When I read your comment about "balls bouncing off of deer" I understood it in the context of misinformed popular media gunwriters.
Before Toby Bridges changed his older website format and moved to Montana, I had an extensive exchange of views with him thru the reader's blog on the site....he tends quickly towards derogatory personal attack and quick jumps to conclusions to categorize you....but he does not do much dealing with the physical facts. So I went to some of his older books and found quotes by his own self that contradicted what he was saying and I quoted this to him:
2004 in “High Performance Muzzleloader Big Game Rifles,” Stoeger Publishing Co., Chapter 1 entitled “The Evolution of Firepower,” page 15:
“Out of this need to conserve [lead and powder, as compared to large caliber German jaeger rifles] came the long-barreled rifles that became distinctively American in design. Often referred to as Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifles, the new domestically built front-loaders often sported barrels that were 40 to 44 inches in length, and bore sizes had shrunk to .40 to .44caliber. While these rifles still would not produce the same energy levels as a .62 German jaeger loaded with 120grains of blackpowder behind a 325 to 340grain soft lead ball, the smaller bored American long-rifles shot a lighter 90 to 130 grain ball at much higher velocities. And in the hands of an expert rifleman, the rifles would deliver all the knockdown power needed to take even deer-sized game at 100 yards ”“ or drop an enemy at that distance.”
And on pg 17:
“During the early 1800s it was easier and less costly to have an older original flintlock rifle converted [to percussion and to larger caliber]”¦”¦Many rifles that started as a .40 to .44 caliber ended up as rifles of .47 to .52 caliber. And when hunters began to stoke the rifles with heavier powder charges and heavier larger diameter roundballs, they also realized how much more effective the guns were on big game.” (presumably the guns became even better for “knock-down power” at the 100yd deer he referred to above.)
That was exactly when he closed up that older website and moved out of Dodge.... :surrender: :rotf: He is just a shill for certain manufacturers, and old technology is what he beats on in order to contrast and sell new technology.
Changing the subject, in fluid flow mechanics there is a phenomenon with a venturi aperture (as in a touch-hole) known as "choke." (Air or other gas is considered a "fluid" in this context.) For a given size aperture, as the internal pressure increases, of course gasmass will flow thru the aperture. But as the pressure continues to increase the gasmass flowrate slows and then levels off at a constant flowrate. The aperture is "choked" and increases in pressure will not result in more gasmass flow thru the aperture.
For a relatively small aperture choke occurs at relatively low pressures (compared to breech pressures) and the amount of gasmass lost thru the touch-hole is measurable but small compared to the total gasmass produced in the breech. It is also very sensitive to aperture size, which is why we want the touch-hole to be at least about 1/16" for reliability but not over about 5/32", with 3/32" being about an upper limit in my experience.
There is some evidence that caps given unreliable seal on the ends of nipples....sealing better on one shot than another, and resulting in variable pressure release and therefore variations in muzzle velocity. I have no personal evidence of this, but I have seen caplock rifles that were purposely "vented" similar to a flintlock and the reason given to me was to overcome this deficiency of caplocks and allow the muzzle velocity variation to be smaller...... maybe so....
Before Toby Bridges changed his older website format and moved to Montana, I had an extensive exchange of views with him thru the reader's blog on the site....he tends quickly towards derogatory personal attack and quick jumps to conclusions to categorize you....but he does not do much dealing with the physical facts. So I went to some of his older books and found quotes by his own self that contradicted what he was saying and I quoted this to him:
2004 in “High Performance Muzzleloader Big Game Rifles,” Stoeger Publishing Co., Chapter 1 entitled “The Evolution of Firepower,” page 15:
“Out of this need to conserve [lead and powder, as compared to large caliber German jaeger rifles] came the long-barreled rifles that became distinctively American in design. Often referred to as Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifles, the new domestically built front-loaders often sported barrels that were 40 to 44 inches in length, and bore sizes had shrunk to .40 to .44caliber. While these rifles still would not produce the same energy levels as a .62 German jaeger loaded with 120grains of blackpowder behind a 325 to 340grain soft lead ball, the smaller bored American long-rifles shot a lighter 90 to 130 grain ball at much higher velocities. And in the hands of an expert rifleman, the rifles would deliver all the knockdown power needed to take even deer-sized game at 100 yards ”“ or drop an enemy at that distance.”
And on pg 17:
“During the early 1800s it was easier and less costly to have an older original flintlock rifle converted [to percussion and to larger caliber]”¦”¦Many rifles that started as a .40 to .44 caliber ended up as rifles of .47 to .52 caliber. And when hunters began to stoke the rifles with heavier powder charges and heavier larger diameter roundballs, they also realized how much more effective the guns were on big game.” (presumably the guns became even better for “knock-down power” at the 100yd deer he referred to above.)
That was exactly when he closed up that older website and moved out of Dodge.... :surrender: :rotf: He is just a shill for certain manufacturers, and old technology is what he beats on in order to contrast and sell new technology.
Changing the subject, in fluid flow mechanics there is a phenomenon with a venturi aperture (as in a touch-hole) known as "choke." (Air or other gas is considered a "fluid" in this context.) For a given size aperture, as the internal pressure increases, of course gasmass will flow thru the aperture. But as the pressure continues to increase the gasmass flowrate slows and then levels off at a constant flowrate. The aperture is "choked" and increases in pressure will not result in more gasmass flow thru the aperture.
For a relatively small aperture choke occurs at relatively low pressures (compared to breech pressures) and the amount of gasmass lost thru the touch-hole is measurable but small compared to the total gasmass produced in the breech. It is also very sensitive to aperture size, which is why we want the touch-hole to be at least about 1/16" for reliability but not over about 5/32", with 3/32" being about an upper limit in my experience.
There is some evidence that caps given unreliable seal on the ends of nipples....sealing better on one shot than another, and resulting in variable pressure release and therefore variations in muzzle velocity. I have no personal evidence of this, but I have seen caplock rifles that were purposely "vented" similar to a flintlock and the reason given to me was to overcome this deficiency of caplocks and allow the muzzle velocity variation to be smaller...... maybe so....