Showing posts with label math. Show all posts
Showing posts with label math. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Caliber Selection – Part 3 – The Math and Science


Finally, after months of delay and by popular demand (not) by no one in particular, here is the nerdy math and science stuff for those who are interested. To those of you not interested in the nerdy stuff, you are welcome for not inflicting this upon you in part two as was the original plan. Now, do yourself a favor and read this anyway. You might learn something.

There are two basic concepts that get brought up anytime gun people start talking about a particular caliber: muzzle velocity and muzzle energy. We will talk about velocity first since it’s a necessary component in understanding energy (it’s also critical to understanding things like trajectory which is a subject for another time).

Velocity is a fairly simple concept. It’s basically just a measure of how much distance an object can cover in a given amount of time. The equation is equally straight forward: Velocity = distance divided by time. In mathematical notation, it’s V=d/t. You get a result that is rendered in miles per hour or feet per second or any other unit of distance and time. Gun people are generally interested in feet per second. So, that’s the way we will think about things going forward.

Now, for the really nerdy types, you can dust off your algebra skills (yay, math!) and run the math several different ways to get different results that might or might not be meaningful in a given situation. For instance, let’s say you want to know how long it will take a bullet to reach its intended target (this might actually be necessary to hit a moving target at longer range). If you know the muzzle velocity of your bullet and the distance to your target, you can solve the equation for time. For instance, let’s assume that your .357 magnum round traveling at 1300 feet per second needs to hit a moving target at 100 yards (3 feet per yard = 300 feet). The math works out as follows (ignoring the decrease in velocity due to drag, wind, etc. for the moment):

1300 feet per second = 300 feet
  time

Now, multiply both sides of the equation by time because we need time to be in the left side of the equation. That gets us:

time x 1300 feet per second = 300 feet
(because the “time” cancels itself out on the right side of 300 feet times time / time)

Next, divide both sides of the equation by 1300 feet per second which looks like this:

Time x 1300 feet per second = 300 feet
1300 feet per second                 1300 feet per second

On the left side of the equation, that leaves us with just time (on our hands) after “1300 feet per second” cancels itself out. On the right side of the equation, “feet” cancels itself out leaving just the unit of time (seconds).

Time = 300                 = 0.230769 seconds
            1300 seconds

So, now you know that your bullet traveling at 1300 feet per second takes 0.231 seconds (give our take few 10,000ths after rounding) to reach its target 100 yards away. Chronographs work on the same basic principle by measuring how long it takes a bullet to pass over a set of sensors separated by a known distance and doing the math.

I kinda glossed over distance conversions in the middle of that discussion of the velocity equation, but it bears brief discussion on its own. You can convert any unit of distance and time into any other unit of distance and time by knowing how much of each unit is involved. For example, there are 5280 feet in a mile and 60 seconds in every minute, etc. So, how much is 70 miles per hour in feet per second? I’m so glad you asked.

First, convert miles into feet:

1 miles = 5280 feet

Therefore,

70 miles x 5280 feet = 369,600 feet

Next, convert hours to seconds:

1 hour = 60 minutes = 60 seconds times 60 minutes = 3600 seconds in 1 hour

369,600 feet = 102.67 feet per second.
3600 seconds

So, why does this matter? I dunno. Maybe you need to shoot out the tire of the bank robbery getaway car and it’s 100 yards away on a crossing street traveling at 70 miles an hour. How far do you need to lead the tire to hit it using your .357? That gets into some geometry and other voodoo that even I’m not going to tackle with you here (because I didn’t major in math or physics…I just think about them…a bit), but multiplying 0.231 seconds times 102.67 feet per second will get you in a rough ballpark of needing about 24 feet of lead

One last example before moving on: how does 900 feet per second covert into miles per hour?

900 feet           x          1 mile              x          3600 (60 sec/min/hour) = 613 miles per hour
1 second                      5280 feet        

But Daddy Hawk, why would a gun person want to convert feet per second into miles per hour? Short answer: subsonic vs. supersonic. Long answer: because this is fun with math day, and you’re  going to sit there and read this and like it. Just kidding. Sort of. Where was I?

Oh yeah. Sub vs. supersonic. The speed of sound is somewhere in the neighborhood of 761 miles per hour (or 1116 feet per second) at sea level. You should be aware that the speed of sound decreases as altitude increases due to the changes in the density of the atmosphere. It’s not a significant enough change to matter to most of us unless you have a cabin or outhouse sitting above 10,000 feet somewhere. So, what if you don’t have an outhouse on Mt. Everest that you want to protect from Yeti’s or wayward thrill seekers? Why should you care?

