| Author |
Message |
Jared Smith
|
 Posted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| A. Jake Storey II wrote: | | Robin Smith wrote: |
Also your understanding of the physics of flight are lacking. An arrow has its highest energy immediately after leaving the bow. It does not some how gain any energy from falling that it didn't already have at an earlier point in its flight.
|
This is partially true except for the part about the highest energy being just after the arrows leave the bow. You should review parabolic motion. When the arrow is shot at an upward angle, it will gain speed when it starts falling until, when reaching the same distance from the center of the earth as the place it was fired from, it will have the same speed and therefore momentum. If fired from an elevated location, like a hilltop or battlement, then it will have GREATER speed, and therefor GREATER momentum. |
This is irrefutably true of an arrow fired in a vacuum where no aerodynamic drag comes into play. Occasionally one may see fairly scientific tests of velocity versus distance (Bowyer's Bible, etc.) which seem to indicate that an arrow fired in real world circumstances is indeed fastest within the first 50 yards or so. The release velocity (approaching 300 ft per second for really good bow designs) generally surpasses the theoretical terminal velocity of a comparable weight sphere, even of bowling ball sized metal spheres, if dropped from low flying aircraft. A parabolic arrow trajectory will never restore the initial aerodynamic losses that occur shortly after release. However, surprisingly, arrows can maintain fairly consistent, steady, and "good" long range velocity (although reduced from release energy) for precisely the reasons you have identified!
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
  |
 |
Elnathan Barnett
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Evan,
Good site. I think I may post a link over at one of the muzzleloading boards I frequent.
Over here it was often called a "wiping stick." Maybe the difference is related to German versus English terminology? The American Longrifle, aka Kentucky, was largely developed by the Pennsylvania Dutch (German immigrants with a few Huguenots thrown in), and American muzzleloading today centers around the longrifle, so when we start to adopt 18th century terminology - trikker, wiping stick, sidepiece, buttpiece, etc., we adopt PA terminology instead of a more English-influenced vocabulary.
As long as the main charge is dry, it is a simple matter to refresh the priming as needed. Since black powder sucks moisture out of the air, hunters usually refresh fairly often during humid weather. Just one of the tricks of the trade. On really wet days one can either plug the vent and reprime right before shooting, or prime and seal the pan cover with a bit of grease and/or beeswax. I don't know how matchcord would fare.
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Smith
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | | A. Jake Storey II wrote: | | Robin Smith wrote: |
Also your understanding of the physics of flight are lacking. An arrow has its highest energy immediately after leaving the bow. It does not some how gain any energy from falling that it didn't already have at an earlier point in its flight.
|
This is partially true except for the part about the highest energy being just after the arrows leave the bow. You should review parabolic motion. When the arrow is shot at an upward angle, it will gain speed when it starts falling until, when reaching the same distance from the center of the earth as the place it was fired from, it will have the same speed and therefore momentum. If fired from an elevated location, like a hilltop or battlement, then it will have GREATER speed, and therefor GREATER momentum. |
This is irrefutably true of an arrow fired in a vacuum where no aerodynamic drag comes into play. Occasionally one may see fairly scientific tests of velocity versus distance (Bowyer's Bible, etc.) which seem to indicate that an arrow fired in real world circumstances is indeed fastest within the first 50 yards or so. The release velocity (approaching 300 ft per second for really good bow designs) generally surpasses the theoretical terminal velocity of a comparable weight sphere, even of bowling ball sized metal spheres, if dropped from low flying aircraft. A parabolic arrow trajectory will never restore the initial aerodynamic losses that occur shortly after release. However, surprisingly, arrows can maintain fairly consistent, steady, and "good" long range velocity (although reduced from release energy) for precisely the reasons you have identified! |
Well I was going to come post a refutation bringing up these points, but you seem to have beat me to it, and are more knowledgable than I. However, that being said, all tests I have seen indicate that an arrow has its maximum energy immediately after leaving the bow.
A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1) Arrow aimed high: It loses velocity due to gravity and air resistance.
2) Arrow reaches the top of parabola and is at it's lowest speed.
3) Arrow comes back down and is accelerated by gravity but air resistance continues to act in slowing the arrow.
