Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Gun design

ecos - 6-6-2016 at 05:48

Hi All,

I have enough KClO3 and I was planning to shoot some metal balls. I am planning to use metal pipe like this one :
PRISON-GUNS-11-pipebanger-300dpi.jpg - 50kB

There will be a spring that will accelerate a nail to hit the EM and fire the ball.

Of course there nice explosion inside the metal tube (barrel) that will send the metal ball so far away like this pic (i know the picture has bullet but i will do it with ball) :
chinn_pressure1.png - 15kB

My question here : what is the maximum amount of EM that I can use not to break the barrel ?

I think there will be a relation between the EM and the thickness of the barrel but I couldn't find enough info.
chinn_pressure0.png - 13kB
I read that AN was used before as gun powder but it shutters the guns after few 100 rounds since it is very strong. it sounds really critical to choose the EM type and amount to have a proper gun.

ref of the pics : http://www.orions-hammer.com/blowback/

[Edited on 6-6-2016 by ecos]

PHILOU Zrealone - 6-6-2016 at 06:24

Depends on the EM, the mix...this is very risky/suicidal project!

I have used such pipe bombs with KClO3, S, C, CaCO3 and for some of my mixes even with 5 mm wall thickness, it was reduced to schrapnels of less than 1 cm²...

Chlorate mixes can be very brisant...I had a specific mix with an extremely fast burning rate that detonated from flame in a hard brass pipe (3cm long, 3 cm diameter, 1 mm wall thickness) open on both sides put on the ground on one open end and filled with 2 thee spoons of light chlorate powder...not pressed at all...with a 30 cm slow burning drinking straw fuse (10 sec delay)...it detonated...the brass was turned into copper dust!

Chlorate is for sure way too brisant for gun use...it burns too hot and is also very corrosive even to galvanized (Zn plated) iron pipe.

The screw on top caps will for sure be dangerous random projectiles with fast projection and rotation.

If by any chance it succeeds to shoot without being destroyed, the gun will be dirt by KCl or NaCl and rust, maybe deformed or structurally weakened...causing troubles for further attempts...

[Edited on 6-6-2016 by PHILOU Zrealone]

ficolas - 6-6-2016 at 06:37

Can you stimate the pressure and the temperature of the barrel when the EM explodes? If so maybe using T = PR/t, where T is the tension, p the pressure, R the radius and t the thickness, and comparing the values with a table like this one http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stainless-steel-pipes-pres... for your material and temperature?
This is probably a wrong route thought.

careysub - 6-6-2016 at 06:39

You don't know what you are doing. Do not attempt this project, as described.

If you want to launch projectiles use commercial black powder or make the equivalent (lots of stuff on making black powder), and then study interior ballistics to learn the relationships between propellant loading density and chamber pressure.

Propellant powders were designed to do this with predictable, useful burn rates and pressure curves, and decades of experimentation went in to perfecting them.

Edit: I took out the suggestion to look at smokeless powder, I agree that even that is risky for someone not skilled in gun smithing.

[Edited on 7-6-2016 by careysub]

OneEyedPyro - 6-6-2016 at 14:26

I would suggest only black powder for a project like this, even smokeless powder is too risky since slight variations in charge weight can have a significant influence on peak pressure. Chlorate mixtures sound like a very bad idea to me.

If you must do this be sure to start with small amounts of BP and work up in small increments.
I'd suggest doing some remote testing as well.

NeonPulse - 6-6-2016 at 16:58

Surprisingly this thread has not been locked yet. It's a rather dangerous idea. Perhaps a simple cannon fuelled with a quality black powder would be a much safer alternative if all you want to do is fire some bearings.

careysub - 6-6-2016 at 17:18

Quote: Originally posted by NeonPulse  
Surprisingly this thread has not been locked yet. It's a rather dangerous idea. Perhaps a simple cannon fuelled with a quality black powder would be a much safer alternative if all you want to do is fire some bearings.


But it is good that people come here to propose projects, and thus get potentially life-saving safety advice.

ganger631 - 6-6-2016 at 19:34

Really ambitious project and seems rather dangerous,however i was wondering how are you going to rifle the barrel?

Bert - 6-6-2016 at 19:53

I concur that chlorate is NOT a good candidate for the oxidizer in an amateur gun propellant, especially in an improvised "zip gun" of unspecified metallurgy/design parameters!

If you absolutely MUST home build an improvised gun, black powder is your best choice.

ecos, I do believe your user name has RATHER comprehensively navigated the circuit of historically common propellant options here on the board, asking questions on both their rocketry and gun applications- You did learn something from doing that?!

Every classical muzzle loader era attempt to use chlorate in black powder analogue propellants led to a dramatic failure, and usually came to a sticky end, sometimes including deaths of the associated powder mill workers (see Berthelot and the Essone stamp powder mill). The armies of Europe, the Americas and much of Asia played with this chemistry and related engineering before single, double and triple based smokeless powders were accepted as 20th century state ok for the art. And, all abandoned the effort after finding the increase in performance not worth the increase in sensitivity and related dangers associated with storage, manufacture and handling of industrial quantities of such propellants.

Please do not piss on the electric fence yourself in order to confirm two centuries of failure to safely and effectively implement such.


Quote:

Text
Explosives and Their Power.
Translated and Condensed From the French of M. BERTHELOT

By C Napier Hake and William Macnab

London: John Murray 1892


( 518 )

CHAPTER XI.

POWDERS WITH CHLORATE BASE.

§ 1. GENERAL NOTIONS.

1. BERTHOLLET, after having discovered potassium chlorate, and 
recognized the oxidizing properties so characteristic of this salt, 
thought of utilizing it in the manufacture of service powders. He 
made several attempts in this direction, but immediately suspended 
them after an explosion which happened during the manufacture 
carried on at the Essonnes powder factory, an explosion in which 
several persons were killed around himself. The same attempt has 
been revived at various periods, with certain variations in the 
composition.

But in every case explosions, followed by loss of lives-such, for 
instance, its those which happened during the siege or Paris in 
1870, and at L’ Ecole de Pyrotechie in 1877-- happened before 
long in the course of its manufacture.

it is thus clear that potassium chlorate is an extremely dangerous 
substance, which is only natural, because its mixture with 
combustible bodies is sensitive to the least shock or friction. The 
catastrophe in the Rue Beranger (see p. 46), produced by an 
accumulation of caps for children's playthings, [Armstongs Mixture 
djh] containing potassium chlorate, has helped to confirm these 
ideas. Chlorate powders are, generally speaking more easily 
ignited, and burn with more vivacity than black powder. They 
explode, like the latter, on contact with an ignited body. They are 
hardly used at the present day, [<1892! djh] except as fuses for 
fireworks, or to produce shattering effects in torpedoes, for 
instance. A powder of this kind has even been proposed in America 
as motive agent of forge-hammers or pile-drivers. In this case the 
cartridge is placed between the head of the pile and the ram, when 
the explosion drives in the one and sends the other upwards. Their 
strength is superior to that of nitrate base powders, but less than 
that of dynamite or gun-cotton.

2. We shall first state the general properties of chlorated 
compositions. Potassium, chlorate, which is the essential 
ingredient, is a salt fusible at 334, and which decomposes regularly 
at 352'. Nevertheless, it may become explosive by itself under the 
influence of a sudden heating, or a very violent shock (p. 406).

