6.5 Grendel barrel Length?????

[Mad Charlie]

CaptnC is just trolling at this point. No one can really be that dense. Quit feeding him.

Bingo!

[CaptnC]

CaptnC is just trolling at this point. No one can really be that dense. Quit feeding him.

Well sir..."troll"

Take a few minutes to click on my handle in one of the links I posted. Look at the ratio of "liked" posts I have. I think it's close to 50%...that means a lot of their members agree with the things I say. Also note I've have one of my threads published in their Online Magazine. Also look at the number of my threads that have been featured in their weekly news letter.

Troll....I don't thing so!

BCHunter, I stated "he" not me, with "his" 24" barrel was getting NEAR Creedmoor velocity with one grain less of powder than what I'm burning.

If you have bother to read my other posts. My first suggestion to members here is I ask them about what speeds they were getting on their chronograph and I constantly mention over pressuring the AR platform!

Some of these guys were shooting short barreled Grendel's wanting more velocity. While not 100% proof positive, if your getting better velocity than the average guy with a short barrel you are most likely over pressuring the platform....check some of my other posts...I think you find what I'm telling these guys.

Take time to investigate a little further before you start throwing the word around so freely! Troll...piffft

[CaptnC]

"Footnote: I have hunted with both Blackout and Grendel. My experience is that in supersonic hunting the Blackout is almost a basket case compared to the far superior Grendel. I have never tried making the Grendel subsonic so I can only imagine the heavier Blackout would be superior, and with less problems getting the action to cycle. Subsonic Blackout hunting is like shooting animals with an accurate .45 handgun - same weight and velocity of bullet. They die slowly and this means for the same weight and size of rifle you are handy capping yourself. Subsonic hunting is more akin to bow hunting than rifle shooting."

Klem, good stuff you posted.

Your "Footnote"...even though I have never owned a 300BO, I would ready agreen with your assessment of the two. That's why I will never own a 300BO with any length barrel.

The 6.5 Grendel rules in the AR platform!

Nice post Klem...these guys need a like button.

[Matt.Cross]

Well sir..."troll"

Take a few minutes to click on my handle in one of the links I posted. Look at the ratio of "liked" posts I have. I think it's close to 50%...that means a lot of their members agree with the things I say.

Respectfully sir, no it does not. It means that for less than half of what you've posted, out of the many people who read it, a few expressed agreement.

Also note I've have one of my threads published in their Online Magazine. Also look at the number of my threads that have been featured in their weekly news letter.

Troll....I don't thing so!

Based on your spelling and grammar, they have editorial standards even lower than their publishing standards.

Take time to investigate a little further before you start throwing the word around so freely! Troll...piffft

I've followed every link you've posted to this point, and it has only served to reinforce the points that have already been made about your rhetoric in this thread.

As has already been pointed out, the context here is NOT what barrel length capitalizes on the ballistic potential of the cartridge, but rather what length barrel would satisfy a specified set of functional parameters, none of which were applicable to any significant distance. Yet you followed up with a diatribe that was entirely outside the context of the responses to the original question, projected your own ego onto those in disagreement, and then resorted to self-aggrandizing as a response to being called out for your nonsense.

If you're not trolling, take the time to apply the reading comprehension skills you've demanded of everyone else to the entire thread. Maybe then you'll realize that no one is questioning the validity of your central premise, but rather rejecting it's relevance to the premise of the original post.

[grayfox]

Nor does the American Chemical Society
https://www.borlik.org/wp-content/upload...Bullet.pdf
They aren't detecting soot in residue from handgun discharges in these analysis - they are detecting nitrates. That's gunpowder.

The above quote does not support your assertion when it comes to the Grendel. It discusses handguns and handgun powders. Those powders differ from the grendel powders. Note that '52's statements apply to the "powders used in the Grendel", so handgun powder performance neither disproves nor supports powder burning in the rifle barrel.

[lazyengineer]

The above quote does not support your assertion when it comes to the Grendel. It discusses handguns and handgun powders. Those powders differ from the grendel powders. Note that '52's statements apply to the "powders used in the Grendel", so handgun powder performance neither disproves nor supports powder burning in the rifle barrel.

