Flintlock Shooting test with unusual results

[yardhunter]

I recently set up a flintlock water test for everyone's enjoyment.
I edited it from 11 minutes down to 8.

The final results completely surprised me.

Here it is :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmRLbBZpZN0

Less powder = more punching thru”¦...
More powder = less punching power but more devastation.

Thoughts, anyone ???

 

[Bearkiller]

Cool video. Definitely seems backwards. But I guess the higher velocity equates to faster ball expansion.

 

[Flint311]

Less powdered=more punch through. Maybe it didn't expand as fast or much and expend energy away from a straight line, therefore driving through more? Kept its mass better?

 

[Artificer]

The higher velocity charge caused the ball to fragment sooner and thus could not retain the mass and energy to punch through as many water filled milk jugs. This means there was more energy transferred to the water in a shorter distance and maybe to probably less time.

Gus

 

[54ball]

I have to say that it was a well done video.
I have seen these same results with center fire and it is interesting to see this.
Things to consider...
At very close range heavier loads may actually be less effective as your video demonstrated.
Why?
At very close range say 15 yards in, the velocity is so very high the ball disintegrates on impact. On living critters like deer with hide hair, tissue and bone it's very possible maybe even probable that a heavy load like that at that short of range is a crippling wound and not an instantly fatal one.
Out past 25 yards or so I'm sure you'll see an increase in penetration.
An interesting follow up would be the same two loads at 50-75 yards.
This is something to consider if you are set up for a very close hunting shot.
Does this mean the lighter load is superior?
It depends on the range you hunt. At longer range the heavier load may be better, shorter range the lighter load may be better.

 

[Canute Rex]

There's a concept in fluid dynamics about drag vs speed. Drag goes up by the cube of the speed. Double the speed, eight times the drag force.

Think about walking waist high through a swimming pool. A slow motion walk costs you almost no energy, but try a normal walking pace and you will be spending some calories.

If the OP doubled the speed of the ball he increased the energy dissipation per inch of water by eight. He blasted the snot out of the first jug, but that left a lot less for getting through the second and the third. That energy dissipation also made itself felt in the other direction on the ball itself. The fragmenting made it less hydrodynamic.

The speed-cubed drag effect doesn't make itself as obvious in air because of the relatively low density and compressibility of a gas mixture.

The experimental results were counter-intuitive at first glance, but in the end they make sense.

 

[Artificer]

Even if the ball began to or fragmented on impact, it still penetrated and transferred most of its energy inside the water filled container and blew it apart - demonstrating more hydraulic pressure inside the first milk jug. There was no energy loss of the bullet punching through more than slightly one more milk jug and outside what normally would be a deer or other animal's body. This is the essence of why hollow point bullets, that are set up to penetrate deep enough, but transfer most of their energy inside an animal, work so well in suppository guns.

A low velocity ball might penetrate an animal completely and beyond, but not transfer enough energy inside the animal to make a quick kill. The animal will still die, but it takes longer to bleed out, unless the ball hits a vital spot.

Water is not nearly as good of an indicator of the ability to wound/kill as ballistic gelatin, though even that gelatin is lacking in some respects.

As always, shot placement of a large enough ball to do the job is more important than the velocity of the ball, though.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Gus, that's not what's happening. In fact the opposite would be the result when hunting at black powder velocities. The lower speed ball that went deeper would kill the animal faster than the ball that flattened sooner at the higher velocity...IF the animal was large enough.


"Energy transfer" is not what kills animals, but actual tissue damage. Energy transfer is part of the idea of hydrostatic shock, and it doesn't apply at black powder velocities, if it applies at all.

The reason that the higher charge reduced the penetration is that the friction against the ball spiked higher, sooner. The hydraulic pressure in the jug created upon ball impact, made the jug harder due to fluid compression, thus deforming the ball more, and causing it to slow down at a higher rate with more deformation than the first shot. The fragmentation then reduced the overall mass, so the parts slowed down even faster. The jug itself could not stand the pressure so it shattered. There would be different results in an open trough that equaled the length of the closed jugs, where the pressure would not spike nearly as high.

Say we drop two objects of the same mass and diameter from the same height, say 8 stories onto the ground. Galileo demonstrated that they would impact at the same time. Mine is a solid sphere of glass, yours is a ball of sand of the same diameter and weight. Mine would go deeper since yours would deform. You then go to the 12th floor, and thus have more energy, but the results would be similar... the sand would deform wider, faster, and not go as deep as the sphere that didn't deform.

LD

 

[timothy prouty]

Cool video can you do that in gelatin see the difference thanks

 

[54ball]

Let me be clear. I'm not trying to be argumentative or in any way mean to dis credit or belittle anyone's response but typed English is English and I don't have the eloquence to briefly put it another way.

My comments were based on personal experience not theory.
Most of the arms used were highpower long range with expanding ammunition. The distances were measured in feet rather than yards. In both instances that I have a personal connection too the game was not recovered. These were good shots by competent shooters and very good trackers. If the critters died, likely they were in the next county. I know of many other instances through the years but have no personal connection.