One word: Suppressors. Subsonic ammunition is easier to suppress than supersonic ammunition. You fat, slow and happy .45ACP is naturally suppressor friendly since  even the hottest +P rounds stay in the 1000 feet per second ballpark. You can still run a supersonic bullet through a can, and it will muffle some of the muzzle blast and noise from the hot gases escaping the end of the barrel. However, the suppressor will not do anything about the loud crack created by the bullet’s sonic boom as it breaks the sound barrier after it leaves the end of the suppressor.   

Enough about the ins and outs of velocity and unit of measure conversions.  Let’s talk POWER!!! or at least muzzle energy. What we are talking about when we discuss muzzle energy is really kinetic energy of a moving object. In other words, the amount of energy a bullet carries as it leaves the barrel at a given velocity. The classical physics/math formula is: Kinetic Energy (K.E.) =  ½ mass times velocity squared.

Or

KE = mass x velocity x velocity
                        2

In our case, mass is the bullet weight in grains divided by 7000 (which happens to be the number of grains in 1 pound [so, a 230 grain .45ACP weighs 0.03286 pounds])  times the rate of acceleration due to gravity (9.8 meters/sec. or about 32.1739 ft./sec. sq. depending on whose cheat sheet you use [and also noting that there are known variations in the figure due to altitude and latitude of about 0.5% {just roll with it, okay? <parentheticals inside parentheticals ROCK!!>}]). Velocity is measured in feet per second here in the US. The rest of the world will need to convert this mess to metric to make sense of it…you bunch of heathens.

ME (or KE) = 1 x bullet grains x velocity x velocity = bullet grains x velocity x velocity
                       2     7000 x 32.1739 ft. sec. sq.                        450435

So, for example, our .45 ACP load would have a ME calculation as follows:

230 x 900 x 900 = 186,300,000 = 413 ft. lbs.
450435                    450435

Bullet Area is just the simple calculation for the area of a circle which is the number Pi times the square of the bullet radius. Using our .45 again, the area is Pi (3.14andabunchofothernumbers) x .226 x .226 = 0.16046.

Another concept important to shooting is momentum which is just the relation between an object's mass and velocity. So, that fat, happy 230 grain .45ACP scooting along at 900 feet per second has a momentum of: 230 / 7000 x 900 = 29.57. So, what? Isaac Newton, that’s what. Old Isaac’s laws of motion tells that 1) if it’s moving, it’s not stopping unless acted upon by another force, 2) momentum is a thing, and 3) for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Bottomline, bigger, faster bullets carry more momentum which makes them harder to stop, and .25ACP bounces off cheap Hyundai doors.

If you poke into the dark recesses of the gunternet long enough, you will come across the “Taylor Knockout Factor”. It is, unsurprisingly, named after a guy who was a big game hunter who was not satisfied with just using muzzle energy as a predictor of how well a caliber would perform. To figure TKF, you take the mass of the bullet x velocity of the bullet x bullet diameter divided by 7000. Take a 230 grain .45ACP vs. a 147 grain 9mm for example:

230 x 900 x .452 / 7000 = 13.37 TKF

147 x 1100 x .356 / 7000 = 8.22 TKF

The Taylor Knockout Factor, which is essentially momentum adjusted with caliber diameter, favors bigger, slower bullets. Most modern students of the gun disregard TKF entirely as it disregards factors such as sectional density which factor into how well a bullet penetrates.

Sectional Density is the weight of bullet in grains divided by 7000 (number of grains in a pound) divided by the diameter of the bullet squared. So, my favorite .45ACP has a sectional density of: 230 / 7000 / .452 x .452 = 0.161. Let’s say that .357 at 1300 we discussed earlier was a 125 grain bullet. It would have an SD of 0.140. Again, why should you care? In short, long skinny bullets tend to penetrate better than short, fat bullets; however, short, fat and sufficiently heavy bullets can penetrate as well or better than lighter, longer, skinnier bullets. More or less. Your mileage may vary. Don’t piss off grizzlies with anything short of crew served weapons. Just saying.