We have seen that it yields 39-1 per cent. of oxygen and 60-9 of 
chloride of potassium—

ClO3K = KCl + 03,

liberating, at the ordinary temperature, 11 Cal. for each equivalent 
of oxygen (8 grms.) fixed; or 1.4 Cal., per gramme of oxygen; or 
0-54 Cal. per gramme of potassium chlorate.

These quantities of heat must therefore, generally speaking, be 
added to those which would be produced by free oxygen, when 
developing the same reaction at the expense of a combustible 
body (p. 134). But the presence of the potassium chloride, which 
acts as inert matter, tends to lessen this advantage.

3. The extreme facility with which potassium chlorate powders 
explode under the influence of the least shock is a consequence of 
the great quantity of heat liberated by the combustion of the 
particles which are ignited at the very outset and their low specific 
heat; this heat raises the temperature of the neighbouring portions 
higher in the case of chlorate than of nitrate powder, and it 
therefore more easily propagates the reaction. The influence is the 
more marked the lower the specific heat of the compounds, [1] and 
as the reaction commences, according to the known facts, at a 
lower temperature with the chlorate than with) the nitrate of 
potassium.

Everything,  therefore, combines to render the inflammation of the 
powder with chlorate base easier.

Therefore the substances of which they are formed should not be 
pulverised. or crushed together, but pulverized separately and 
mixed by screening.

The drying in the stove of these powders is dangerous. The 
presence of powdered camphor, so efficacious with gun-cotton, 
does not lessen the sensitiveness of chlorate powders.

4. Not, only is the chlorate powder more energetic and 
inflammable, but its effects are more rapid; it is a shattering 
powder. Theory again is able to account for the property. In fact, 
the compounds formed by the combustion of chlorate powder are 
all binary compounds, the simplest and most stable of all, such as 
potassium chloride, carbonic oxide, and sulphurous acid. Such 
compounds will undergo dissociation at a higher temperature and 
in a less marked manner than the more complex and advanced 
combinations, such as potassium sulphate and carbonate, or 
carbonic acid, which are produced by nitrate powder. It is for this 
reason that the pressures developed in the first instance will be 
nearer the theoretical pressures with chlorate than with nitrate 
powder, and the variation in the pressures produced during the 
expansion of the gases will be more abrupt, being less checked by 
the action of the combinations successively reproduced during the 
cooling.

5. The explanations just given apply not only to powders in which 
potassium chlorate is mixed with charcoal and sulphur, compared 
with analogous powders with nitre as base, but also comprise all 
powders formed by the association of the same salts with other 
substances. It can be shown that this is so, without entering into 
special calculations, for which the exact values would in the 
majority of cases be wanting.

Now, our comparisons are based on the following data, which 
present a general character: —

1st. Both salts employed in equal weights supply to the bodies 
which they oxidise the same quantity of' oxygen. 122-6 grins. of 
chlorate yield 6 equiv. or 41 grins. of oxygen; that is to say, 8 grins. 
of oxygen for 20 grins. of chlorate; whilst 101 grins. of potassium 
nitrate yield only 5 equiv., or 40 grins. of available oxygen, viz. 8 
grins. of oxygen to 20-2 grins. of salt. Hence it follows that both 
salts must be employed in equal weights in the greater number of 
cases.

Now, one and the same weight of oxygen, 8 grams., yielded by 
potassium chlorate liberates + 11 Cal. more than free oxygen; if it 
be yielded by the nitrate, it produces 19.3 Cal., or 6.95 Cal. per 
gramme of Salt employed.

The formation of the same compounds will therefore liberate more 
heat with the chlorate than with the nitrate, and the excess will 
subsist, even in taking into account the union of the acids of 
sulphur and carbon with the potash of the nitrate.

This greater quantity of heat will give rise to a higher temperature, 
since the mean specific heat of the products is less with the 
chlorate than the nitrate. The mean specific heat of the products at 
constant volume may be calculated theoretically by multiplying the 
number of atoms by 2-4, and dividing the product by the 
corresponding weight. Now, the weight of the combustible body 
being the same will require the same respective weights of nitrate 
and chlorate, according to what has just been said; but the latter 
will correspond to a less number of atoms, since the equivalent of 
chlorine is greater than that of nitrogen.

2nd. The volume of the permanent gases is greater, or at the 
lowest equal, with potassium chlorate than with the nitrate, 
because the potassium of the former salt remains in the form of 
chloride, the whole of the oxygen acting on the sulphur and carbon 
to produce gases; whereas the potassium of the nitrate retains a 
part of the oxygen, at the same time as it brings. a portion of the 
sulphur and carbon to the state of saline and fixed compounds, the 
formation of the salts more than compensating, for the volume of 
nitrogen set free.

3rd. In the case where only the carbon or 6, hydrocarbon burns, the 
compensation in the gaseous volumes is exactly effected because 
each volume of nitrogen liberated from the nitrate replaces an 
equal volume of carbonic acid combined with the potassium yielded 
by the said nitrate. Nevertheless the pressure will be increased, 
even in this case, with the chlorate, because its temperature is 
higher.

4th. The compounds formed with the chlorate being in general 
simpler than with the nitrate, dissociation will be less marked, and 
consequently the action of the pressures will be at once more 
extended, because the initial pressure is greater, and more abrupt, 
because the state of combination of the elements varies between 
narrower limits. Hence arise shattering effects rather than those of 
dislocation or projection.

6. Potassium chlorate possesses another property which has 
sometimes been utilized. Its mixture with organic substances, or 
with sulphur or other combustible bodies, takes fire under the 
influence of a few drops of concentrated sulphuric acid ; which is 
due to the formation of chloric acid, which is immediately 
decomposed into hypochloric acid, an extremely explosive 
compound and a  very powerful combustive.

This property has been utilized to cause the ignition by shock of 
torpedoes and hollow projectiles charged with potassium chlorate 
powder. It is sufficient to place in them a tube or glass balls, filled 
with concentrated sulphuric acid.

This artifice may even be employed to ignite chlorate fuses for 
exploding dynamite or gun-cotton.

But all these arrangements are very dangerous for those who put 
them into execution, and they have not been practically adopted.

7. We have yet to say a few words about potassium perchlorate, 
which is generally regarded as equivalent to the chlorate, but by a 
mere theoretical generalization, for it is a salt which is expensive, 
difficult to prepare pure, and it has hardly formed the object of real 
experiments as an explosive agent.

Weight for weight it yields a little more oxygen than the chlorate; 
about a sixth, viz. 46.2 per cent instead of 39.1.

ClO4 = KCl + 04,

But this liberation of oxygen absorbs heat; - 7.5 Cal. per equivalent 
of salt, or - 0.9 Cal. per equivalent of oxygen, instead of liberating 
it.

From this point of view, therefore, the perchlorate acts almost like 
free oxygen, with the disadvantage of half of it being useless inert 
matter.

Pure perchlorate is not explosive either by shock or inflammation, 
as the chlorate. Further, its mixtures with organic substances are 
far less sensitive to shock, friction, the action of acids, etc. They 
ignite with more difficulty and burn slower.

[1] The fact, these two powders only differ by the substitution of the 
chlorate, the specific beat of which is 0.209, for the nitrate, the 
specific heat of which is 0.239.

[2] Supposing it to act upon a carbonated body, the carbon of 
which is changed into potassium carbonate.


-- 
donald j haarmann
----------------------------
A man would create another man if one did not
already exist, but a woman might live an enternity
without even thinking of reproducing her own sex.

