• 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

Round balls and the Greenhill formula

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ciffer

32 Cal.
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
i did the math with the Greenhill formula to determine rate of twist for a .490 roundball. the result was 1:73.5.

(Greenhill formula avaiable here.)

based on my understanding, the Greenhill formula would give the same twist rate for a cylindrical projectile with .490 diameter and .490 length.

i am wondering if someone who knows more than me knows if i need to account the specific gravity of the round ball differently than i would for a .490x.490 cylinder.
 
[probably more than you wanted to know....]

I have a copy of Greenhill's original 1879 paper, and I can tell you that it is actually a good bit more complicated than what you generally see given as "Greenhill's Formula." The original formula was actually derived for an "oblate spheroid" shape....somewhat of a "football" shape, as a mathematical convenience. It is derived neither for a cylinder nor a ogive-conical although it has always worked fairly well for either.

That being said, don't worry about it, you can basically use it for either shape and get approximate minimum twists rates that are ok and that is why the simplified formula works as well as it does:

twist/d = constant x d/L x sqrt(D/10.9)

where

twist/d = twist in calibers

constant = 150

d = caliber

L = length of bullet

D = density of bullet (lead = 11.34gm/cc)

sqrt() = square root


(You often see Specific Gravity instead of Density.....if Density is given in metric units of grams per cubic centimeter (gm/cc) then that is numerically equal to the Specific Gravity because the Density of Water is 1gm/cc.)

The fact is that the original complicated form of Greenhill Formula has an additional weak dependence on length that is not represented in the usually given simple version....This one of the reasons that the Constant given above has different values for differnt lengths of bullet. For a very short bullet, ie, a ball, some will use 120. I think that is too small, but somethign smaller than 150 is fairly obvious from studying Greenhill's 1879 paper.

The reason that the constant is sometimes taken as 180 for modern spitzer suppository guns is because the drag curve is lower at velocities way above 1500fps and a constant =180 is usually given for these higher velocities, ie 2800fps or so. This does not apply, obviously to our muzzleloaders, which bullets fly in the 1500fps +/- 500fps region, including the trans-sonic region of highest drag.

Using constant = 150 for a ball

twist/d = 150 x .490/.490 x sqrt(11.34/10.9) ~ 153

and actual twist rate = .490 x 153 = 75" or one turn in 75"

That is a minimum twist rate. You usually see anywhere from 1in66" to 1in72" for a PRB .50cal barrel.

You will often see someone opine that a ball does not need much spin because no matter which way it turns, it is just the same round ball....This is not true for at least two reasons:

1) the ball gets flattend some on its nose, and around its periphery upon loading with a tight patch.....

2) even if the ball remained mathematically round, because it has a spin (whether random or given by too-slow rifling) if it turns sideways it becomes a curve-ball (caused by air-flow effect called the Magnuson Effect). This is the same effect that causes drift at extended range due to spin, as the trajectory curves away from the direction of the ball's spin axis.

Better too give your ball enough spin to stay oriented than to have Magnuson in your pants at close range....unless of course you intend it to be a smoothbore...in which case it goes like a knuckleball at some point...


YHS,
rogerw
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wow- thanks!

more esoteric (and minimally useful) facts with which i can clog my alleged brain...

now if i could just remember my kids' birthdays...

all kidding aside, that is pretty cool.
 
this stuff is gettin' complicated, I'm just use to loading,aiming and shootin'. but again I'm just a old fart set in his ways.

TTC
 
ciffer said:
based on my understanding, the Greenhill formula would give the same twist rate for a cylindrical projectile with .490 diameter and .490 length.

Wouldn't .490 x .490 be a square?
 
Looks to me like it would be a square ball????
see what so much thinkin' does :confused:
 
Ciffer,

I warn you that unless you have a physics or engineering background you are not likely to like the paper:

Greenhill's 1879 paper was printed in England in The Royal Artillery Journal, he was an instructor at the Artillery College there. But it was re-printed in 1880 in the United States in Van Nostrand's Engineering Magazine and this can be found at this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=U8ASAAAAYAAJ

This is a very large pdf file to download, 25MB.

On page 211 of the original magazine document, or page 224 of the pdf page counter, is the beginning of Alfred George Greenhill's paper.

In Greenhill's day they did not have computers and calculators, of course, and a consequence of this is that they had to calculate everything manually by hand. Because of this the equation does not appear explicitly but rather Greenhill describes how he calculated it and then gives results in a table on page214.

Notice that for L/d = 2 and for lead bullet(SG=10.9) the twist/d is given as 84.29 calibers.
This implies a constant of 2x84=168.

For L/d=3, the constant implied is 3 x 50.74 ~150.

For L/d=4, the constant implied is 4 x 36.43 ~146.