Last subject of the night before I succumb to the siren song of my mattress: Recoil energy. The numbers in the table from part 1 come from a Chuck Hawks article on the subject, but you can follow this link to a free online calculator (http://www.shooterscalculator.com/recoil-calculator.php) so you can tweak figures endlessly to your heart's content if you know the parameters involved. You will need to Google Fu for your load’s charge weight (that's the amount of gun powder stuffed into the casing) or dig out a reloading manual. If you are really into the math and physics of recoil, look up recoil on Wikipedia for more details.

Have fun. Ta ta for now. I hope you enjoyed this stimulating exercise in math and science. Don’t blame me, blame GunDiva. It’s her fault.  She asked for it. 

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Ammo Shortage - An Example By The Numbers

Okay, I know some out there really hate the new math especially when it translates into a 50 round box of Winchester White Box 230 grain .45ACP going for 40 of my hard earned dollars, and I know many of us would like to blame the evil government like any good conspiracy theorist would. We can blame the government INDIRECTLY all we want. BUT, let's take a step back an look at some real numbers for a second.

According to the May 2013 issue of American Rifleman (that'd be the NRA's membership magazine for those of you who are not NRA members), somewhere between 1 billion and 1.5 billion rounds of .22 long rifle ammunition is produced by all manufactures ANNUALLY. That's up to 1,500,000,000 .22 pills of all sizes and flavors from my personal favorite CCI Stingers to your cheap, dud infested, big box store, bulk pack stuff made to supply the whim and demand of every man, woman and child over a 365 day span of time. And, last I checked, the goobermint wasn't sending out orders for .22 bullets by the ship load.

So, assuming for the moment that the smallest size box you can buy is a 50 round box of formerly cheap fun in a gun, that's 30,000,000 (30 million for those getting tired of seeing zeros like I am) boxes of .22 caliber satisfaction hitting the streets every year.

But, wait, that amount of ammo doesn't hit the street all at once. There's twelve (12) months in a year. 30 million divided by 12 is 2,500,000 boxes hitting the streets a month on average. If we assume that there are an average of 30 days in each month, we get that narrowed down to 83,333.33 50 round boxes of ammo arriving on store shelves somewhere every day (setting aside the fact that deliveries don't happen every day).

And where is all that ammo going? Well, the USA is a big place. There are literally millions of gun owners spread across 50 states clamouring for a piece of that action every day. I know that reality is different, but let's assume that the 83,333.33 boxes a day gets spread equally among the states. That leaves us with 1666.66 boxes per state per day.

What's the likelihood that you're going to be one of the lucky ones to snap up a box or two on any given day when every other Cletus in town is waiting at the gun stores doors on delivery day with cash in hand? Um, yeah. Not good. Do those per purchase limits make a little more sense now?

What does all this mean? That's an excellent question. I'm glad you asked. I don't know much, but I do understand basic economics.

Ammunition manufacturers and their suppliers are and have been working at or near capacity according to every report I've gotten a hand on including perusing some of their websites. That means that supply is pretty well maxed out; or, at the very least, it's as good as it's going to get for the near future. That leaves us with two options: increase supply or lower demand.

As long as the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania is in office, lower demand is unlikely for the foreseeable future. Maybe ever. As long as there are gun banning politicians clamouring to relieve us of our Constitional rights, people are going to be stockpiling ammo. Truth be told, I don't blame them. If I had the extra cash in my budget, I'd be stockpiling too. Which makes me part of the problem.

On the other side of the coin, supply is harder to predict. For the near term, we can expect it to be relatively constant. In order for there to be an increase in supply at this point, one or more manufactures would have to invest in additional facilities, equipment and the manpower to staff the production line as well as getting their raw material suppliers to ramp up too. The likelihood of those stars aligning comes down to a cold, hard, cost/benefit/profit/loss calculation. If a company foresees that investing the necessary capital to increase production by adding another plant will yield a net profit over a period of time that makes sense to them, it will happen. If not, don't count on it. 

Don't ask me to figure out what that magic profit/loss number is...I don't have enough information to figure it out. For example, if you assume those 30 million boxes sell for an average of $8.00 a box (don't quibble with me about prices for match ammo...this is an example), that's $240,000,000 ($240 million) in gross retail sales. A guesstimated SWAG of the manufactures net profit out of that would be 10% or $24 million. Split that among however many ammo manufactures there are based on market share, and the picture gets even bleaker for the chances of a new ammo factory sprouting from the earth anytime soon.

Now, go ask your buddy who's bragging about his 1000 round score to sit back and let the rest of us have a shot.