Fair enough, probsbly not the best reference, since pistol powders are lower P. Northeless, I still have my doubts on the claims that all the rifle powder is burned in 1-3".

[Bigs28]

I didn't see the claim that all powder was burnt. He said "almost 100%". The word almost could be anything you want it to be nearing 100%. 1% or 10% less could fit the description.

[snell]

From my perspective, I made the problem go away, I blocked him.

[Mad Charlie]

From my perspective, I made the problem go away, I blocked him.

Won't help much, so did I, but someone always quotes people that are blocked and there it is...

[CaptnC]

Respectfully sir, no it does not. It means that for less than half of what you've posted, out of the many people who read it, a few expressed agreement.



Based on your spelling and grammar, they have editorial standards even lower than their publishing standards.



I've followed every link you've posted to this point, and it has only served to reinforce the points that have already been made about your rhetoric in this thread.

As has already been pointed out, the context here is NOT what barrel length capitalizes on the ballistic potential of the cartridge, but rather what length barrel would satisfy a specified set of functional parameters, none of which were applicable to any significant distance. Yet you followed up with a diatribe that was entirely outside the context of the responses to the original question, projected your own ego onto those in disagreement, and then resorted to self-aggrandizing as a response to being called out for your nonsense.

If you're not trolling, take the time to apply the reading comprehension skills you've demanded of everyone else to the entire thread. Maybe then you'll realize that no one is questioning the validity of your central premise, but rather rejecting it's relevance to the premise of the original post.

Matt...as to you being the grammar police in the thread...I'm doing my posts on my phone...in a tiny little box, that has only three sentences in view at one time...then throw in auto spell...what fun it is.

[Matt.Cross]

Matt...as to you being the grammar police in the thread...I'm doing my posts on my phone...in a tiny little box, that has only three sentences in view at one time...then throw in auto spell...what fun it is.

I also do all my participation on my phone, I can certainly relate. I was raised by a very strict English teacher, so I have a compulsive habit of reading/reviewing the draft before posting, because my phone doesn't prevent that.

[jonny rotton]

whats it matter what length you start with?? if you are any kind of real shooter you will eventually have more than a couple grendels. you will eventually have many many grendels. or maybe you are a more resistence to gun urges than the rest of us.

[Sinclair]

Guys, what is happening to the Horde? Where have all that flowers gone? I am almost afraid to post. LRRPF52's analysis of what happens inside a gun chamber is spot on, or at least for our purposes of discussion. I grew up 25 miles from a little river town named Alton, Illinois. There is a company named Olin-Mathetson (SP) where many of the men that I shot Trap with as a teenager were employed. One of my uncles even worked there. Why am I telling this, credibility for my post. Gunpowder does not explode, it burns at a controlled rate just under detonation (unless you are loading squib loads of Bullseye). Clems comment about enough barrel is enough is also spot on. The .22 long rifle is a classic example of too much barrel compromises is performance. The OP wanted experienced Grendelers to offer suggestions based upon his anticipated hunting/shooting scenarios, not a war of wills and biased opinions.

[Klem]

Gunpowder does not explode, it burns at a controlled rate just under detonation (unless you are loading squib loads of Bullseye).

Sinclair,

I believe the term is deflagration. Not 'detonation' and like you say, not burning like uncontained gunpowder.

My garage went up in flames a few years ago. When the Fire Brigade arrived they wanted to know if there was anything flammable in the garage before they went in. I said ammunition stored in a safe. The guy dismissed it immediately and repeated the question, No, anything seriously flammable like gas bottles? After the fire all the ammunition had cooked off, but the door to the safe was still closed. Not like the movies where you throw ammo in the fire and everyone runs for cover.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13799[/ATTACH]

As for the ops question...Any length less than 30" is a compromise in velocity. As the U-shaped velocity/length curve implies, the shorter the barrel the more severe the compromise. It's a qualitative decision weighing up how much compactness and weight is vs. velocity. You could answer it by considering what velocity you want to hit the target with (e.g. below 2K fps,or 1.8Kfps and ballistic tips reportedly act like monoliths when hunting. Or, will it make the range I want it to go before going subsonic?). Then there are issues like unburnt powder (flame and less consistent velocities) and muzzle pressure (noise, and if you are using a suppressor, over-pressure). Not all powder is burnt in 3" but as the Quickload graph in my previous post shows, most of it will be. Plus it's complicated by burning gasses expanding due to firstly a chemical reaction, then expanding further by heat.