Johann Volfgang Goethe



macckone - 6-6-2016 at 20:13

There were actually chlorate gun powders used in the past. They were found to be too corrosive. As with any mix, it is possible to regulate the burn rate with additives. Because they did it over a century ago, we know it can be done. However, this is not a beginners project. If you don't have an EM test range then you should not be doing this. If you can't fire from 50 yards away with a concrete wall between you and the device then you shouldn't do a project like this.

Chlorate powder patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/US765999

ecos - 7-6-2016 at 15:14

Thanks all for the info. I really appreciate it.
I am convinced now that chlorate is a bad option for guns.

I will try to use ammonium nitrate since it is easier to find (fertilizer) or I will make BP.

the missing information , what is the relation between the barrel thickness and the amount of BP?

logical wise the thicker is the better but at least there shall minimum thickness to the barrel.

[Edited on 8-6-2016 by ecos]

NedsHead - 7-6-2016 at 18:23

Must everything be acronyms? oh..sorry, MEBA.
What is this BB?

careysub - 7-6-2016 at 19:41

Quote: Originally posted by NedsHead  
Must everything be acronyms? oh..sorry, MEBA.
What is this BB?


I think he means BP.

ecos - 8-6-2016 at 02:10

sorry for the mistake, I fixed it.

chemrox - 8-6-2016 at 09:23

I wouldn't use plumbers pipe for a gun barrel. If you want to pursue home-made guns, a laudable enterprise IMHO, get one of those small lathes made for hobbyists and acquire some gun metal stock. You could also retrieve some gun barrels from a dealer that tears down firearms. You can buy barrels through SHOTGUN NEWS and other like pubs. I share concerns about chlorate powders. Zn/S mixes work and aren't nearly so unstable when freshly mixed.

unionised - 8-6-2016 at 11:53

Quote: Originally posted by ecos  
Hi All,

I have enough KClO3 and I was planning to shoot some metal balls. I am planning to use metal pipe like this one :


[Edited on 6-6-2016 by ecos]

I agree with the people who have said "don't do this".
If you persist in doing it anyway- write your will first, and make sure there's someone round the corner to call the emergency services for you. (It's difficult to dial 911 without eyes or fingers)

ecos - 8-6-2016 at 14:39

@chemrox, what is "laudable enterprise IMHO" ?

@unionsid, please check my last comment.

Twospoons - 8-6-2016 at 15:13

Quote: Originally posted by ecos  


the missing information , what is the relation between the barrel thickness and the amount of BP?

[Edited on 8-6-2016 by ecos]


This question worries me. It tells me you do not have sufficient knowledge of engineering to attempt this project safely. If you still want to fire things I'd suggest you use cardboard tubes and projectiles - just a little safer if things go wrong. Figure out a remote trigger that keeps you well clear of the action. I used to use a neon sign transformer on a long lead to ignite BP in a cardboard "cannon".
Once you finish your mech. eng. degree, then try building a metal gun.

gregxy - 9-6-2016 at 11:49

You can buy replica black powder guns, they are legal and they are not considered firearms under federal law. Making a zip-gun like this is not legal, even if it is a much greater danger to you than anyone else.

If you do this, use black powder like the others have said and use a volume of powder less than the volume of the ball bearing.

OneEyedPyro - 9-6-2016 at 12:38

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy  
You can buy replica black powder guns, they are legal and they are not considered firearms under federal law. Making a zip-gun like this is not legal, even if it is a much greater danger to you than anyone else.

If you do this, use black powder like the others have said and use a volume of powder less than the volume of the ball bearing.


Depending on where he lives it may be perfectly legal, in the US you can build your own guns so long as they are the proper dimensions (for smoothbores it must be at least 28 inches in overall length with an 18 inch barrel).

IMO the actual risk of severe injury is quite low assuming a the pipe and breechface are sufficiently thick.

I think some safety glasses and welding gloves would pretty well mitigate most of the serious bodily damage with a reasonable charge of BP :D

ecos - 10-6-2016 at 02:18

All thinks that I am going to risk my life.
I try things from remote distance.
you made me give up the whole project :( !!!

@Twospoons
Quote:

This question worries me. It tells me you do not have sufficient knowledge of engineering to attempt this project safely.


Just a reply to your comment, I have a higher engineering degree than you can imagine.
This a professional question but you didn't get it!

[Edited on 10-6-2016 by ecos]

hissingnoise - 10-6-2016 at 06:31

Quote:
This a professional question but you didn't get it!


What the...!

How fucking ironic is that?


Maker - 10-6-2016 at 12:19

Quote:
Quote: Originally posted by ecos  


Just a reply to your comment, I have a higher engineering degree than you can imagine.
This a professional question but you didn't get it!

[Edited on 10-6-2016 by ecos]


I'm pretty sure we can all imagine higher level degrees than are possible to obtain, so please, don't be so cocky. If you had a high enough relevant qualification then you wouldn't need to ask:P


aga - 10-6-2016 at 12:51

I have no degrees, well, maybe of burn at times.

Even us lowly uneducated scum find the whole notion laughable:-

OP wants to make a Gun, is super-educated in engineering/mechanics and still wishes to use off-the-shelf plumbing/electrical pipe with an unknown propellant. LMAO.

Even a dullard like me would want to know :-
Expansion rate of the propellant
Diameter/length/weigh of projectile
Projectile material properties
... before finding the equations that certainly exist to calculate the pressures/fricative forces to find out how 'strong' the barrel material has to be etc etc.

Unresearched speculation (and suggestions) on ghetto Gun Design is definitely over The Line IMHO.

What's next ?

"Best suggestions for max impact IED deployment tactics in downtown Washington ?"

Lockdown time - too much good stuff in reponse to the OP to qualify for Detritus.

[Edited on 10-6-2016 by aga]

nitro-genes - 10-6-2016 at 14:26

Brass balls are admirable, but as endcaps on a gun not so much...:) Most metal piping is welded btw and not seamless, can't tell for sure from the photo, but it looks like ordinary plumbing pipe which is probably welded. This thing wouldn't survive blackpowder, let alone a chlorate based propellant...Even if it would survive a couple of blackpowder shots, the material will fracture (as it wasn't meant for this) and may suddenly give in while you are holding it. Recipe for getting seriously hurt.

[Edited on 10-6-2016 by nitro-genes]

ecos - 10-6-2016 at 15:04

Quote: Originally posted by nitro-genes  
Brass balls are admirable, but as endcaps on a gun not so much...:) Most metal piping is welded btw and not seamless, can't tell for sure from the photo, but it looks like ordinary plumbing pipe which is probably welded. This thing wouldn't survive blackpowder, let alone a chlorate based propellant...Even if it would survive a couple of blackpowder shots, the material will fracture (as it wasn't meant for this) and may suddenly give in while you are holding it. Recipe for getting seriously hurt.

[Edited on 10-6-2016 by nitro-genes]

I just added a photo for a zip gun from internet. I was planning to use water pipes instead since they are thicker.

ecos - 10-6-2016 at 15:05

I found a lot of books on internet about how to make a gun : http://www.prexis.com/sten/Holmes_50.pdf
this book is for 50 cal gun.

I have no interest in following the schematics , I am behind the science of how it was designed and different aspects.

[Edited on 10-6-2016 by ecos]

Tsjerk - 10-6-2016 at 15:29

You really don't get it do you? You cannot use any welded tubing for the barrel. It is just not going to work.