If you measure a modern spitzer, they are usually about L/d=3 give or take, and that is the reason you usually see a constant of 150 given in "Greenhill's Formula." The first time this simplified version (so well known today) is known to have appeared in print is about 1921 in a British military publication.

So, mea culpa, I must have made an error above giving a constant of 120 for a PRB, although I am certain I have seen that somewhere....I will search for it and post if I find it, but I think that should be considered wrong.The trend actually goes the other way than I stated.

BillinOregon, you are correct that James Forsyth (I have a hardcopy of his 1863 book) makes recommendations on rifling schemes for specific calibers based on experience. He is trying to achieve quick reloading in the face of large dangerous game in India, loading "not so tight" PRBs (no wiping) with minimal rifling twist to avoid "tripping" the lands, and is generally shooting rifles of 14bore (69cal, which he refers to as "light!") and larger. On the 14bore, IIRC, he recommends a 104" twist as being good to 250yds or a 125"(thereabouts) twist being good to 150yds. He is also shooting alloy-hardened balls with around 200gr or more of blackpowder. My point is that his discussion is experiential, but not theoretical and may not be much use outside of his exact caliber and load, espectially down at .50cal (which must be really light!).

I do not know of a very good reason why the slower twist should be ok, we will have to trust Forsyth on that one. However, for a .69cal Greenhill would predict a 103.5" twist, so I think that in fact Forsyth's comments are a subset of Greenhill's theory. BTW, thanks for the link, I had not noticed it available online...

Bob308.....Really? Why?


YHS,
rawdog
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The shape of Greenhill's original bullet was a Prolate Spheroid, not Oblate (gosh, darn!).

:grin:

YHS,
rogerw
 
rawdog said:
The shape of Greenhill's original bullet was a Prolate Spheroid, not Oblate (gosh, darn!).

OUCHHHhhhhh!!!!

OOoops, sorry, Still a little sleepy...Read it as 'PROSTATE' spheroid...Thought a humungous hemorrhoid or something.. :rotf:
 
The ball is also fore-shortened some more upon firing and let's hope Magnuson isn't wearing his armor.
 
RunnBall - If you can hold the Saracen's off my back for a few more minutes, I can explain a discrepancy I mentioned above....

The popularly given GreenHill's Formula assumes, among other things, that the air drag coefficient is constant with velocity; but it is not (see on this page http://www.frfrogspad.com/extbal.htm the G1 curve often used for conicals, or the GS curve which is for our beloved PRBs).

I mentioned that using a constant=150 is merely a general choice for conical bullets between about 1800fps and 2800fps and that at 2800fps many references say to use a constant=180. This is because of the drop in air drag coefficient at that velocity...but if you go the opposite direction, much less than 1800fps you can see the drag coefficient is increasing. (And as many references will also say "use 180 above 1800fps," which I think is underkill on Saracens, so ignore those references for the time being)

The tendency for a bullet to turn sideways and keyhole is a function of the air-forces tending to turn it sideways, which in turn is proportional to the drag coefficient....therefore, all things being equal a bullet should twist faster in the highest drag region of about 1100fps to 1500fps and can twist slower still be stable if launched in the higher velocity regions like 2800fps.

Well if you read the "TWIST AND BLACK POWDER CARTRIDGE RIFLES" at this link http://www.lasc.us/Brennan_2-3_Twist.htm you begin to realize that longrange BP conicals are usually traveling in this lower speed region, and the text there is saying that experience demonstrates a faster twist is needed for long BP conicals to remain stable at long ranges. THIS is the reason that a constant=120 has been suggested for blackpowder CONICALS.

It is NOT a suggestion for PRBs. In fact, unlike a conical a roundball (even one distorted by loading and firing) has far less tendency to keyhole than a long conical like a 500grain .45cal 1000yard target bullet. In fact, just as Greenhill's Paper suggests, a constant even larger than 150 is probably fine for roundball accuracy, and Forsyth's experience corroborates this expectation.

I got Forsth's .69cal 250yd twist correct: one turn in 8feet 8inches or 104 inches, which suggests a Greenhill constant=150 (.69x150 = 103.5") but I misrepresented his 150yd twist: it is 1 turn in 12ft or 144inches. This implies a Greenhill constant=208.

If you ball remains fairly perfect, it probably does not matter as much...Forsyth was shooting harnened balls, and probably got somewhat less deformation that we usually do with pure lead balls and tighter patching.

Robert McCoy's book on Exterior Ballistics gives the modern mathematics on stability and there is a software program mentioned that is available, but it won't work on PRBs.

Bottom line: it is a lot more complicated than a simplistic version of "Greenhill's Formula" would lead you to believe, but fortunately even a Saracen does not have to understand the physics to shoot true.....


YHS,
rawdog

(Saracen's hate dogs I understand... :grin: Thanks Runnball!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top