[Bigs28]

Bullets popping off in a fire will barely penetrate drywall unless they are loaded in a rifle. As a firefighter stored ammo is not a big deal.

https://youtu.be/UloVDG4s9Lo

[lazyengineer]

Guys, what is happening to the Horde? Where have all that flowers gone? I am almost afraid to post. LRRPF52's analysis of what happens inside a gun chamber is spot on,.

You're good! Speak your mind! So! I googled "Grendel Flowers"/images - and get ... Flowers!



(dude, that's kinda badass... I'm making that my avatar.) Ok, now for better flowers! (I'm doing this smiling, not to belittle by the way)



As to frustrations on interactions; I do hope I'm not a contributor to your concern; as not my goal. I'm just trying to figure out some of the science (it's how I roll). I've seen enough to form a high opinion of LRRPF52, which is why I'm asking and not just dismissing out of hand; but I'm still just not so sure about that specific claim. And just because it's oft-repeated, doesn't mean it's scientifically correct. It might be, but it's not adding up to me, so I'm trying to find some data to back that up. I don't think it's true. After running things like a Garand where powder burn rate matters a lot, concerns about gasport pressures with slow powders would be an irrelevancy, if the powder was all burned up in the first 3" anyway.

As to some of the other posters in this thread and the whole back and forth with a guy who's kind of acting like the Range Character; well, .... yea; I'm just staying out of that. Some people you can discourse with; some people you can't.

[LRRPF52]

Respectfully, I've seen numerous people say this, and I don't think this is true. And neither does QuickLoad
https://www.usreloadingsupply.com/news-quickload-review


Nor does the American Chemical Society
https://www.borlik.org/wp-content/upload...Bullet.pdf
They aren't detecting soot in residue from handgun discharges in these analysis - they are detecting nitrates. That's gunpowder.

Nor does the premise really make any logical sense, since why bother tuning burn-speed, if it's all burned in the first 3" anyway? I would just be reloading with the "slowest" gunpowder I could physically stuff into the case, if that were so.

As to still-burning kernels entering the gas system, I do agree relatively little mass of powder is left by that point. But I do think that indeed there is some potentially still burning powder entering the gas system. I don't think that's a problem at all: it's rated for heat and pressure, and the port remains open to the barrel (i.e. it cannot exceed the pressure of the barrel).

Pistols and revolvers especially are not the best firearms designs to compare or analyze in this respect, since revolvers have the barrel cylinder gap, and that is mentioned specifically in the American Chemical Society document you linked. Pistol and revolver cartridges typically use the fastest-burning flake powders due to bore volume and propellant volume in the smaller cases, pushing bullets with the same diameter as the case (straight-walled). With a straight-walled case, powder conversion is not as efficient as it is with a bottle-necked case, where the combustion reflects off of the shoulder back into the propellant column.

Revolvers are notorious in a forensic analysis because of the barrel cylinder gap. For example, there was a very high profile "suicide" of a certain attorney 26 years ago. He had significant propellant burns and GSR on both webs of his hands between index and thumbs, attributed to a revolver that was later left at the scene.

With a rifle, as I stated, you still will have some particulate residue that went through the combustion process back in the case and chamber, but the maximum conversion opportunity has passed back in the chamber, whether it was fired from a 10.5" Grendel, or a 24" Grendel.

The claim that powder is still burning with a function of producing velocity increases between a 12" and 24" rifle barrel is a misnomer or misunderstood aspect of internal ballistics that is often repeated, but doesn't hold up well to the science. The contained wave of expanding gas that was released back in the chamber area is what continues to propel the bullet.

I had this discussion with Bill A. many years ago, and he explained that conversion happens much closer to the chamber area than most would think in a rifle.

As to QuickLoad, yes, QuickLoad can model a theoretical calculation of what powders are optimum for your cartridge and the bullet, vs ones that would have poor conversions and blown propellant. For example, if I used RL17 or RL22 with a 90gr TNT in the Grendel, I'm going to get unburnt powder blowing out of the muzzle, no matter what barrel length I shoot, because the powder wasn't converted back in the chamber area.

