How do they measure cup pressure

Does anyone have a friend at SAAMI that we can talk to?

That does not always workout; A member of many forums called SAAMI about case head space. The member assumed the case had head space and spent a lot of time advising rookie reloaders. And then one day I made him aware of the absence of the symbol for head space on SAAMI case drawings.

I am sure SAAMI was impressed with the shooters accomplishment but after talking to him they did not add the symbol for head space on their case drawings. BUT! We all know SAAMI is going to hire a reloader, after that the case will have head space and it will be possible to bump the shoulder back with a die that has full case body support and bump will no longer be something a cam over press can do.

F. Guffey
 
Back to the beginning:
"How do they measure cup pressure?"
"Every reloading manual is different how is measured what do they use. Just trying to understand".

With a focus on here in the US and only here in the US SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute) recognizes two pressure measuring systems and only two systems.

COPPER CRUSHER SYSTEM
This system employs a copper crusher cylinder that is compressed by a piston fitted to a piston hole into the chamber of the test barrel. The pressure developed by the gases from the burning propellant acts through the piston hole, allowing the gases to force the piston upward, and thereby permanently compressing the copper crusher cylinder. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute has adopted the pressure units designation of "Copper Units of Pressure" (abbreviated CUP) for this system. This designation applies only to values obtained using the particular crushers, tarage tables and methods outlined in this Standard.
PIEZOELECTRIC TRANSDUCER SYSTEM
This system employs a piezoelectric transducer flush mounted in the chamber of the test barrel. Pressure developed by the gases from the burning propellant exerts force on the transducer through the cartridge case wall causing the transducer to deflect, creating a measurable electric charge. This electrical charge is converted into a reading of pressure. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute has adopted the pressure units designation of "pounds per square inch" (abbreviated psi) for this system. This designation applies to values obtained with transducers and methods as outlined in this Standard.

The supporting documentation for all of the above can be found in ANSI/SAAMI Z299.4 – 2015. It is worth noting that the referenced document only applies to Pressure and Velocity of Centerfire Rifle Ammunition for the Use of Commercial Manufacturers. There are similar documents and voluntary standards for shotgun and handgun ammunition.

Purpose and Data:
ANSI/SAAMI – Z299.1 – Rimfire – 2018
ANSI/SAAMI Z299.2 – Shotshell – 2015
ANSI/SAAMI Z299.3 – Centerfire Pistol & Revolver – 2015
ANSI/SAAMI Z299.4 – Centerfire Rifle – 2015
ANSI/SAAMI Z299.5 – Abusive Mishandling – 2016

The matter of importance as far as CUP and PSI are how the test are performed which are identified in the procedures and methods for doing each test. Each method will yield different test results. The numbers will not be the same simply because the methodology used to obtain the results are different.

Something else which is noteworthy is:
"The designation “Copper Units of Pressure” (“CUP”) was adopted by the Technical Committee at their meeting of January 8, 1969, to replace the previous designation of “pounds per square inch.” Advances in the art of pressure-sensing devices had shown that pressures recorded by deformation of copper crusher cylinders are not necessarily a true measure of pounds per square inch for the transient phenomena encountered in sporting arms ammunition".

Prior to 1969 measurements using the CUP methods were frequently reflected as PSI. When newer and better test methods were developed the new results were found to be more accurate and reflected numbers more inline with what actual or true chamber pressures actually were.

That is about it as to how pressures are measured and determined in the US using two different methods.

Ron
 
Also note that the US Army is not a member of SAAMI.

For a good while 7.62 was listed in technical manuals in old format crusher psi, which convinced a lot of people that commercial .308 ammo was substantially "hotter" than military 7.62.

Also, you will not find 5.56 listed in the SAAMI reference Ron cites. Which makes me wonder about the Black Hills assertion that "Per SAAMI specs, the 5.56 NATO is loaded to higher pressures." I don't doubt that it is, but it is not in SAAMI specs.
 