So, energy lost going up is more than energy regained going down since air resistance always works to reduce the speed of the arrow along the whole trajectory.
If the arrow is loosed from a great height it " might " reach a velocity greater than which it had when it left the bow.
On level ground it will always be a bit slower.
Just recapping.  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesse Pointen
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yeh i did mention that it dupends on wind direction so no need to try proove your point there when i already agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesse Pointen wrote: | | Yeh i did mention that it dupends on wind direction so no need to try proove your point there when i already agree with you. |
Wind direction is just an added parameter that can affect the speed of an arrow or it's aim if crosswise but the basic model of the physics is the same.
Side note:
Jesse; One thing to consider is that when people post replies they are participation in a group discussion and not only replying to the original creator of the Topic, so agreeing or disagreeing was not my goal. Maybe some possibly redundant clarifying !
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Hagstrom
|
| Posted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, since we are recapping stuff, the reason I brought up humuidity and its effect on bowstrings (and excellent following input on that topic as well as wet priming powder)
Could the usability of gunpowder weapons in wet weather be a contributing factor to its appeal (along with all the other factors mentioned?) Or was the inconvience comparable to dealing with wet bowstrings?
And also regarding the weather, poor visibility would have the same eddect regardless of what ranged weapon you are using naturally, but I suspect that the wind drift would be less for a musket ball than an arrow.
Third statement I'm throwing in: How rare/expensive was gunpowder in the renaissance era? From a Lifecycle cost perspective (yes, I'm a corporate serf in my daily life  ) would lead ball and gunpowder prove cheaper than producing arrows? I suspect some quartermaster must have made these sort of calculations... we have already established that it is easier to haul around X nr of lead balls + powder than X nr of long rather fragile arrows. And as I have been involved in both gunpowder making, ball casting as well as making longbow arrows, my intitial hunch is that the arrows takes more work to produce. That said, I have used modern tools and readily availible chemicals to produce black powder. Does anyone know how was it done "back in the days"? Ever tried shooting with black powder made with period methods?
|
|
 |
|
|
Jesse Pointen
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
in our history we could have gone alot of way's... if we didnt pick up the idea of firearm's we'de be all very skilled with the sword and bow.. or other tech.. but we'de be in a simpler time... but we'de most prob have over populated the planet as firearm's have done alot in keeping the number's down so... to be honest firearm's such as the musket's have played a Key role in humanity..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesse Pointen
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bjorn Hagstrom wrote: | Well, since we are recapping stuff, the reason I brought up humuidity and its effect on bowstrings (and excellent following input on that topic as well as wet priming powder)
Could the usability of gunpowder weapons in wet weather be a contributing factor to its appeal (along with all the other factors mentioned?) Or was the inconvience comparable to dealing with wet bowstrings?
And also regarding the weather, poor visibility would have the same eddect regardless of what ranged weapon you are using naturally, but I suspect that the wind drift would be less for a musket ball than an arrow.
Third statement I'm throwing in: How rare/expensive was gunpowder in the renaissance era? From a Lifecycle cost perspective (yes, I'm a corporate serf in my daily life ) would lead ball and gunpowder prove cheaper than producing arrows? I suspect some quartermaster must have made these sort of calculations... we have already established that it is easier to haul around X nr of lead balls + powder than X nr of long rather fragile arrows. And as I have been involved in both gunpowder making, ball casting as well as making longbow arrows, my intitial hunch is that the arrows takes more work to produce. That said, I have used modern tools and readily availible chemicals to produce black powder. Does anyone know how was it done "back in the days"? Ever tried shooting with black powder made with period methods? |
Lead wasnt always used for musket's... lead has a distink brown coating... but they were mostly earth steel (earth steel is a term i use for hardend steel that wasnt smelted with copper)
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Evans
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elnathan Barnett wrote: | Evan,
Good site. I think I may post a link over at one of the muzzleloading boards I frequent.
Over here it was often called a "wiping stick." Maybe the difference is related to German versus English terminology? The American Longrifle, aka Kentucky, was largely developed by the Pennsylvania Dutch (German immigrants with a few Huguenots thrown in), and American muzzleloading today centers around the longrifle, so when we start to adopt 18th century terminology - trikker, wiping stick, sidepiece, buttpiece, etc., we adopt PA terminology instead of a more English-influenced vocabulary.