We deal with the same phenomenon in explosives where explosive volume needs certain burn rates or multiple points of initiation in order to get a complete detonation of the charge. A lower explosive compound that has a slower detonation rate can blow away much of its explosive mass without detonating that mass, because the mass was too large for the burn rate.

[lazyengineer]

Pistols and revolvers especially are not the best firearms designs to compare or analyze in this respect, since revolvers have the barrel cylinder gap, and that is mentioned specifically in the American Chemical Society document you linked. Pistol and revolver cartridges typically use the fastest-burning flake powders due to bore volume and propellant volume in the smaller cases, pushing bullets with the same diameter as the case (straight-walled). With a straight-walled case, powder conversion is not as efficient as it is with a bottle-necked case, where the combustion reflects off of the shoulder back into the propellant column.

Revolvers are notorious in a forensic analysis because of the barrel cylinder gap. For example, there was a very high profile "suicide" of a certain attorney 26 years ago. He had significant propellant burns and GSR on both webs of his hands between index and thumbs, attributed to a revolver that was later left at the scene.

With a rifle, as I stated, you still will have some particulate residue that went through the combustion process back in the case and chamber, but the maximum conversion opportunity has passed back in the chamber, whether it was fired from a 10.5" Grendel, or a 24" Grendel.

The claim that powder is still burning with a function of producing velocity increases between a 12" and 24" rifle barrel is a misnomer or misunderstood aspect of internal ballistics that is often repeated, but doesn't hold up well to the science. The contained wave of expanding gas that was released back in the chamber area is what continues to propel the bullet.

I had this discussion with Bill A. many years ago, and he explained that conversion happens much closer to the chamber area than most would think in a rifle.

As to QuickLoad, yes, QuickLoad can model a theoretical calculation of what powders are optimum for your cartridge and the bullet, vs ones that would have poor conversions and blown propellant. For example, if I used RL17 or RL22 with a 90gr TNT in the Grendel, I'm going to get unburnt powder blowing out of the muzzle, no matter what barrel length I shoot, because the powder wasn't converted back in the chamber area.

We deal with the same phenomenon in explosives where explosive volume needs certain burn rates or multiple points of initiation in order to get a complete detonation of the charge. A lower explosive compound that has a slower detonation rate can blow away much of its explosive mass without detonating that mass, because the mass was too large for the burn rate.

Thanks for the reply. I've been casually researching this some tonight, and there is indeed an interesting phenomenae, where once the pressure falls, the burn rate falls precipitously as well. Which makes sense, since high density (i.e. high pressure) and hot (i.e. high pressure; PV=nRT) gas will transfer heat more agressively into the powder to cause it to burn faster. And vice versa, and if the pressure gets low enough, it essentially quenches the burn. Fascinating science.

Here, I'm just tagging these here for future read, which perhaps dive into the topic more:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/462060.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/676246.pdf

[LRRPF52]

Since the OP asked a pretty basic question, and the thread went off into a more technical discussion about internal ballistics, I'll steer it back into something the layman and rocket scientist can both appreciate.

A 12" Grendel shooting the 123gr ELD-M at 2280fps mv has these metrics at 300yds:
300yds 1799fps 883ft-lbs

A .44 Magnum shooting the Federal 240gr JSP at 1230fps at the muzzle, has 806ft-lbs (at the muzzle).

In ballistics testing on calibrated gel, that 123gr ELD-M will penetrate well over 24" and is still expanding at that speed.

[Matt.Cross]

Since the OP asked a pretty basic question, and the thread went off into a more technical discussion about internal ballistics, I'll steer it back into something the layman and rocket scientist can both appreciate.

A 12" Grendel shooting the 123gr ELD-M at 2280fps mv has these metrics at 300yds:
300yds 1799fps 883ft-lbs

A .44 Magnum shooting the Federal 240gr JSP at 1230fps at the muzzle, has 806ft-lbs (at the muzzle).

In ballistics testing on calibrated gel, that 123gr ELD-M will penetrate well over 24" and is still expanding at that speed.

I salute you for the quality of your contributions to this thread. That is a magnificent piece of useful information!