Let's not forget the partner of CUP, the LUP. Identical setup that uses lead crushers.

P.S.I. (pounds per square inch) and L.U.P. (lead units of pressure) are used to measure chamber pressure in the various shotshell gauges. L.U.P. calculated through the use of a lead crusher was used for many years, but has been replaced by the more accurate P.S.I. arrived at through the use of the piezo system.
L.U.P.:
The L.U.P. lead crusher method can not indicate the peak pressure created in many shotshell loads.

P.S.I.:
The P.S.I. piezo method is electronic and can see the quick pressure peaks of steel and heavier lead shotshell loads.
 
Jim Watson:
Also note that the US Army is not a member of SAAMI.

For a good while 7.62 was listed in technical manuals in old format crusher psi, which convinced a lot of people that commercial .308 ammo was substantially "hotter" than military 7.62.

Also, you will not find 5.56 listed in the SAAMI reference Ron cites. Which makes me wonder about the Black Hills assertion that "Per SAAMI specs, the 5.56 NATO is loaded to higher pressures." I don't doubt that it is, but it is not in SAAMI specs.

Which is a very good point. This also opens another can of worms. Organizations like SAAMI and ANSI list specifications for cartridges like the 223 Remington and 308 Winchester. I have never seen mention of the 5.56 or 7.62 NATO in SAAMI published documents. As I mentioned, prior to 1969 results obtained using the copper crush method of testing were frequently listed in load data as PSI so it really wasn't till 1969 that any distinction was actually made.

I also never understood and reference to SAAMI with reference to a military cartridge designation? Beats the heck out of me.

The newer methods of measuring chamber pressures certainly yield what I see as better results with some really cool improvements since man walked on the moon. Other innovations like placing a strain gauge on a barrel have made available to the hand loader some cool tools. While not quite as elaborate or accurate as using a $1,500 transducer on a custom barrel with a pile of electronic test equipment.

Ron
 
Once again I am awed by Unclenicks detailed answer.

My sort of detail (granted if it gets into serious math I get left behind, Trig was not for me shall we say!

Good is the warning about older books and the CUP/PSI combo of the time.

Probably of interest (to me for sure) would be the dwell time of a peak that would be needed to cause issues.

Or, how long does a pressure peak have to be present for it to affect the cartridge/chamber and exceeding the ability of one or the other to contain it? (go boomish or distort)

RMS of the pressure world as it were
 
RC20:
Probably of interest (to me for sure) would be the dwell time of a peak that would be needed to cause issues.

Or, how long does a pressure peak have to be present for it to affect the cartridge/chamber and exceeding the ability of one or the other to contain it? (go boomish or distort)

RMS of the pressure world as it were.

My thinking here is what we have using today's pressure transducers to measure chamber is really cool stuff. Using the older CUP method we slam dunked a small copper pellet under controlled conditions, measuring the pellet before and after noting the deformity. We took that measurement to a chart and derived the CUP (Copper Units of Pressure). This related to a peak pressure but that is all we had. Start of powder ignition to the end of show was generally a few milli-seconds. We did not get a picture or snap-shot of the show and merely ended up with a number.

Today's ballistic transducers can actually make a picture of what is going on. That is the cool part, we can actually plot and see the pressure curve. Without getting into plotting and calculating the area under the curve we can actually look at for example how fast we hit peak pressure and the decline in pressure as our bullet travels down the barrel until it exits the muzzle. We plot pressure on the Y or vertical axis against time on the X or horizontal axis. The copper crusher method never revealed those characteristics. As the bullet travels down the barrel the gas has more and more volume to occupy and drops quickly. Being able to see this is pretty cool. We can for example compare the curves for faster and slower burning powders in a given cartridge. Things like with different primers for ignition how fast we reach a peak pressure. A Google of chamber pressure curves will bring up some interesting pressure curves.

