03-12-2020, 05:43 PM
Considering the large bearing surface relief band on the HP flavor (when contrasting it with the smaller relief band on the BBTs), I wonder if the band was enlarged to help establish/maintain a proper longitudinal balance (i.e. axial Center of Gravity) given the lower mass on the nose of the HP flavor of the projectile. If so, it's an interesting design decision. I wonder which flavor came first in their design evolution.
Is it a reasonable extrapolation that relief bands designed into/onto a projectile's bearing surface, don't contribute to substantive deltas in aerodynamic performance of a projectile (vs. considering deltas imputed by changes in nose, ogive, and tail (flat vs BT) geometry)?
I suspect that one could also presume that a reduction in friction, via a reduction of the bearing surface contact geometry, could also contribute to a decrease in chamber/bore pressures.?. Maybe this is why the HP version is .001" over-sized (offsetting large-relief-band-related pressure reductions).?.
Is it a reasonable extrapolation that relief bands designed into/onto a projectile's bearing surface, don't contribute to substantive deltas in aerodynamic performance of a projectile (vs. considering deltas imputed by changes in nose, ogive, and tail (flat vs BT) geometry)?
I suspect that one could also presume that a reduction in friction, via a reduction of the bearing surface contact geometry, could also contribute to a decrease in chamber/bore pressures.?. Maybe this is why the HP version is .001" over-sized (offsetting large-relief-band-related pressure reductions).?.
si vis pacem para bellum