As long as the main charge is dry, it is a simple matter to refresh the priming as needed. Since black powder sucks moisture out of the air, hunters usually refresh fairly often during humid weather. Just one of the tricks of the trade. On really wet days one can either plug the vent and reprime right before shooting, or prime and seal the pan cover with a bit of grease and/or beeswax. I don't know how matchcord would fare. |
That is interesting. I'll remember that. I'll have to ask one of our Dutch collegue what wiping stick is in Dutch and see if it crops up in Dutch sources! I've seen trikker before somewhere, just can't think were!
The japanese were being a bit clever with sliding pans. I've seen sliding pans on high end weapons, but never on low end muntions. The usual procedure opens the pan on the command "Give.........Fire"
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Watt
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bjorn Hagstrom wrote: | | Third statement I'm throwing in: How rare/expensive was gunpowder in the renaissance era? From a Lifecycle cost perspective (yes, I'm a corporate serf in my daily life ) would lead ball and gunpowder prove cheaper than producing arrows? I suspect some quartermaster must have made these sort of calculations... we have already established that it is easier to haul around X nr of lead balls + powder than X nr of long rather fragile arrows. And as I have been involved in both gunpowder making, ball casting as well as making longbow arrows, my intitial hunch is that the arrows takes more work to produce. That said, I have used modern tools and readily availible chemicals to produce black powder. Does anyone know how was it done "back in the days"? Ever tried shooting with black powder made with period methods? |
In a prep for battle, there is another factor that might prove attractive concerning firearms vs bows:
ease/speed of manufacture.
Casting projectiles is fairly quick and easy bulk production (you sort of touched on it already), And can be stored in a relatively small space.
Arrows do require more skill to manufacture.
When the fate of your town is in the balance, I'm not certain cost is so much the determinant as speed and ease of prep for defense.
Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm afraid most military officers and historians would disagree with the analyses posted therein, though. The mathematical calculations of the odds of a bullet hitting a hussar are rather ludicrous, especially since they ignore the fact that a bullet that hits the horse might still bring the hussar down all the same. And the description of the effect of the hussars' long lance and the shock it would deliver to an infantry formation is a bit painful to read because it assumed that the hussars' charge would end in contact and hand-to-hand combat--whereas the fact was that, most of the time, the hussars' opponents (both horse and foot) probably chickened out and fled before contact. The hussars' reputation was probably a deadlier weapon than their lances, pistols, and swords combined!
Horribly out of topic, I know. Just forgive my propensity for going into these pointless tangents.
| Elling Polden wrote: | | As such, they where not in the same class of weapon as the bow or crossbow, who would (As far as i know) serve as long range artillery to soften up the foe. |
Actually, crossbows seem to have been frequently used as close-range weapons in a manner very similar to that of muskets and arquebuses. The construction of the crossbow makes it difficult to aim at any considerable upwards angle, and teaching people how to aim accurately crossbows in a high parabolic trajectory would take enough time and effort to negate the crossbow's advantage over the bow in terms of ease of training.
Of course, it only means that the adoption of firearms was not as difficult a step as many people would imagine, since the presence of the crossbow had paved the way somewhat. Most military historians today agree, in fact, that the crossbow can be said to be the direct social predecessor to the firearm!
| David Evans wrote: | | However, it does seem that the tendancy, certainly in Britain, was to open fire at quite ludicrous ranges. |
Certainly not just in Britain. Many manuals on cavalry tactics from the 18th and 19th centuries had one standard device for judging the quality of an opposing infantry formation: send a picket of your horsemen and tell them to fire at the infantrymen from beyond the musket's effective range. If the infantrymen fire back, then you could be reasonably sure that they were jumpy, inexperienced men and that you might be able to smash them with a swift attack.
