle velocity in other calibers and with other loads.

A cautionary note:  the difference in muzzle velocity of 87 fps we found in this test applies only to this barrel, breech plug shape and load.   The exact gain in muzzle velocity you may get with your barrel and load would have to be measured.

This is an easy experiment to do.  Lots of folks have chronographs.  Should anybody decide to repeat this experiment, I’d be very interested in your results.

Velocity as a Function of Flash Hole Size

Experiment Conditions:  

38” .50 caliber barrel (Getz)
70 grains Goex FF
Coned flash hole
15’ from muzzle to chronograph
Spit lubed 0.018” pillow ticking patch
0.495” Hornady ball
80 – 90 degrees F
Flat faced breech plug

flash hole diameter (inches):
0.0620
0.0670
0.0730
0.0785
0.0820
0.0890
0.0960
0.0995

Sample Size – 5 for each flash hole size

In discussions with Dan about factors that affect accuracy, he has mentioned that bench shooting lore contends that accuracy decreases as flash hole size increases above 0.062”.  Obviously, the best way to test this is with a machine rest, but I don’t happen to have one.  However, we can look at two variables that are known to affect accuracy with a chronograph.   These variables are average muzzle velocity and variability in muzzle velocity.  As a rule of thumb, decreases in muzzle velocity and increases in variability of muzzle velocity will tend to decrease accuracy. So, this experiment was intended to address two questions –

1. As flash hole size increases, does muzzle velocity change?
2. As flash hole size increases, does variability in velocity change?

The statistic used to analyze the data for question 1 is called regression analysis.  For this type of analysis, we change one variable, in this case flash hole size, and record the effect on muzzle velocity.  The data are plotted on a graph, with the flash hole diameter on the X axis and the velocity on the Y axis.  Here’s the raw data:

Table 2



And here’s the graph:

Figure 1



Surprise, surprise, surprise as the famous philosopher Gomer Pyle would say.  I had expected that as flash hole size increased, velocity would decrease at a linear or perhaps exponential rate.  I most certainly did not expect velocity to increase when the flash hole size changed from 0.062” to 0.067”.

The first order of business is to look at this unexpected result.  What happened?  These data were all taken during the same session.  Powder, patches and balls were all from a single lot, the same chronograph was used, and the ambient temperature didn’t change appreciably during the session, so changes in experiment conditions can be ruled out.

Possibilities include:

1.  This is a real phenomenon, and we will see this same result with other barrels and other loads.
2.  This is a real phenomenon, but it is a characteristic of this particular barrel and load, and we will not see it in other barrels or with other loads.
3.  This is an artifact of random variation in the data, and is not a real phenomenon.

#3 seems unlikely to me, as the data are reasonably consistent; however we have insufficient data to come to a definitive conclusion.

#1 and #2 – these seem to be the most likely possibilities, but we’ll have to do a bunch more testing to find out if one of these hypotheses is correct.

Until I can explore this issue a little further, I excluded the 0.062” flash hole date from the analysis.  So, here’s the graph without those data, and the regression line.

Figure 2



Regression analysis gives us two very useful things, an equation for the best line through the data, and a value known as r squared.  

r squared is a very useful number, because it tells us how good our model is.  The values for r squared range between 0 and 100%, and tells us how much of the variability in y is explained by changes in x.  With a value of 0, there is no relationship between the x variable and the measured effect.  With a value of 100%, all of the variation in y is explained by changes in x.  Obviously, the closer r squared is to 100%, the better the model is and the more we know about the relationship between x and y.

In this case r squared = 54%.  That is, 54% of the variation in muzzle velocity is explained by changing the flash hole diameter.  The remaining 46% of the variation is known as unexplained error.

I had hoped for a substantially higher r squared value, so I was a little disappointed by this result, although not too surprised.  In virtually all of the flintlock data that I have looked there is an unusually high amount of unexplained variability.   I don’t know why, but this seems to be the nature of black powder and flint ignition.

The regression equation is

Velocity = 1,704 – (2,432 x Flash Hole Diameter)

This is handy because now we have a predictive model.  If we want to know what the expected velocity is for any given flash hole diameter, we simply perform the calculation.  The following table shows the flash hole size, calculated average velocity for each flash hole size, change in velocity from the previous flash hole, and the cumulative change in velocity.

Table 3



As can be seen in the graph and the table, as the flash hole size increases, velocity decreases.  Good.  This is what we would expect.  The data shows though, that velocity doesn’t drop off too rapidly.   At 0.082”, velocity has only dropped off 36 feet/second from the 0.067” flash hole.  But by the time we have gone from 0.067” to 0.0995”, a total of 79 feet/second has been lost.

