Secondary pressure spikes in 223

what are t1, t2...t4?

T1. T2 and T4 are events happening in a part of the barrel I do not have. I do not have barrels that can tolerate those pressures, the only parts I have on rifles that can tolerate those pressures are located in the chamber.

There is a bullet maker in the very far north with a barrel hanging on the wall, the muzzle is opened up about a foot from the exit hole. The barrel is identical to a barrel pictured on the Internet. A shooter near Houston forgot to remove a bore scope, then there was the M1917 that hung on the wall in Ft. Worth, TX. It was named the 'Buck Horn Rifle' because of the curled metal at the muzzle.

F. Guffey
 
Bongo Boy,

These are measurements made with a strain gauge datalogging instrument. The resolution is only 8 bits, so with the 50,000 psi scale, the resolution jumps in 195 psi increments.

Strain is how much something bends or deflects in response to the stress of an applied force. The strain gauge used here is the most common type that is a zig-zag pattern of an electrically resistive foil sandwiched between two thin insulating film layers. You glue them to things you want to measure strain on, and wires run from the ends of the foil to form an arm of a resistance measuring bridge. After gluing these gauges to something, when that something stretches or compresses, the gauge stretches or compresses with it, causing its resistance to go up or down. By measuring that resistance change, and knowing the bending properties of the material it is attached to, you learn how much the something was strained (deformed) by the stress force applied to it.

On metal, strain gauge measurements are extremely linear, out to many decimal places, just so long as the metal is strained within its elastic limits. This is how laboratory scale load cells are made; by gluing strain gauges to small metal beams that the scale pan sits on. In effect, the metal beams are a spring and the gauge changes resistance in proportion to how much that spring is bent by the weight on it. On the outside of a rifle chamber, the gauge changes resistance in proportion to how much the steel expands underneath it due to the pressure inside. This is a quick event, but the traces in the images are showing that resistance change and what pressure would produce the amount of stress that results in the amount of strain that the changing gauge resistance shows.

T1 is test one, T2 is test two, etc. Each of the tests is a different shot. Across the bottom of the scale is the time starting from the trigger pressure set on the test instrument. The vertical left scale is the corresponding pressure based on the thickness of the steel wall of the chamber under the gauge. Each peak pressure labeled T(n) corresponds to the round that produced the pressure plot that is the same color as the lettering.

In the plot I made of the .30-06 in my dad's '03, T1 had the cable connector come loose during the measurement, so the measurement just showed a lot contact make and break garbage, so I removed it. That's why that graph starts with T2.


Mr. Guffey,

Below may be a plot that will interest you. It shows three pressure traces from three rounds fired touching the lands, T1, T2, and T3, and then four pressure traces of the same load with the bullet seated 0.030" deeper, T3, T4, T5, and T6. You can see the pressure peaks are about 20% lower for the last four rounds. In this instance, the measurement timer starts when the strain corresponds to 10,000 psi. At just past the 1.0 millisecond point beyond that, the bullet has cleared the muzzle. It then takes just a fraction of a millisecond longer for the drop in pressure to reach the chamber and the reading to drop zero. The fact the reading is slightly above zero, as many are, is some sort of direct current offset or drift, caused either by a capacitor taking a charge, or by glue recovery hysteresis in the gauge interface surface. I don't know which.

RSI6PPCthroatjam2_zps7abe8a9a.gif


In 1965, Dr. Lloyd Brownell ran the same experiment, also using strain gauges. The plot below is of how the peak pressure changed as he went from touching the lands to seating very deeply. It's interesting for a couple of reasons. One is that there is a pressure minimum, below which seating even deeper raises pressure again. The other is that the drop in pressure is continuous as you come off the lands, and not a sudden jump. Brownell's explanation was not the usual static vs. kinetic coefficient of friction one you hear which is based on the assumption there is a more sudden change in pressure from touching the lands. Instead he suggests that after the neck expands to release the bullet and before the bullet can reach the throat, there is gas bypassing it, and that stops the pressure from building as much before the bullet is running away from the chamber, expanding the burning space. That running start then prevents the remaining powder from reach as high a peak. This plot of peak pressure vs. seating depth is for a round nose bullet in .30-06. A round nose has to move further than a Spitzer nose does to make as big a gas bypass opening around the bullet. That's why the pressure change in the 6 mm plot above is more sudden for a shorter seating depth difference.

seatingdepthvpressure_zps326eb859.gif


Nick
 
I occurs to me that most of these powders, and barrels longer than 20 inches, were in use for decades before the ability to plot pressure versus time. I find it hard to believe that a load published 50 years ago will suddenly start blowing the end off of barrels because we discovered that it has been spiking the pressure all along.
 
That seems improbable, but you have to be aware that powders distributed to handloaders often wind up differently-sourced over time and that 50 years ago they didn't control burn rates of canister grade powders the way they do now. Also, as Allan Jones points out, primers change more often than people realize, and without public notice, and none of the ones we have today exactly match what there was 50 years ago. The two facts combined means many loads from 50 years ago are never replicated exactly today, even though it may appear from pressure signs and velocities that they are.

IMR 4895, for example, has come through at least three different companies and plants and two different processes in that 50 year period, with good powder from DuPont, followed by some pretty terrible production out of Radford for a few years, then taken over by GD and moved to the Valleyfield plant in Canada, and more recently going through a process change as Valleyfield announced the old IMR process was no longer economically feasible to maintain. That process change is one reason you are seeing some new IMR powders being introduced.

We all know that when you go through a load manual there are loads that are more accurate than others. It is quite possible the secondary spike is the reason at least some of those loads never tune in well.

Internal barrel ringing may be invisible without a borescope, but the .223 barrel Jim Ristow described had three rings, spaced exactly by the amount and number of previous setbacks and rechamberings done to the barrel. Is it possible the ring is contributing to accuracy problems when it gets large enough, and that is the real reason the barrel had to be set back to start shooting again? I don't know, but it's worth exploring.

At any rate, even when they do no damage, those pressure events aren't helping anything, either. Until I know more about them I'm going to avoid them. One of the problems with all this stuff is that only the military has the funding to do really detailed laboratory research on it. I know I can't afford to run millions of rounds through thousands of guns to look for a statistical effect. I just hope the military sees it and studies it so the rest of us can get a better idea what is going on.

Jim Ristow says the spike doesn't happen in 20" and shorter barrels, but since the bullet often isn't that far along when they occur, and I have no idea what sample size and variety of barrel contours his examination is based on, I take it with a grain of salt. Without a military study, anecdotal evidence figures big in this and other problems. As Jack Belk points out, just because you've flown hundreds of times and never been in a plane crash doesn't mean you shouldn't believe they can happen. But that's how a lot of folks interpolate their personal experience anyway.

Time passes; measuring improves; we learn more. At least, we should expect to.
 
Back
Top