Besides that, do you have any idea about the kind of steal (assuming you are going for steal) your water pipes are made of? And with kind I don't mean iron....

Long story short: any amount of black powder between two metal balls in a metal water pipe makes a nice pipe bomb. If this is not the case I'm sure you are not going to be satisfied with the monding speed and you are going to crank it up until you do have pipe bomb.

Edit: and yes, water pipes are welded

[Edited on 10-6-2016 by Tsjerk]

nitro-genes - 10-6-2016 at 15:35

Make sure you also read "How to build an Abrams tank from plumbing supplies" by Prof. Dr. Dick Head...

ecos - 10-6-2016 at 16:24

:) , the gun was made by many people on youtube.
if you are interested , I can share links.


@Tsjerk, Thx for the info.

[Edited on 11-6-2016 by ecos]

morganbw - 11-6-2016 at 12:11

Good God people. Let the man make his gun. Smart (maybe not ) but he will discover quickly enough if it works or not. For me I would simply buy one, but I am not he.
I do agree that black powder should be considered.

aga - 11-6-2016 at 14:35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM7kCcfdcsE

ecos - 11-6-2016 at 15:24

simple zip gun in action : https://youtu.be/KRSxf87WfLw

doomeister - 18-6-2016 at 01:18

If you are going to build a firearm, please use black powder. If you are hellbent on using smokeless, please don't use plumbing pipe. Try to look for some seamless steel barrels, 4140 or 4150 chrome moly, or if must be, some BSP piping.

ecos - 18-6-2016 at 15:34

Thx for the warning.
I have a question , the BP inside the bullet undergoes deflagration or detonation?

i think designing a gun is more complex than I thought : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rPm-9ujt0Y

Metacelsus - 18-6-2016 at 16:46

Deflagration. Detonation would destroy the gun (and possibly maim the wielder).

careysub - 18-6-2016 at 17:11

Quote: Originally posted by ecos  
Thx for the warning.
I have a question , the BP inside the bullet undergoes deflagration or detonation?


Deflagration. One reason that BP is strongly recommended as a propellant is that it cannot detonate.

Quote:

i think designing a gun is more complex than I thought : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rPm-9ujt0Y


Yes it is. I suggested consulting a book on interior ballistics for a reason.

ecos - 19-6-2016 at 02:33

@careysub do you have a book to recommend?

NedsHead - 19-6-2016 at 05:01

My advice is to start out with straight wall black powder pistol calibres and stay away from bottleneck cartridges until you have some experience, I'm starting a project of my own soon, I'll let you know how it goes

ecos - 20-6-2016 at 04:09

@Nedshead, looking forward for your result :) Good luck.

I forgot to mention my reference and video for the book which explains how to make a 50 cal gun.

picture-23-5.png - 497kB

book : www.prexis.com/sten/Holmes_50.pdf

step by step video : https://youtu.be/KQe8gVxxsyk

I must admit that i got surprised when I knew that BP deflagrate not detonate. I thought the bang sound is due to small explosion that gives kinetic energy to bullet to move fast.




PHILOU Zrealone - 20-6-2016 at 10:27

Deflagration can go over the 350 m/s (speed of sound in air) up to >2000 m/s

hissingnoise - 20-6-2016 at 10:51

This thread has made me uneasy at its outset and I'm quite surprised and somewhat dismayed that Polverone has allowed this thread continue, especially in light of recent events, one of which featured a homemade gun used in committing a coldblooded murder!


PHILOU Zrealone - 20-6-2016 at 11:11

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
This thread has made me uneasy at its outset and I'm quite surprised and somewhat dismayed that Polverone has allowed this thread continue, especially in light of recent events, one of which featured a homemade gun used in committing a coldblooded murder!


Give a knife to a fanatic idiot and he will do a disaster...as bad if not worst as with a gun...

With the minimum chemical knowledge a fool can do a mass killing... (fire, gas explosion, chemical weapons)

A one shot gun is really the least problem...the problem is the shooter and his insane mind...

[Edited on 20-6-2016 by PHILOU Zrealone]

OneEyedPyro - 20-6-2016 at 14:22

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
This thread has made me uneasy at its outset and I'm quite surprised and somewhat dismayed that Polverone has allowed this thread continue, especially in light of recent events, one of which featured a homemade gun used in committing a coldblooded murder!


Considering all of the attacks with explosives over the years they might as well close the entire energetics section, it's that type of attitude that gets common chemicals like acetone and H₂O₂ banned.
Blame the fool not the tool!

[Edited on 20-6-2016 by OneEyedPyro]

nitro-genes - 20-6-2016 at 16:29

In general I agree to the statements above regarding closing this discussion, due to the missing science, novelty, and mainly practical discussion about something that could be seen as a weapon. (Hey guys, look...I'm gonna build .50 canon from youtube) Then again, like said before, it's all about the person, in principal everything can be used as a weapon, though sciencemadness is not the place IMO to discuss these things. Like the E&W forum, it also tends to attract another type of crowd so to say. Besides, sciencemadness also isn't the best forum for this probably, as there are likely other more specific fora on the internet with more knowledgeable people regarding this subject, which would mainly involve machining skills and knowledge about specific alloys and their properties and much less about energetic materials.

Some things to keep in mind though:

Point 1: In many countries weapons are in fact legal, sometimes even without any special license. It's pretty small minded to think of one particular incident, involving a particular firearm, in one particular country, having a particular law regarding firearms, to consider not allowing any discussion regarding this matter.
Point 2: This board is called Sciencemadness for a reason, one could argue there isn't much science in propelling things from a barrel (there actually is, just not in this thread.) On the other hand sometimes it's a bit of a grey area, for example, a light-gas gun would be very similar, though discussion would likely be allowed due to science interest and non-weapon use. And lets not fool each other in thinking that experimenting with energetic materials is much more dangerous than other types of chemistry. I'd rather have someone experimenting with making a blackpowder rifle from scratch than one mass producing ketene for acetic anhydride or working with large amounts of ether as my neighbour. Many potentially misusable and dangerous chemicals and potential precursors are openly discussed here, same goes for bacterial strain isolation and growth media, which is a real potential threat taken very seriously nowadays and implemented as part of safety and regulation prescriptions in many biochemitry labs. We should also not discuss making of alkaline earth metals, these are very explosive when in contact with ordinary water!

ecos - 20-6-2016 at 17:01

I am not talking about mechanical designs , machinary tools , ...etc
I am talking about using EM for making a rifle. In the beginning of the thread I was talking about AP as gun powder.

The forum here discuss a lot about EM as explosives. this can make a disaster.

A gun or a bullet is less problem than this.


Quote: Originally posted by PHILOU Zrealone  
Deflagration can go over the 350 m/s (speed of sound in air) up to >2000 m/s


2000 m/s sounds like a detonation not a deflagration !!

wouldn't a small controlled detonation give more power to the bullet and require less EM ?

[Edited on 21-6-2016 by ecos]

OneEyedPyro - 20-6-2016 at 18:19

A detonation is just far too powerful, if using high explosives was a feasible method for launching projectiles they would already be doing it. No offense but if you're actually considering using an HE in a gun you are obviously pretty clueless about all of this.

What gives a bullet power is not the peak initial pressure but rather the average pressure through the entire length of the barrel.
Peak pressure is however what will blow up a gun.

A 9MM has about 35,000 PSI which is considered fairly high pressure for a pistol round, even a relatively weak HE can produce millions of PSI upon detonation.