How much is enough before things go bad? Well I figure that we have published pressure upper limits for standard cartridges. The guys making the gun need to design a gun capable of handling those pressures. We know when ignition happens in the cartridge that cartridge expands until it is confined by the chamber walls. The action needs to safely confine all of the pressure including the breech face and other moving parts. The gun is designed to confine pressures way above those anticipated on a maximum load. How much more I really don't know but I think in Hatcher's Notebook he hits on this using an 03 Springfield and maybe a Garand using test ammunition having pressures well in excess of normal limits.

Looking at some pressure curves they rapidly hit a peak and quickly drop so the actual peak is really a very short duration. I want to believe that on gas guns like the M1 Garand and M14 by the time the bullet passes the gas port the actual pressure is only around 10,000 PSI but don't hold me to that.

Something I have avoided through this thread is software solutions for calculating pressures or plotting pressure curves. Quickload for example uses an algorithm of their own doing to calculate chamber pressures and graph them. I have no clue how well those numbers would pare against using an actual ballistic piezo sensor. I do trust that published load data is safe to use along with good hand loading work habits.

Most of this is again just my thinking on the subject and certainly open for any critique. We care about Peak Pressure and I really don't see an RMS value to the curve. :)

Ron
 
How do you explain this unambiguous statement from Black Hills?:

"Per SAAMI specs, the 5.56 NATO is loaded to higher pressures.
How did they get a SAAMI spec for 5.56? SAAMI doesn't show a spec for 5.56. it is specified by NATO, using a different method of testing.

In the link below scroll to the section that shows pressure. The numbers for EPVAT are the military specified pressure using the C I.P. system for measuring pressure. It was adopted by NATO as their standard. The numbers for the SCATP method are also specified by 5he military using the SAAMI method for measuring pressure. You will find 62,366 PSI and 55,114 PSI respectively.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO

In the link below you will find the pressures listed for the 223. SAAMI method is 55,000 PSI. The C.I.P. method is 62,366 PSI.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

The pressure for both 5.56 and .223 are the same when using the CIP/ EPVAT method at 62,366 psi.

The pressure is far less than 1 percent different using the SAAMI/SCATP method.

Where does that extra powder go between the time it's loaded and the time it's fired to keep the chamber pressures the same?

I am not saying that they are loaded the same. I am saying that the standard max pressure is the same. The charge can be heavier in 5.56 because there is more room in the chamber and throat. It is not much extra space, but it makes a difference.
 
The wiki links are interesting, but since anyone at all can edit them at any time, it's hard to know just how seriously to take them. I mean, it would be simple for me to go in and change them to state whatever I wanted them to state and then quote them as proof of my point of view. I am absolutely NOT saying that you would or did do that, just pointing out that without solid sources backing the statements in a wiki entry, they don't mean much.

Anyway, the source for the table of pressures provided in the second wiki link goes to an article that doesn't actually contain any of the information in the table. I'm not sure what's going on with that.

Finally, I can't find anything in either link that states that "The pressure for both 5.56 and .223 are the same when using the CIP/ EPVAT method at 62,366 psi."
I am saying that the standard max pressure is the same.
I get that. I'm just more inclined to believe Black Hills and Federal when they say that the standard max pressures are different since that kind of thing is what they do for a living and getting pressures wrong means a lot more for them than just having to eat a little crow in an online discussion.
 
The wiki links are interesting, but since anyone at all can edit them at any time, it's hard to know just how seriously to take them. I mean, it would be simple for me to go in and change them to state whatever I wanted them to state and then quote them as proof of my point of view. I am absolutely NOT saying that you would or did do that, just pointing out that without solid sources backing the statements in a wiki entry, they don't mean much.
I was Leary of using wiki for the same reasons. But it was the place I found the numbers together in the same format. CIP lists everything in Pascal units not PSI. SAAMI doesn't show any other methodology, and it would have been a link to a vast amount of information listing every cartridge. The numbers align if you research them separately.