Looking at the graph, it appears that variability in velocity is consistent from 0.067” to 0.082 but above 0.082” variability appears to increase substantially.  However, with only five samples at each interval, there are too few data to test statistically.

To answer question 2 – does muzzle velocity variability increases with flash hole size - I did an additional experiment to get sufficient data to test statically.  All experimental parameters are as above, except that 15 shots were measured with 0.0625” and 0.0995” flash holes.

Table 4


Note that the total range in muzzle velocity was 112 feet/second for the 0.0625” flash hole, compared to 165 feet/second for the 00995” flash hole.  The muzzle velocity standard deviation was 30 feet/second for the 0.0625” flash hole, and 48 feet/second for the 0.0995’ flash hole.  This difference was statistically significant – that is, variability in muzzle velocity really does increase as flash hole changes from 0.0625” to 0.0995”.

To summarize this set of experiments:

1:  Dishing the face of the breech plug will increase velocity.  These results are statistically significant and robust.  With the experiment parameters used in these experiments, the gain in velocity with a dished breech plug was 87 feet/second.  The exact gain that you may get with other caliber and load parameters would need to be measured, and cannot be projected from these data.

2. Between 0.067” and 0.0995”, muzzle velocity decreases as flash hole size increases.  The velocity difference between these two flash holes was -79 feet/second.   It appears that enlarging the flash hole to 0.082” will not have a substantial effect on velocity – muzzle velocity loss at 0.082” was only 39 feet/second.

3. Variability in muzzle velocity increases from 0.0625” to 0.0995”.  The difference in variability with these two flash hole sizes is statistically significant.  From the graph, it appears that variability in muzzle velocity between 0.0625” and 0.082” is similar, and that above 0.082” variability starts to increase substantially.  There are however, too few data to make a definitive statement except at the extreme flash hole sizes.

4.  The decrease in muzzle velocity and increase in variability of muzzle velocity as flash hole size increases support a hypothesis that increasing flash hole size could decrease accuracy.





« Last Edit: September 28, 2014, 09:05:25 PM by Joe S »

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7629
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2014, 10:01:57 PM »
Is it posible to have an increase in presure as your testing went forward if you didnt swab between shots and therefor an increase in velocity?

Joe S

  • Guest
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2014, 10:13:21 PM »
Good question.  I’ve actually done this experiment before, and found no difference between wiping between shots and not wiping.  With a tight patch/ball combination, the barrel is cleaned with each reloading, and there is no fouling buildup.

Offline Larry Pletcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1746
    • Black Powder Mag
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2014, 12:41:31 AM »
My complements, Joe.
I enjoy reading about this type of inquiry.  I like your methods and appreciate the work it took to collect the data.  It would be fun to work together. 

I could see a next step that tried this work with a barrel with a different bore diameter.  I'm curious if either of the tests would show a trend as the bore increases or decreases. 

Again, thanks for your work.
"Good science is repeatable"
Regards,
Pletch
Regards,
Pletch
blackpowdermag@gmail.com

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what can never be taken away.

Kayla Mueller - I didn't come here of my own accord, and I can't leave that way.  Whoever brought me here, will have to take me home.

Offline Herb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1694
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2014, 12:59:39 AM »
Really good work, Joe.  Thanks a lot.
Herb

Offline JBJ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 579
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2014, 01:37:27 AM »
Many thanks for this kind of input! I was reading like crazy looking for the r-square - and there it was! Refreshing to say the least.
J.B.

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2014, 02:06:49 AM »
Thanks for compiling this Joe.  Very informative!
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline PPatch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2014, 04:44:31 AM »
That was quite interesting Joe. Thank you (and Dan) for all the work.

dave
Dave Parks   /   Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Joe S

  • Guest
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2014, 04:42:43 PM »
Thanks guys.  Glad you enjoyed it.

Pletch – I’m a longtime fan of yours.  You have excellent experiment designs and technique and what I appreciate most of all, you always take enough data so that it can be analyzed.  I’d be happy to work with you in the future on anything.  I have a couple of ideas that would be suited to your apparatus.  I’ll elaborate on this a little more when I have some free time. 

I have a bunch of tests I can do with just the chronograph, but they will probably have to wait until next spring.  Hunting season is almost here, and besides that, it’s probably going to take all winter for Dan to make me some more flash holes.