[Edited on 21-6-2016 by OneEyedPyro]

nitro-genes - 21-6-2016 at 06:21

Regarding the propellant, I actually think there are many more possibilities than blackpowder or nitrocellulose. The problem is that the amount of pressure produced in the barrel of a binary fuel/oxidizer mix depends on many factors, for example type of oxidizer and fuel, oxygen balance, particle size, density, type of initiation, cardridge shape, powder load and cardridge diameter, projectile weight and projectile material etc. Even something relatively tame as blackpower comes in differnt grades, the fastest revolver grades loaded in a canon would likely destroy it was well. For nitrocellulose, a great deal of reserach has been performed to determine all of these factors to come to a reliable propellant, as the material is a high explosive in it's own right and can be detonated under the right circumstances. For many possible propellants out there, these things have not been determined thoroughly as they have never been used commercially, while some like ammonpulver have been used succesfully. Apart from the instability, sensitivity and chloride induced barrel erosion of propellants using chlorates, it would be possible to actualy use it as a small arms gunpowder, by careful consideration of all factors involved. For example considerable overfueling of the chlorate mix will likely bring barrel pressures down, so do smaller loads and possibly particle sizes. If one would be to experiment with this though, this would be just that, an experimental setup, treated as if it is a pipebomb, never to be trusted for actual use. Certainly not with welded plumbing pipe made of low grades of steel.

I would actually find it interesting if someone would build a decent standardized setup and measure projectile speeds with unconventional binary or mono propellants. For example, those containing a combination of combustible gasses and an inert light gas, like helium or excess hydrogen. Maybe a solid binary or even monopropellant may be possible, releasing much hydrogen gas upon deflageration, increasing bullet speed. Seeing some of these high nitrogen/hydrgen heterocycle EM's I've been wondering if something like that could be advantagous in producing higher projectile speeds with virually no barrel errosion. Nano aluminium coudl also help here, although would likely result in more errosion. Cost would be much higher than normal NC though...

[Edited on 21-6-2016 by nitro-genes]

PHILOU Zrealone - 21-6-2016 at 07:50

Quote: Originally posted by ecos  
In the beginning of the thread I was talking about AP as gun powder.

Quote: Originally posted by PHILOU Zrealone  
Deflagration can go over the 350 m/s (speed of sound in air) up to >2000 m/s


2000 m/s sounds like a detonation not a deflagration !!

wouldn't a small controlled detonation give more power to the bullet and require less EM ?

[Edited on 21-6-2016 by ecos]

1°) "In the beginning of the thread I was talking about AP as gun powder."
Not AP (Ammonium perchlorate) but AN (ammonium nitrate) and KClO3!

2°) Deflagration is when the burning speed of the flame front is less than the speed of sound from the front flame shock wave(into the material) if both are equal then it is a detonation.

The speed of sound in air at stp is approx 350 m/s, but in liquids like water or in solids like metals, crystals...the speed can go to several km/s. So 2000 m/s is not per se a detonation.

The speed of sound is also dependant from the heat and pressure of the material...

A space shuttle or some planes do propel themselves at speeds like Mach 7 (7* the speed of sound in air = 2450 m/s)
And those are not detonating!

3°) You are speaking of EFP (explosive formed projectiles) if you plan to use detonating EM to propel a bullet...your bullet wont be a bullet anymore, it will display totally different dynamic because it will become plastic deformed by the heat-pressure and by the air friction...making it look like wet clay, playdoh, honey or water as a function of its cohesion, hardness and elasticity.


Hennig Brand - 21-6-2016 at 10:37

I have built a couple guns over the years just for experimental purposes. If I was to build another I think I would use hydraulic piston tubing/pipe, as it comes in a variety of diameters and wall thicknesses, it is seamless, made to handle high pressure and made of quality materials (in general).

Black power works, is reliable and reasonably safe, however, the extreme performance increase, relatively little fouling, etc, that comes with smokeless propellants makes them worth the extra effort in my opinion. Keep in mind it is a lot of extra effort and even after hundreds of hours I never made it all the way, but I know fairly well what needs to be done.

It is important to try new things, without some risk very little is gained, however, a careful risk assessment should be performed and if proceeding reduction of as many hazzards as possible should be basic practice.


[Edited on 22-6-2016 by Hennig Brand]

gregxy - 21-6-2016 at 11:03

There is a website homegunsmith (or something like that) that has all kinds of information. The site is more about metal working than chemistry however. These people make fire arms that are works of art.

A couple years ago I wanted to try smokeless powder in my black powder pistol so that I would not have to clean it each time. I carefully worked through the internal ballistics to make sure it would not blow up. In the end you use about 1/5 the weight of smokeless as you would for black powder. However I found that the smokeless I was using would barely burn at pressures that are safe for a black powder pistol. The gun would fire, but there was a bunch of unburnt powder left in the barrel. My pistol and the charge I used, was designed to work at 5000-10000 psi where as the powder (for a 9mm cartridge) at ~30000 psi. Burn rate is proportional to the pressure.


nitro-genes - 21-6-2016 at 13:42

Hmm yeah, this would also mean that a real standardized setup I mentioned earlier isn't possible, as the operating pressure is determined by both gun design and propellant type. Not really into guns and propellants as they are illegal here, but what actually makes that blackpowder can't reach the same velocity as NC based propellants? Energy content is lower, sure, but could you design a rifle that operates at really high pressures by changing several design features? Would peak chamber pressures become limiting in this case or is there a max. burn rate with increasing pressure for blackpowder? I've seen burn rates mentioned between 1300 and 4000 fps, but does this translate to the theoretical maximum projectile velocity? IIRC, much higher muzzle velocities can be reached with blackpowder when used in hydrogen-piston driven light gas gun designs...:) So is it also the composition of the gasses produced? Just curious what would be the theoretical maximum projectile speed for blackpowder.

[Edited on 21-6-2016 by nitro-genes]

Hennig Brand - 22-6-2016 at 00:43

With extreme overloading reasonably high muzzle velocities can be obtained with black powder, but it is very inefficient and much less than what can be obtained with smokeless propellants. Here are a few points I think are correct. I will have missed some good points I am sure.

1. Black powder combustion products are less than 50% gaseous or more than 50% solids. Smokeless propellants generally produce nearly 100% gaseous products.

2. A large portion of the energy released when a propellant burns is used up accelerating the combustion products, not just the bullet.

3. Black powder is not a molecular explosive/propellant and also has filler material such as the large potassium atoms as part of the oxidizer KNO3, so even with excellent milling reaction rate/burn rate can never come close to a molecular explosive with almost 100% gaseous products like NC or NC/NG, etc.

4. More hydrogen atoms which are about 1/12 the weight of carbon atoms so for a given weight of propellant will produce more gas volume and energy/heat. This is why candy propellants (sugar and KNO3 rocket propellant) are much more powerful than black powder propellants......more hydrogen so more gas volume, also much more heat of combustion. Hydrogen's LHV (lower heating value) is about 120 MJ/kg, while carbon's HHV (higher heating value) is only 32.8 MJ/kg.

5. Much higher energy content for smokeless propellants.

6. Ideal and normally nearly complete combustion reactions with smokeless propellants.

7. The velocity of the bullet/projectile can never be more than the escape velocity of the gases produced.

8. The effect of pressure on burn rate allows smokeless propellants to achieve much higher pressures and velocities and is very controllable by controlling particle/grain shape and size as well as composition. The effect of pressure on burn rate is very limited (relatively) with black powder.

