Obturation of a patched round ball...real or imagined?

[necchi]

My present inclination is to believe that it is not true.

I know you have a back ground in or at least an understanding of chemical and molecular structure,,
,
I believe objurgation is true,
Nobody has the equipment to prove it one way or the other at this point,
but yet it is known that lead projectiles are fluid,,
Why would fluidity change within the primary shape of the projectile? Be it round, oblong, thick or thin,, while it's under all other rules of kinetic energy?
That's the issue,, Lead as stasis,, or under the rules as applied within the variables of "each individuals" applied energy.

If I throw a tomato at you, will it spat? Or just bounce off?
(know body knows)

 

[coloradoclyde]

Heat is a factor...if we freeze the projectile in liquid nitrogen we get a totally different outcome.

I could throw a hot tomato at you and it would splat like soup
Frozen could be lethal.
All with the same force.

 

[Grumpa]

...and all the rest of you,
I love this place! :wink:

 

[Billnpatti]

My statement to the effect of my belief about the deformation of the ball was:

My present inclination is to believe that it is not true. :shake: But I have been wrong before. So, if you prove me wrong, you ain't gettin' a virgin. :haha: :haha:

First, let me state that I used the term "Obturation" incorrectly in the original post. What I meant was obturation of the bore due to deformation of the ball.

I must also say that the viscosity of lead at room temperature is significantly different from that of a tomato at the same temperature. The viscosity of any given material will have a significant effect on its deformation due to acceleration or deceleration. Just sayin'......

 

[coloradoclyde]

Were you referring to the ball being deformed by the explosion........or the sealing of gasses?

And have you come to any conclusions?

 

[Billnpatti]

As I have said, my original statement was poorly worded. What I was talking about was deformation of the ball. If a reality, it would add to the obturation of the bore. My personal opinion, and it is just that, opinion, is that there is no deformation, at least not a significant amount of deformation of the ball due to being fired from a rifle. There may be theoretical deformation but I seriously doubt that there is any actual measurable deformation due to being fired from a rifle.

Proof? Me? I got nothing. :idunno: It's just an opinion and you know what they say about opinions and an anus......everybody has them and they all stink. Or so I have been told. I have extremely limited experience there, too. :rotf: :rotf:

 

[brubincam]

Imaginary problem--every bullit fired from rifle or pistol is shaped a little or a lot after fireing

 

[coloradoclyde]

Ok great I understood you correctly then.


The question I have is..... what would acceptable proof look like to you?

What would the test parameters be?

What would convince you?

 

[Billnpatti]

I think that by now, you realize that even though I worded my original statement poorly, that I have made it abundantly clear in subsequent postings that I am speaking exclusively of deformation of the ball due to the acceleration forces of being fired from a rifle bore. This to the exclusion of any other deformations such as those caused by a ramrod or short starter or the marks of the rifling and/or patch.

Alas, I feel that I am waxing loquacious in my repetitious postings on the matter....and I am not making reference to any sort of depilatory operation. Why don't we lay this discussion to rest by saying that there are many opinions but no empirical evidence sufficient at this time to resolve the issue.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Why don't we lay this discussion to rest by saying that there are many opinions

I told ye that ye was :stir: :stir: :stir:
:rotf: :surrender:

 

[coloradoclyde]

I think that by now, you realize that even though I worded my original statement poorly, that I have made it abundantly clear in subsequent postings that I am speaking exclusively of deformation of the ball due to the acceleration forces of being fired from a rifle bore. This to the exclusion of any other deformations such as those caused by a ramrod or short starter or the marks of the rifling and/or patch.

If a ball can be loaded without engaging the rifling(or being imprinted with rifling)...but has rifling on it after it is fired .......would that be acceptable proof?

 

[Vaino]

Amen....and a glorious day to all. Of course there are those who enjoy prolonging a "going nowhere discussion", but I'm not one of them. I admit that w/o any proof, my contention that a RB's lack of increase in dia. due to chamber pressure is w/o substantiating evidence...but the folks on the other side of this discussion about something that has no impact on every day loading and shooting MLers, have no evidence to the contrary either.

So.... any so called facts from both sides in this discussion aren't really facts, but a lot of personal opinions and conjecture. This is a usual phenomenon on many websites where "proof" is non-existent because of the difficulty and expense of obtaining proof.

So where is this discussion headed? Like many "no proof" discussions, it becomes an irrational and personal argument that ends w/ no sense of accomplishment and in fact it was probably better that it never should have happened. Why? Because it changed nobody's mind. What you came in w/ is exactly what you had when you left.

Beating a "dead horse" starts off being fun, but soon becomes tiring and boring.... :dead: ..,Fred

 

[longcruise]

You still have the problem of how to catch the bullet in such a way as to not deform it.

Ya, Ya, I know all about the catching of bullets in water by forensics people. Before you get too deep into your research you might want to fire something into a large tub of water, or better yet, a swimming pool and inspect it for damage. Try something that runs around 1100 to 1700 fps, such as a fairly hard lead slug out of a .357 and take a look at it for deformation.

 

[azmntman]

As we are all told in hunting safety classes we should not shoot a bullet on water as it could ricochet of the water....so would not shooting a round ball made of soft lead into water possibly cause some changes???? :idunno:

 

[coloradoclyde]

You still have the problem of how to catch the bullet in such a way as to not deform it

.

Nope. If the ball or bullet is loaded without any deformation and has rifling imprinted on it after being fired....Then deformation has been confirmed.
Water, sand, snow, foam, or photography there are many ways to capture the bullet.

All we have to do is load a projectile without deforming it. Not that difficult to confirm using a removable breech.

 

[coloradoclyde]

I guess that for those that don't believe in, or want to believe that a ball can deform upon firing, I would ask why then are you participating in the conversation?

Well there is an answer for that too....it is known as the backfire affect.

 

[longcruise]

How do you know that that ball was loaded without deformation? :grin:

 

[longcruise]

I guess that for those that don't believe in, or want to believe that a ball can deform upon firing, I would ask why then are you participating in the conversation?

Well there is an answer for that too....it is known as the backfire affect.

How about because it is a discussion on whether or not the ball upsets and obturates the bore? Are you suggesting that those who don't fall in line with your opinions or ideas should opt out?

Maybe you are just obdurate?

 

[coloradoclyde]

Your new avatar says it all.

 

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I suspect the differences in experience is due to the wide range of shooters load preferences.

There are some folks who take deer with 60 grain charges, and others who use 120 grains. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there will be a considerable difference in pressures between the two loads.

So why are we trying to determine IF a roundball obturates when perhaps we should be wondering how much powder it takes to obturatea prb? And how soft does the Pb have to be?

I have observed precisely this phenomina with CF bullets. I would recover them in snow. The nose of the bullet was so perfect I could still see the mold seam. But i could compare the grease grooves and sure enough, more powder made more obturation. More obturation made less gas blowby (this could also be seen in the Pb). And so on until the rifling stripped the Pb.

My question is, if a significant amount of obturation can occur at loading, why not omit the patch and use a ball small enough to go down easy then obturate it to engage rifling. Much like the minie ball except not relying on the charge to engrave it?