Finally, I can't find anything in either link that states that "The pressure for both 5.56 and .223 are the same when using the CIP/ EPVAT method at 62,366 psi."

62,366 psi is the pressure that is shown in both links. The 5.56 is listed under EPVAT. The 223 is listed under CIP. The method used is the same, therefore it is apples to apples. Comparing numbers from EPVAT/CIP to SAAMI/SCATP is the same as comparing PSI to CUP. They are different numbers for the same cartridge because they are using different methods.

If you look at the pressure charts for SAAMI, CIP or any other technical testing facility they list the method used and all of the specific details. They list every little detail because if anything is done differently in another test the results of the new test will be different.

I get that. I'm just more inclined to believe Black Hills and Federal when they say that the standard max pressures are different since that kind of thing is what they do for a living and getting pressures wrong means a lot more for them than just having to eat a little crow in an online discussion.

I would like to believe that Black Hills and Federal are using the proper pressure as well. But I believe it would be very easy to confuse the numbers from different methods of testing. In your qoute it stated that Black Hills used case mouth transducer location data . Different methods and location of the transducer change the numbers from the same lot of ammunition. I would bet that they are producing safe ammo, but that the method of testing is not explained because it seams irrelevant to the author.
The .223 Rem. mid-case transducer maximum average pressure is 55,000 p.s.i., while a 5.56x45 mm measured with a case mouth transducer has a maximum average pressure of 58,700 p.s.i.

I don't mind eating crow on an online chat, sometimes it teaches me to research more before I speak. This topic is a tough one because so much confusion exists.
 
The 5.56 is listed under EPVAT. The 223 is listed under CIP. The method used is the same, therefore it is apples to apples.
I don't believe that EPVAT and CIP use the same measuring method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_EPVAT_testing

"Unlike the civilian C.I.P. test procedures NATO EPVAT testing procedures for the "NATO chamberings" require the pressure sensor or transducer to be mounted ahead of the case mouth. "

"Due to NATO EPVAT using technically differing proof test standards than SAAMI and C.I.P., EVPAT pressures cannot be directly compared with SAAMI and C.I.P. pressures."
In your qoute it stated that Black Hills used case mouth transducer location data.
Actually, that part of the quote just says that Hoffman provided specs for the two cartridges. It doesn't explicitly state anything about their methods--it only tells what the specifications are.

"He also provided these pressure specifications for the cartridges. The .223 Rem. mid-case transducer maximum average pressure is 55,000 p.s.i., while a 5.56x45 mm measured with a case mouth transducer has a maximum average pressure of 58,700 p.s.i."
But I believe it would be very easy to confuse the numbers from different methods of testing.
I just find it too hard to believe that two different ammunition manufacturers are "confused" or "guessing" about pressures on cartridges that they manufacture.
 
I just find it too hard to believe that two different ammunition manufacturers are "confused" or "guessing" about pressures on cartridges that they manufacture.
I don't think the manufacturer is confused. I think the readers are confusing the numbers, not realizing the difference. I believe that they are loading and testing with the case mouth transducer knowing that it is safe. When someone says the phrase " I would expect to see" , it sounds like an educated guess.
"Due to NATO EPVAT using technically differing proof test standards than SAAMI and C.I.P., EVPAT pressures cannot be directly compared with SAAMI and C.I.P. pressures."
Thank you for taking the time to research it and find the difference. I was surprised to see the numbers were the same with the difference between the two methods when I was researching. It has something to do with the transducer being exposed to the burning powder and not insulated by the case . There is a pressure anomaly caused by this that they account for. And the PSI numbers are converted from MPa, which is the CIP format.

Have you looked into SCATP standards yet? And why they exist?
 
I don't think the manufacturer is confused.
If they're not confused, and we can accept that they know what they're talking about then we can just take them at their word. Here are two direct quotes from ammo makers that don't get into any complications about pressure measurement techniques.