9. The tremendous energy release of the nitrogen-nitrogen triple bond.

10. Fouling or solids build up in black powder guns causes all sorts of issues besides just being inconvenient and a righteous pain in the arse. Increased friction results in loss of energy and muzzle velocity, loss of or at least variable accuracy, corrosion damage to barrel and other gun components, etc, etc.

Note:
It is a myth, from what I understand, that smokeless propellants necessarily produce higher pressures than black power. Smokeless propellants can easily be made to produce the same or even lower pressures than black powders.


[Edited on 23-6-2016 by Hennig Brand]

OneEyedPyro - 22-6-2016 at 20:41

From what I've read the increase in burn speed in relation to pressure is much less dramatic if not non existant after a certain point with black powder, this gives a high tolerance for differences in confinement and increased charge weight.

Many smokeless powders however will continue to exhibit a positive feedback effect to much higher pressures than with BP, this can cause pressures to spike exponentially even with relatively modest differences in confinement or charge weight.

Back in the musket days it was common practice to load several musket balls at once or use double charges of black powder in muzzle loaders, despite this catastrophic failures were uncommon.

Today it's common to see modern guns fail catostrophically even due to comparatively minor things like bullet set back .

[Edited on 23-6-2016 by OneEyedPyro]

Hennig Brand - 23-6-2016 at 02:04

Black powder can certainly reach fairly high pressures when confined (ex. black powder pipe bomb), it just doesn't produce nearly as steep, or normally as high, a pressure curve when driving a bullet as smokeless propellants can (the time factor is very important). The barrels on black powder handguns are relatively long in most cases even when designed to be used with fast burning black powder.

There is a great deal of hype and fear mongering surrounding smokeless propellants in my opinion. From the time NC was first dissolved in a solvent, dried and cut into flakes to be used as propellant most of the dangers and unpredictable characteristics were eliminated or nearly so. Burn rate and pressure can easily be accurately and precisely controlled with smokeless propellants in a proven firearm with proven/suitable projectiles. If you have a severe restriction or the bullet is too large for the bore pressure can rise to dangerous levels yes. Use common sense...start low and work up to a suitable load. From the bit of experimentation I did there are often indicators that chamber pressure is getting a bit too high. This is only useful if a small load is tried first and gradually increased. It depends on the type of gun though.



[Edited on 23-6-2016 by Hennig Brand]

Bert - 23-6-2016 at 04:33

Smokeless powders (and different granulation of black powders!) are so widely variable that you should not even try to generalize peak pressure vs.time or guess the suitability of one or the other for an application.

Observe the below data, particularly for "Trail Boss". TB is marketed specifically for supposedly low velocity loads in black powder era cartridges.

Pick a propellant. Check the data, do not guess.

45_70_pressure3.jpg - 40kB

Hennig Brand - 23-6-2016 at 05:14

Very interesting, and an example with a 500gr projectile makes it more pronounced. You make a good point about reading the data carefully. Since the work has already been done for us the data provided could be used to reverse engineer a very similar propellant in terms of composition (mainly NC & NG content) and grain shape and size. By picking simple propellants with simple grain shape and few burn rate modifiers it should be possible to approximate the propellant fairly well.

AdamAlden - 23-6-2016 at 20:37

Anyone remember those boxes of bullets that hook up to helicopters? the box is filled with barrels which are filled with bullets making it a solid structure of bullets and propellant. It is the most efficient state of ammo storage. I've had the idea to make smaller versions that can be attached to a hand held platforms. This would make it very easy to reload and produce a fire rate beyond conventional fire arms. Of course the accuracy of the bullets at the back of the barrel would be more accurate with high velocity if the ammo boxes where filled to max capacity.

AdamAlden - 23-6-2016 at 20:46

If you have smokeless gun powder and want to alter the way that it burns I would try dissolving some in acetone and then solidifying it to create a different grain. You could also mix some regular gun powder and see what happens.

[Edited on 24-6-2016 by AdamAlden]

Arg0nAddict - 23-6-2016 at 23:13

I used to build and sell salute cannons 1/2" thick 6" x 6" base 3 layer fillet weld to secure a 3" dia. solid round stock 7" tall bored to 1.5" that way the walls were 3/4".

I always said these were not meant to fire a projectile because the steel used was mild steel molybdenum alloy (not typical cannon steel). Never fails though some idiot tried to fire a lead ball and basically made a you know what. I made $$$ but realized people cant follow instructions. I was nearly sued but I proved his negligence because their was a signed waiver and instructions.

I suggest not firing something that looks like that... I was scared to fire my little dick cannon.

GMh2ou3l.jpg - 90kB

nitro-genes - 24-6-2016 at 13:19

The muzzle velocities for the trailboss powder do seem about the same as for the blackpowder ones indeed, that seems something to remeber, muzzle velocities say nothing about peak pressures apparently. Just curious but how did you estimate the pressures produced, acceleration of the bullet in the barrel or something?

You guys are right of course that the pressure exponent of nitrocellulose is much higher (making it more unpredictable) than for BP, although I haven't seen any data on this for BP. Maybe likely though it is somewhat similar to KNO3-Sugar propellants, which reach a plateau in burnrates with increasing pressures, so really high pressures cannot be reached. Don't know burnrates for powdered KNO3-Sugar mixtures and catalysts added, but could in theory and with some tweaking (and maybe some catalyst added) powdered KNO3-sugar indeed make a decent propellant?. Or maybe golden powder? The latter it is used as ejection charge in pyrotechnics and has a decent burnrate unconfined, but never seen it as rifle propellant. Surely some of the "preppers" out there must have tried these. :D Would seem relatively more safe unconventional bullet propellants to test than chlorate based ones in any case.

[Edited on 24-6-2016 by nitro-genes]

Hennig Brand - 26-6-2016 at 02:57

Quote: Originally posted by nitro-genes  

You guys are right of course that the pressure exponent of nitrocellulose is much higher (making it more unpredictable) than for BP, although I haven't seen any data on this for BP. Maybe likely though it is somewhat similar to KNO3-Sugar propellants, which reach a plateau in burnrates with increasing pressures, so really high pressures cannot be reached.


Black powder is simply a physical mixture of fuel(s) and oxidizer(s) and can never be as consistent in propellant properties as a molecular propellant like NC.

Any high performance/powerful "tool" has the potential to be very dangerous in the hands of the uneducated or careless. Unpredictable?.....I wouldn't qualify it as such, but there is certainly a lot of potential for disaster if it is not understood and respected. Black powder isn't in the same league at all.

IIRC, you are correct about the burn rate plateau being reached quickly for black powder. The limits for smokeless propellants are extremely high, basically as far or farther than you would ever want to go when used as a propellant.

With great power comes great responsibility!!!
;):cool:


[Edited on 26-6-2016 by Hennig Brand]

ecos - 26-6-2016 at 04:26

it seems i have a miss-understanding. I still can't believe that deflagration happen for the BP ! how can they grantee high burn rate not detonation ?

I thought to try something to make sure if detonation will work or not.
I made 200 mg of acetone peroxide and put them in a tube and then added a ball bearing. I used a candle to heat the tube while I am far away.
a big bang happened and the ball bearing broke a wooden sheet placed at 10 m away.
I know that acetone peroxide shall never be used since it is very sensitive material but I wanted to see if detonation will have the same effect or not.
My conc, there will be a peak pressure due to detonation but since the ball bearing is moving slowly relative to the formed gasses , this will make the pressure decrease very slowly !

the metal tube is still in a good shape. I don't see any cracks in it.