Now a flintlock rifle is not highpower but a longrifle with a full house load like in the video is approaching highpower velocity. You can tell because the rifle will sound differently. It will make what the old timers called a Crack.

Most of us focus on longer range performance but what about the first 20 feet?

Here is my related experiences of note with black powder.
Arm-Lyman Great Plains 32"bbl percussion on .54 Load-80rns 2ff Range 30 paces.
A Big sow hit in the shoulders, she turned a complete somersault and she hit the ground so hard I could feel it through my feet. It was one of the most gruesome things I have ever seen hunting.
Results...recovered after the flip she never moved. The ball broke both front legs, lead fragmented.
Arm-Carolina Trade Gun 42" bbl in flint, 20 bore smooth bore (.60 caliber ball) 90 grns 2ff
Range 25 paces.
A nice young buck came up from behind on my right. Broadside shot, right behind his left shoulder. The deer shot like rocket making a circle and back off to the right. Found blood at impact...no real blood trail instead I find stringy tissue scattered here and there. I decide I may need some more eyes in tracking and as I'm walking out I find him. He went about 30 yards counting his circle.
Results...
A pass through with that .600 ball. The ball entered behind the left shoulder and exited behind the right taking out the top portion of the heart. I have read many times that with BP "You can eat right up to the bullet hole". The entire left shoulder and soft issue on that side was nothing but a gooey mess resembling jello. The ball did not hit that shoulder directly but behind it. The right shoulder was a mess as well. This was most tissue damage I have seen counting centerfire.

All I'm saying is an ideal load for a 100 plus yards may not be ideal for say....10 feet.
I have seen in highpower where the bullet basically explodes on impact with almost zero penetration in extreme close range again, a distance measured in feet. Whether a long rifle is capable of such is worth a consideration. The video suggests to me it's worth investigating further.

 

[Artificer]

First of all, plain water is not a good medium to test the "killing power" of a bullet or load. Ballistic Gelatin is better, though it does not have the density and/or elasticity of hide, muscle and bone.

Hydraulic/Hydrostatic shock occurs with ML pistol rounds that have less velocity than rifles, though of course the amount of the shock is less. (This gets into the field of temporary and permanent wound channels, though this alone is not important as overall organ and tissue damage ”“ I agree.) However, I doubt anyone will try to argue that a .490 round ball is as good at killing when fired at lower pistol velocities as the same ball fired at higher rifle velocities ”“ even IF the pistol ball goes all the way through the game animal.

Higher energy transfer causes more tissue damage with the same projectile, as long as (as I stated before) the bullet has enough penetration. With a .490 caliber round ball, we do not worry about having enough penetration in living tissue on deer size game at the distances deer are typically taken - unless one uses too light of a powder charge, of course.

If you put a lower velocity ball through a deer's heart (and some other organs), the ball will make a hole in the heart and the deer will die. However when you shoot the same size ball at a higher velocity into the heart, there is more hydraulic shock and a larger temporary wound channel that tears/ruptures more of the heart tissue and puts the animal down faster.

Further, we use a larger powder charge at longer ranges not JUST so the ball has a flatter trajectory, but also because the higher velocity ball has more energy to transfer to the wound.

Gus

 

[yardhunter]

Good conversation.

I figured it would be flattened, but split apart?

OK shooters”¦what would make that lead ball split in half?

 

[Artificer]

LD is correct that when a object hits water fast enough and/or sometimes also at angle, the water acts like a solid, rather than a fluid.

Your 100 grain load seems to have gotten the lead ball moving fast enough that it hit the water like a solid and thus the ball fragmented.

Gus

 

[coloradoclyde]

If you had done the same test vertically in a very large tank of water instead of using jugs, you would have gotten the same results. but! you could have also done an extreme low velocity test by simply dropping a ball and watching it fall to the bottom of the tank.

Water compresses....the more force you apply to it the more it compresses and the more that compressed water acts upon the bullet.

Great video :thumbsup: :hatsoff:

 

[George]

Water compresses....the more force you apply to it the more it compresses and the more that compressed water acts upon the bullet.

I've heard of the new math, is that the new physics?

Spence

 

[zimmerstutzen]

When a round ball travels faster than sound, air piles up in front of the ball. The result is that a sonic speed ball decelerate faster than a slow ball.

Water is significantly denser than air and water piling up in front of the ball causes exponentially more rapid decelleration. A body falling from several stories high, will be as crushed hitting water as if it had hit concete.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Yes!....... :haha:

 

[coloradoclyde]

Exactly! The key is velocity :thumbsup:

 

[coloradoclyde]

Water compresses....the more force you apply to it the more it compresses and the more that compressed water acts upon the bullet.

I've heard of the new math, is that the new physics?

Spence

Maybe I should have said that, "The faster a bullet hits the water the more the water compresses in front of the bullet. The more the water is compressed the more acts like a solid and can flatten, disintegrate and even cut a ball in half....
Ever seen a water jet cut through steel?
Similar principal.

 

[George]

Water, like most liquids, is generally considered to be incompressible under the conditions we ever deal with it.

Spence