Gooddaytoya!
40 Cal
Do the members here believe the Miller twist rate formula produces reliable results?
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Miller Twist Rate?
- Thread starter Gooddaytoya!
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Nope. At least no more then has been proven by history.
Mathematical application of variables, and realistic/proven application of the same within the historic firearms generally considered in this forum is mute when considering the Miller formula.
This stuff isn't rocket science, Millers formula considers projectile configurations outside of the traditional aspect.
It's simple,, Yes, improvements have been made in the last 150yrs, but Miller never even thought about a round ball as a projectile.
Mathematical application of variables, and realistic/proven application of the same within the historic firearms generally considered in this forum is mute when considering the Miller formula.
This stuff isn't rocket science, Millers formula considers projectile configurations outside of the traditional aspect.
It's simple,, Yes, improvements have been made in the last 150yrs, but Miller never even thought about a round ball as a projectile.
Last edited:
Erwan
45 Cal.
This is my personal opinion : that gives an idea on the materials used but not absolutely reliable results, this is a good base ...
The Miller formula is good and certainly an evolution in regard of the Greenhill formula, but the Miller formula is really interesting for target shooting (or not) at relatively long distance, with long bullets...
For us the Greenhill formula is more adapted because the basis of the calculation is issue from the studies of the round balls and cannonballs...
Anyway, depending on the case, I use the Miller or the Greenhill formulas but more to choose or compare bullet in identical barrel. Theoretically, we don't need it...
Like I write before : this is what I think about this formula and other guy will see this of very different way...
By the way and if you need it I can give you an Open Office sheet with Greenhill and Miller calculators, the only one interest of it is that you can have it anytime on your computer...
The Miller formula is good and certainly an evolution in regard of the Greenhill formula, but the Miller formula is really interesting for target shooting (or not) at relatively long distance, with long bullets...
For us the Greenhill formula is more adapted because the basis of the calculation is issue from the studies of the round balls and cannonballs...
Anyway, depending on the case, I use the Miller or the Greenhill formulas but more to choose or compare bullet in identical barrel. Theoretically, we don't need it...
Like I write before : this is what I think about this formula and other guy will see this of very different way...
By the way and if you need it I can give you an Open Office sheet with Greenhill and Miller calculators, the only one interest of it is that you can have it anytime on your computer...
Gooddaytoya!
40 Cal
Gooddaytoya!
40 Cal
Thank you for your replies, guys. The Miller formula is just another curiosity to me.
longcruise
70 Cal.
Generally, Greenhill is not absolutely accurate but in my experience if it suggests that a bullet will work, then it will. You can push length a bit beyond Greenhill limits but it's up to you if you want to play with it.
Some BPCR shooters use it in spreadsheets that make it easy to vary the constant.
Some BPCR shooters use it in spreadsheets that make it easy to vary the constant.