OneEyedPyro - 26-6-2016 at 05:01

ecos. I really hope you're joking here :o

High explosives are not a suitable replacement for propellents. You are going to maim yourself or worse if you keep doing moronic shit like this! Putting TATP in a steel pipe is just Darwin award material.

No gun in history has used a propellent that detonates and there is good reason for this, if no expert in history thought it was a good idea what makes you think it is?!?
You obviously have no idea what you're playing with here.

The pipe may not break from a single 200mg detonation of TATP but mark my words, it will break with repeated use and if you're anywhere near it when it does you could be seriously injured.

[Edited on 26-6-2016 by OneEyedPyro]

Fulmen - 26-6-2016 at 07:08

Quote: Originally posted by ecos  
I still can't believe that deflagration happen for the BP ! how can they grantee high burn rate not detonation ?


500 years of empirical evidence not good enough for you?

It doesn't matter if we can explain it or not (we can), we still know through centuries of trial and error how BP behaves.

PHILOU Zrealone - 26-6-2016 at 08:57

A detonating material in contact with a bullet or canon may deform them or scatter them.
The peak pressure is not smooth but very sharp...see a shaped charge (SC) or an explosion forming projectile (EFP) effect and modus operandi...the metal behaves as if it is a playdoh/a liquid.

1°) Your spherical bullet may be compressed and be stuck into the canon generating a detonating pipe bomb canon...
2°) Your bullet may decide not to follow the canon and pierce it from the side as a long scratch generating a random shoot
3°) Canon scharpnels may go any direction but the target (the bullet cares for it eventually)
4°) Your candle design is far from safe even if you run fast and far....

Even if far away and under cover/protected an EFP fragment can kill you and pierce metal shielding...:(:mad:

You are thus playing the slutty russian roulette...sooner or later it will get you...just a mather of statistics and experiment repetition.

[Edited on 26-6-2016 by PHILOU Zrealone]

nitro-genes - 26-6-2016 at 12:51

As long as there is a residual force acting on the bullet it will continue to accelerate, however pressures drop quickly in the barrel as the volume of expanded gasses in the barrel increases, until it reaches some equilibrium or leaves the barrel. This is different from a rocket in which exhaust gas velocities are independent from the speed of the rocket, which is why we can reach space. So what if you could somehow fire the propellant in stages, like a rocket, along the barrel, it seems you could increase muzzle velocities? How efficient are propellants anyway, is there much heat loss for example. I fired a rifle at a commercial range few times, and the barrel does tend to get pretty warm after a few shots, is this mostly from friction energy loss or heat conductance?. For a combustion engine efficiency is about 35%, has anyone ever calculated this for a rifle? Could you seriously reduce the pressure exponent for NC by pressing (can it be deadpressed?) it as one solid block using hydraulic press, than having a very large chamber and a small extremely long barrel (enough to allow all propellant to be burned inside the barrel) would you find max velocity possible for NC using rifle?

[Edited on 26-6-2016 by nitro-genes]

Metacelsus - 26-6-2016 at 14:59

The "rocket" concept reminds me of the gyrojet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet).

ecos - 26-6-2016 at 15:43

Thanks a lot. I understand now your point regarding a peak pressure that shall be kept almost constant inside the barrel.
a detonation spike is not a right thing as i understand.

so how can they grantee that the gun propellant doesn't detonate?

I think the powder is confined in the casing and this would be detonation ! this is not a free burning .

OneEyedPyro - 26-6-2016 at 16:54

How fast an explosive deflagrates is not directly related how easily it will undergo DDT.
It comes down to variety of factors. I'm sure someone else can explain it more elequently and thoroughly than me so I'll just let them :D

When a gun fires the pop you hear is simply a release of pressure much like popping the cork on a bottle of champagne, completely unrelated to detonation.

Hennig Brand - 30-6-2016 at 06:37

 
Quote: Originally posted by nitro-genes  
As long as there is a residual force acting on the bullet it will continue to accelerate, however pressures drop quickly in the barrel as the volume of expanded gasses in the barrel increases, until it reaches some equilibrium or leaves the barrel. This is different from a rocket in which exhaust gas velocities are independent from the speed of the rocket, which is why we can reach space. So what if you could somehow fire the propellant in stages, like a rocket, along the barrel, it seems you could increase muzzle velocities? How efficient are propellants anyway, is there much heat loss for example. I fired a rifle at a commercial range few times, and the barrel does tend to get pretty warm after a few shots, is this mostly from friction energy loss or heat conductance?. For a combustion engine efficiency is about 35%, has anyone ever calculated this for a rifle? Could you seriously reduce the pressure exponent for NC by pressing (can it be deadpressed?) it as one solid block using hydraulic press, than having a very large chamber and a small extremely long barrel (enough to allow all propellant to be burned inside the barrel) would you find max velocity possible for NC using rifle?

[Edited on 26-6-2016 by nitro-genes]


I won't try to answer everything in detail, but here are a couple of the most important points to consider regarding smokeless propellants & burn rate & pressure profile/curve. I already posted this before in the bullet propellants thread (link included).

The following was taken from "Ammunition General" (TM 9-1900):

"Burning Action.Unconfined nitrocellulose propellant burns relatively slowly and smoothly but, when confined, its rate of burning increases with temperature and pressure. In order not to exceed the permissible chamber pressure of the weapon in which it is to be used, the rate of burning of the propellant has to be controlled. At any given pressure, the rate of burning is proportional to the propellant surface free to burn. Therefore, propellants are made into accurate sizes and definite shapes." 


http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=22649&...



[Edited on 30-6-2016 by Hennig Brand]

ecos - 1-7-2016 at 04:56

for confined burning with the increase of the temperature and pressure this might lead to explosion as happen in rocket motors.
isn't it the case for BP as well ?

Hennig Brand - 5-7-2016 at 23:20

The point is that burn rate and pressure are very much controllable and predictable for those who know what they are doing. The human factor is where most (all?) of the unpredictability comes in. Maybe the skill and attention to detail required is above what most are willing or able to obtain. I think there are many who participate at Sciencemadness that have the required mindset and skill level to do it safely however.

camerican - 26-8-2016 at 13:00

Quote: Originally posted by ecos  
Thanks all for the info. I really appreciate it.
I am convinced now that chlorate is a bad option for guns.

I will try to use ammonium nitrate since it is easier to find (fertilizer) or I will make BP.

[Edited on 8-6-2016 by ecos]


If AN was used, wouldn't all the sensitizers and fuels leave deposits on the barrel? I am thinking of stuff like aluminum particles that escape combustion, chunks of Al2O3, soot, etc.

chemrox - 6-9-2016 at 10:45

Is it possible to make a .40 subsonic load that would still make enough pressure to operate the pistol recoil-loading mechanism. You can tell from the question I know little about ballistics and firearm terminology. (I do know what a lower receiver is) ;^)
CRX

an added question- I just did a search for "wetted NC". Wetted NC is used for ammunition. What is "properly wetted nitrocellulose?" How is it made from NC?

[Edited on 6-9-2016 by chemrox]

OneEyedPyro - 18-9-2016 at 00:41

Quote: Originally posted by chemrox  
Is it possible to make a .40 subsonic load that would still make enough pressure to operate the pistol recoil-loading mechanism.