JB – I tried to fit the entire data set with a second order equation.  No luck.  I’m not sure what's going on with that 0.062” data.  Perhaps you may have some insights.  Regardless, I’m obviously going to have to explore that problem a little more thoroughly and see what there is to learn.

Offline rtadams

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2014, 07:53:17 PM »
9-29-14

Joe S

Thanks so much for the experimentation and sharing the data.

I have two questions as follows:

1. What is the depth of the 1/2" hemispherical shape in the breech plug?

2. How much was left of the face area of the breech plug face that seals the breech plug to the 50 cal bore?

I hope the two questions are understandable and precise enough for a reply.

Note
I have researched extensively to develop internal ballistic calculations for black powder and a few years ago developed a internal ballistic software program to obtain muzzle velocity. I have come to the conclusion there are too many variables to contend with to obtain consistent and reliable results. The shape of the breech plug face and touch hole size are two examples as demonstrated of the many variables that effect muzzle velocity in developing a reliable internal ballistic software program for black powder muzzle velocity. The chronograph is the most reliable tool for measuring muzzle velocity.

Best Regards,

Robert

« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 05:15:06 AM by rtadams »

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5310
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2014, 10:57:44 PM »
This is a great experiment, and a Pletch mentioned, should be tried with other bore sizes; and it should be repeatable.  Thanks for the effort on this interesting topic.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Joe S

  • Guest
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2014, 04:02:31 AM »
rtadams
I have two questions as follows:

Quote
1. What is the depth of the 1/2" hemispherical shape in the breech plug?
As close as I can measure it 0.185 – 0.190”

Quote
2. How much was left of the face area of the breech plug face that seals the breech plug to the 50 cal bore?

Not very much.  Dan cut it about as far as he could.




If anyone else is interested in repeating this experiment, Dan used a standard 5/8 – 18 bolt to make this breech plug.

« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 04:04:20 AM by Joe S »

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2014, 05:03:43 AM »
The 5/8" diameter breech thread limits the depth somewhat. It was done with a 1/2 ball end mill in the lathe.
I tried for as much depth as I could get without the cavity getting too large. In a 3/4 plug they can be deeper. But if the bore is not centered in the barrel then a bore riding center punch must be used to make sure the cup is aligned with the bore.
It did prove Don Kings contention that the cupped breech increased velocity.
Thanks for the work Joe. I love this stuff.
If you email me the report I will transfer it to the newsletter. Knew there was a reason to drag my feet. Need to big a couple of other people for some information too. Some of the tables on this site are too low res to reproduce well.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7629
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2014, 05:09:52 AM »
Can we assume that the flash hole was just in front of the flat faced plug?

Offline Bill Paton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2014, 05:16:35 AM »
Some time ago there was a thread on shaped explosive charges that blow their energy directionally through the walls or doors against which they are placed. I think this concave breech plug works on the same principle, which explains its effectiveness in boosting velocity.
Kentucky double rifle student
wapaton.sr@gmail.com

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2014, 05:26:04 AM »
9-29-14

Joe S

Thanks so much for the experimentation and sharing the data.

I have two questions as follows:

1. What is the depth of the 1/2" hemispherical shape in the breech plug?

2. How much was left of the face area of the breech plug face that seals the breech plug to the 50 cal bore?

I hope the two questions are understandable and precise enough for a reply.

Note
I have researched extensively and a few years ago developed a internal ballistic software program for black powder to obtain muzzle velocity. I have come to the conclusion there are too many variables to contend with to obtain consistent and reliable results. Your experimentation is another example of the many variables that effect muzzle velocity in developing a reliable software program for muzzle velocity for black powder. The shape of the breech plug face as you have demonstrated effects muzzle velocity. The chronograph is the most reliable tool for measuring the muzzle velocity.

Best Regards,

Robert



If everyone used the same lube and the same patch fitment it might be possible to get close  calculation. But a slick lube vs a dry lube will change everything. The higher friction lubes, for example should give lower SDs and maybe even higher velocity since the increased friction makes the powder more efficient, this is called "load inertia" in BPCRs where bullet pull and have hard the bullet is set on the rifling can reduce the SD. The condition of the bore is another factor.
As you may know the British experimented with rough reaming shotguns near the breech to increase penetration and also experimented with a rough area near the muzzle to retard the wads to keep them from being blown into the shot charge.  In a couple of rifle barrels I had, one was rough/tight at the breech the other not but using the exact breech and ball size etc, the rough/tight at breech barrel was 100fps faster.  So there are a HOST of variables in MLs using patched RBs especially that would drive someone to distraction when trying as you did make a program to calculate a velocity.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2014, 05:34:22 AM »
Some time ago there was a thread on shaped explosive charges that blow their energy directionally through the walls or doors against which they are placed. I think this concave breech plug works on the same principle, which explains its effectiveness in boosting velocity.