Federal/ATK
"Mil Spec 5.56 ammo typically has higher velocity and chamber pressure than the 223 Rem."

Black Hills
"...the 5.56 NATO is loaded to higher pressures."
 
Google "SCATP 5.56 1984". You should find the military spec in PDF format that is no longer classified that you can download and read. A bit boring until the pressure section. Lots of military standard procedure.
 
So we're back to Federal/ATK and Black Hills being confused about the pressures of the ammunition they load?

Here's another quote from Black Hills.

The 5.56 IS a higher pressure/velocity cartridge, but it is made to a military standard, with different test methods, (and therefore is not easily directly comparable to .223 pressures) . . . the general spec for US 5.56 ammo is 58,700 psi max, measured at case mouth. . . Please note this is a different method than SAAMI transducer or copper crusher, as used on commercial ammunition. 5.56 ammunition spec results in ammunition loaded to a higher pressure level than commercial .223, but the test methods specified are different . . .The spec calls for a different pressure test method than SAAMI spec ammo, and is not directly comparable . . . “

It would be interesting to see a detailed explanation of the differences between the SCATP and SAAMI pressure measuring techniques and a careful explanation of exactly how the two pressures are quoted. Until we have that, it seems that comparing SCATP and SAAMI numbers directly is misleading based on unambiguous statements from ammunition manufacturers.

One interesting point I noticed in the 5.56 military pressure specs based on SCATP is that while they specify the average pressure at 55,000psi, they seem to allow individual cartridges to test as high as 61,000psi. I can't see any sort of comparable statements in the SAAMI specs, but again, it would be interesting to get a detailed explanation of the differences. It seems clear that they are similar but it is equally clear that they are not identical.
 
One interesting point I noticed in the 5.56 military pressure specs based on SCATP is that while they specify the average pressure at 55,000psi, they seem to allow individual cartridges to test as high as 61,000psi. I can't see any sort of comparable statements in the SAAMI specs, but again, it would be interesting to get a detailed explanation of the differences. It seems clear that they are similar but it is equally clear that they are not identical.
Most specifications have an average limit. Military limit appears to be fairly high for a single cartridge, but that would mean that they allow that much below the average as well. I can agree that the two standards are not identical. But they are pretty close .

If you study the SAAMI charts they also have a max average and a max allowed single load in a lot. It is just harder to find than the standard numbers.

Even though the cartridges are loaded to similar pressure, the chamber still makes a big difference. I can see that most loads of 5.56 may not be safe to shoot in most 223 chambers. But it is an interesting topic for discussion.
It would be interesting to see a detailed explanation of the differences between the SCATP and SAAMI pressure measuring techniques and a careful explanation of exactly how the two pressures are quoted. Until we have that, it seems that comparing SCATP and SAAMI numbers directly is misleading based on unambiguous statements from ammunition manufacturers.
I agree, that would be interesting. I can't remember where I saw it, but somewhere I read that the SCATP was set up for US commercial loaders to be able to produce ammo during war time without changing the method and tools that they already used. NATO EPVAT is set up so the commercial loaders in Europe could produce ammo for NATO troops for the same reasons.

And given that the two standard max pressures are less than 1 % different I would think that there is a military math equation from the EPVAT standard in MPa at work. Whereas SAAMI rounded down a little.

I haven't come across any information about case mouth transducer other than the quotes you have from Black Hills. I wonder where they got it from....
 
If you study the SAAMI charts they also have a max average and a max allowed single load in a lot. It is just harder to find than the standard numbers.
Right, I should have been more clear. When I said I couldn't find anything comparable, I meant that:

1. SAAMI doesn't specify an allowable maximum for any single cartridge--all of their limits are stated in terms of the results of statistical calculations.

2. The maximums they do state in terms of statistical caculations are nowhere near 61,000psi.
 
Back
Top