Plenty of .40 S&W ammo is subsonic to begin with.

Basically any automatic handgun cartridge can be made to cycle properly at subsonic velocities if loaded with a heavy enough bullet and a suitable powder, there are some exceptions such as bottlenecked cartidges that are naturally high velocity like the 5.7X28 but slight modifications to a firearm like a weaker recoil spring can make underpowered ammo function well.

[Edited on 18-9-2016 by OneEyedPyro]

Bert - 19-9-2016 at 04:33

Quote: Originally posted by chemrox  
Is it possible to make a .40 subsonic load that would still make enough pressure to operate the pistol recoil-loading mechanism. You can tell from the question I know little about ballistics and firearm terminology. (I do know what a lower receiver is) ;^)
CRX

an added question- I just did a search for "wetted NC". Wetted NC is used for ammunition. What is "properly wetted nitrocellulose?" How is it made from NC?

[Edited on 6-9-2016 by chemrox]


Yes, generally the subsonics for .40 and 9mm pistols/sub guns are heavier than the supersonic ammo for the purpose of ensureing postive function, as well as providing higher sectional density ro increase penetration at lower than usual velocity. There are also booster devices sometimes used on delayed blowback pistol barrels to help ensure the added weight of the silencer does not prevent normal function.

Wetted NC has not less than 25% water, per US DOT shipping regulations- that is, you should have 1 gram of water mixed in for every 3 grams of NC for it to be considered non explosive in shipping or storage.

careysub - 22-9-2016 at 06:46

Quote: Originally posted by Hennig Brand  

...

2. A large portion of the energy released when a propellant burns is used up accelerating the combustion products, not just the bullet.

...

7. The velocity of the bullet/projectile can never be more than the escape velocity of the gases produced.
...



2. Depends on what "large" means to you. At the moment the bullet exits the barrel, only the gas immediately in contact with it is going the same speed. The gas at the wall of the chamber is completely motionless, half-way down the barrel it is moving at half the exit velocity , and has one quarter of the kinetic energy per gram as the gas at the front. The pressure is everywhere the same in the barrel, and temperature and density are pretty close to even also. Since the propellant mass is smaller than the bullet (1.9 g vs 4 g for the SS109 NATO round for example) we can immediately tell that the energy accelerating the propellant is at least proportionally less (< 1.9/5.9 of the total energy), and by applying a little integral calculus we find that the average kinetic energy per gram of propellant in the barrel is only 1/3 of that of the bullet, so for the SS109 it possesses only 13.7% of the total KE.

7. Yes, indeed we can say that at the moment the bullet base clears the barrel (neglecting the boat-tail, if any), they are exactly the same for the infinitesimal quantity of gas adjacent to the bullet.(Note that as soon as the bullet clears the barrel the gas in the barrel starts to expand much faster as it is no longer confined, and part of it will exit the barrel faster than the bullet did, a small part won't exit the barrel at all)


Quote: Originally posted by nitro-genes  

...
I fired a rifle at a commercial range few times, and the barrel does tend to get pretty warm after a few shots, is this mostly from friction energy loss or heat conductance?. For a combustion engine efficiency is about 35%, has anyone ever calculated this for a rifle? Could you seriously reduce the pressure exponent for NC by pressing (can it be deadpressed?) it as one solid block using hydraulic press, than having a very large chamber and a small extremely long barrel (enough to allow all propellant to be burned inside the barrel) would you find max velocity possible for NC using rifle?

[Edited on 26-6-2016 by nitro-genes]


Mostly heat conductance. Bullet friction in the barrel is much smaller than that (1/3 or so).

If is very easy to calculate the energy efficiency of a gun. The kinetic energy of a bullet is calculated from KE=0.5*MV^2, the energy content of the propellant is the weight of the propellant times its energy content (about 5400 J/g for modern propellants). The efficiency of guns ranges from about 10% to a high of 37% or thereabouts, so yes they can be very efficient heat engines. The longer the barrel the more efficient the gun is, so rifles are more efficient than hand guns, the low end are very short barrel hand guns. But guns aren't designed around energy efficiency, really, so it is possible to push it even higher with a very long barrel and an optimized bullet/propellant mass ratio.

Also, all of the propellant is burned inside the barrel in all guns of competent modern design (extremely short barrel handguns might be an exception).

The maximum possible bullet velocity would be with a very, very long barrel and a very light bullet, one much lighter than the powder loading.

The limiting velocity is actually much higher than the speed of sound in the burned propellant (although it is related to it). Much of the energy in the compressed driving gas exists as internal energy (rotational and vibrational energy of molecules), as it expands this energy gets converted to translational energy (i.e. motion).

This limiting velocity is related to the speed of sound (c) by the relationship:

u = 2c/(gamma - 1)

where u is the velocity and gamma is the specific heat ratio of the gas.

For molecular gases gamma is usually in the range of 1.1 to 1.5. For normal air it is 1.4. According to my copy of the US Army Pamphlet
"Principles of Explosive Behavior" gamma for the hot combustion gases of Comp B is 1.25. Nitrocellulose has similar elemental composition and
energy content so it should be much the same.

Thus u has a limiting value of eight times the speed of sound in the same combustion gases. The speed of sound in hot dense combustion gases will be much higher than the 330 m/sec of air at 0 C (273 K). Since the combusion gases are something like a factor of ten hotter than air we could
guesstimate a ballpark value of c at over 1 km/sec (square root of 10 times 330 m/sec), giving the limiting velocity the impressive value of
circa 8 km/sec!

[Edited on 22-9-2016 by careysub]

Fulmen - 22-9-2016 at 11:16

Nitpick: I think 3500-4500J/g is more correct for small arms propellants. These numbers come from VihtaVuori and should be representative for most powders.

careysub - 22-9-2016 at 12:21

That was supposed to be 5400 kJ/g actually (I have corrected), and was based on an estimate I made making from a composition of 1/3 NG and 2/3 NC (13.35% N) using the UCRL-52997 published experimental energy of explosion.

It did not include inert materials.



[Edited on 22-9-2016 by careysub]

Fulmen - 22-9-2016 at 13:47

I don't think any modern powders use anywhere near that much NG. VihtaVuoris N550 is double base and is listed to 4250J/g.

careysub - 22-9-2016 at 14:28

I found a composition for Olin WC 844, used in the M-16 round (at some time), which is:
Nitrogen in nitrocellulose 13.05–13.20
Graphite 0.4
Sodium sulfate 0.5
Nitrogylcerin 8.0–11.0
Diphenylamine 0.75–1.50
Dibutylphthalate 3.0–6.0
Nitrocellulose ~84%

This gives a high value of 4850*0.84 + 0.11*6650 = ~4805 kJ/g

(Actual energy release in a burned propellant may be different from LLNL handbook values.)

[Edited on 22-9-2016 by careysub]

Fulmen - 23-9-2016 at 00:36

VV's N100-series (rifle powders) are single base, single perforated, surface treated powders. The fastest is N110 which has an energy content of 4000J/g. The slowest (N165) only has 3600J/g. The same pattern can be seen with the N500-series (double base, single perforated powders, max 25% NG). The fastest is N540 with 4250J/g, the slowest is N560 with 4000J/g. So the amount of burn rate retarders seems to have a huge effect on energy content.
The pistol powders (N300-series) are porous single-base powders, meaning the burn rate is regulated by the amount of surface porosity rather than by adding inhibitors. All of these are 4200J/g.