View Single Post
Unread 11-23-2019, 09:34 AM   #8
Member
Drew Hause
Forum Associate
 
Drew Hause's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,292
Thanks: 381
Thanked 4,338 Times in 1,407 Posts

Default

Russ: a couple of very helpful graphs.

This from 1931 shows the pressure-distance curves with vintage powders; FFg, Ballistite (Dense) and Schultze & DuPont (Bulk) and DuPont Oval "progressive burning smokeless powder"



The pressure is falling at the forcing cone, though less so with DuPont Oval

Modern powders peak and fall much more rapidly so the pressure at the forcing cone is even lower



So there would be no safety justification for more wall thickness in the cone compared to the end of the chamber (where pressure is higher)

And to clarify Bruce's point, Bell's study compared 2 1/2” chamber with a 7/16” forcing cone vs. 2 3/4” chamber with a 1” forcing cone and showed the pressure decrease was about 400-1200 psi depending on the load and vv. the pressure rise could be as much as 1200 psi
A summary is here about 1/4 way down
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...vwLYc-kGA/edit
Drew Hause is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Drew Hause For Your Post:
Visit Drew Hause's homepage!