I suspect its a similar phenomenon to the shaped charge. But HEs perform differently than BP does. In Joe's experiment the ignition is near the middle of the charge. Experimentation by Elmer Keith and another I cannot recall showed that frontal ignition of a 50 BMG cartridge would cause the gun to be damaged by over pressure. Now I have no idea if it was the frontal ignition or if their attempts were not putting enough impulse on the powder to get good ignition. But they blew up some stuff anyway.
So it could be the shape of the cavity or it could be the point in the charge where its ignited.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Joe S

  • Guest
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2014, 05:49:49 AM »
Quote
Can we assume that the flash hole was just in front of the flat faced plug?

It's about 1/8" in front.

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7629
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2014, 06:02:57 AM »
Thanks for that Joe. Then if I understand it corectly, the vent was somewhat forward of the dished plug and somewhere into the powder charge instead of at the rear of the charge. Is that right or did I misunderstand?

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2014, 07:32:43 AM »
That is correct. Ignition is probably about 1/3 of the way up the powder column from the breech end. Depending on charge volume.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

hammer

  • Guest
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2014, 10:33:02 AM »
The larger the flash hole the more heat reaches the main charge from the pan ensuring improved ignition and a more efficient burn, with a higher velocity.  A fine grain, faster burning, hotter priming powder with a fine grain, high quality main charge can compare with a reduced touch hole.  All to do with the efficient ignition of that main charge.  That has been my conclusion over the years.
As to a dished face, seems the conclusion here is moving towards the more central ignition of the main charge.  Again improving the efficiency of the burn of that charge.   The charge surrounds the ignition rather than sitting on top in a column.  Makes sense to me.   

Joe S

  • Guest
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2014, 04:44:45 PM »
Quote
The larger the flash hole the more heat reaches the main charge from the pan ensuring improved ignition and a more efficient burn, with a higher velocity.

This hypothesis is not borne out by the data.  Between 0.0670” and 0.0995”, velocity decreases with flash hole size. 

Velocity increased with flash hole size only between 0.0625 and 0.0670.  I think this particular observation needs a lot more research before we can draw any conclusions about it.

Quote
As to a dished face, seems the conclusion here is moving towards the more central ignition of the main charge.  Again improving the efficiency of the burn of that charge.

This is certainly a testable hypothesis.  Maybe I’ll add that to my next set of tests.


Offline bgf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2014, 07:32:34 PM »
Interesting data.  Looking at the increase in surface area, the variability and decrease is less than I would have expected.  I can only speculate that the expanding gas from the powder IN the flash hole provides some back pressure to the more central portion of the main charge and that the SHAPE&LENGTH of the flash hole cavity also provides some resistance to flow as well.  For example, I would expect a lower decrease in velocity and lower variability with a long straight hole as the diameter changes than an internally coned one, disregarding the difference in ignition speed which would be a practical consideration.  I could easily be surprised, too!

Different calibers would be an interesting test as suggested above also, as that changes the "chamber pressure"...

Good work!  You won't run out of investigations or variables anytime soon!

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2014, 10:11:11 PM »
It would be fairly easy, in a test piece, to make a rear ignition cupped breech.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14970
Re: Factors Affecting Muzzle Velocity – Round 1
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2014, 01:05:17 AM »
Interesting fellows - quite interesting.

Should one not strive to find the ball/patch/lube combination that ALWAYS produced the highest velocity per charge BEFORE doing the alterations to breech face and it's effect on speed?

Seems to me a VERY tight combination produced the highest speed for me, over combinations less snug.

I also found a smack of the palm on the starter's knob to ensure the load was down on the powder the same each time needs further testing.

50fps here, 35fps there, 100fps from another technique all adds up to why our loads do not give the same speeds as someone else's loads.

My .40 ran .400" pure lead balls at 2,260fps with a mere 65gr. 3F. That is way higher than anything else I've seen tested and mine were with standard old GOEX 3F. 75gr. of GOEX 2F with the same load, patch and lube ran 10fps slower & exactly the same poi and group size.

The rest of the puzzle - bore .398", ball .400", patch stretchy 100%(crinkle weave) cotton drill (not synthetic) crushed in my mic ran .019"- Goodeoin narrow land, wide groove .010" deep.
 
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V