But this discussion makes me wonder about whether we might be using a rather fuzzy definition for "effective" range. Wouldn't it be better to split the term into deadly range (i.e.the range at which the projectile still has enough force to kill or seriously injure a large proportion of targets) and accurate range (the range at which the weapon can still be expected to hit a reasonable proportion of targets)? By this classification, the musket and the arquebus certainly have significantly greater deadly ranges than did the bow regardless of any comparison between accurate ranges.
| Darryl Aoki wrote: | | I suspect that modern bowstrings of synthetic materials aren't nearly as sensitive, so I can't cite any anecdotal evidence to back this up, alas. |
Not necessarily. Synthetic materials, being lighter, might actually suffer more from the additional weight of water in a wet bowstring in that the extra weight would reduce their speed and performance by a greater margin. We may draw parallels with the use of wax in certain kinds of modern bowstrings. Waxless strings generally need more maintenance (including keeping them out of the wet) than waxed strings, but strings with too much wax would easily get too heavy and have their performance severely impaired. Some kinds of waxed strings also have the tendency to lose some wax every time they're used and may need some light re-waxing at periodic intervals to keep their weight (and performance) within an acceptable range.
| Eric Myers wrote: | | Linen bowstrings can absorb water, which adds to their weight, which in turn can reduce the energy imparted to the arrow . I don't remember how many fps loss this translates too, but I don't think it's much. Gut and leather strings (mostly used for crossbows in Europe), on the other hand, stretch when they get wet, which affects their performance quite a bit. |
Hmm...even if the performance loss in wet linen strings wasn't that much, we should also take account of the "soft" factors--a wet bowstring is distinctly less pleasant to draw than a dry one! At least in my case, a wet bowstring began to irritate my fingers after only a few shots, whereas with a dry string I could have shot hundreds of arrows before I began to feel any serious discomfort in my fingers (although my shoulders would have started screaming before then). And, as we all know, comfort is a significant factor in an archer's performance...
|
|
|
|
|
Elnathan Barnett
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesse Pointen wrote: | | Lead wasnt always used for musket's... lead has a distink brown coating... but they were mostly earth steel (earth steel is a term i use for hardend steel that wasnt smelted with copper) |
Lead is bright silver when new, dull grey when aged a bit. Corroded it is white and fuzzy. Wherever did you get the idea that it was brown? Dirty excavated examples?
Iron was used occasionally as a special armor piercing bullet, but I can't recall having heard of more than one instance in which it was used. Further, even today steel shot will destroy a barrel -barrels are made from soft steel today, soft wrought iron back in the day- which is why you will almost never see blackpowder firearms used for hunting waterfowl (lead is illegal here in the States, on rather dubious grounds I might add). Using hardened and tempered steel for shot - not in anything you want to use tomorrow!*
Forgive me for asking this, but is English your first language?
*For comparison, I accidently nicked the barrel tang of the rifle I am currently building with a chisel a day or two ago, and took off a shaving. This is mild steel, not wrought iron. There was a gunsmith up in the Appalachian mountains during the 19th century whose barrels one could reputedly cut with a drawknife. While is an extreme, it gives one the idea of what sort of metals were used for gun barrels prior to the wide availability of good steel - soft is better as it is less brittle, and better able to cope with the shockwaves from the explosion, less likely to fragment if it does fail, and was believed to "hold a patch" better in rifles. Also, steel was expensive, and getting a consistent piece large enough to make a barrel would be difficult, I imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, some hand-forged norwegian barrels where in use from 1600 to the late 1800's, upgrading the lock once per century (snaplock-flintlock-percusion). These where made by local village blacksmiths; the snaplock was so simple it could be made in a simple smithy. The flintlock required better materials, though.
Matchlocks where never popular for hunting. However, once snaplock rifles became available in the 1600's hunters never looked back.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
|
Jesse Pointen
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
ok lead is soft.. it is easy to bend or mold... and it is cheap yes and that is why we use it for modern firearms... but we have to consider also that lead is Teal New and it get's a difrent colour with age. but Steel bullet are hard also cheap and easy to craft..
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesse Pointen wrote: | | ok lead is soft.. it is easy to bend or mold... and it is cheap yes and that is why we use it for modern firearms... but we have to consider also that lead is Teal New and it get's a difrent colour with age. but Steel bullet are hard also cheap and easy to craft.. |
Actually lead makes a better progectile, because it deforms on impact. We use steel shot in bird hunting to avoid spraying mildly poisenous lead shot all over the wetlands, not because it's better at the job.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
 |
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesse Pointen wrote: | | ok lead is soft.. it is easy to bend or mold... and it is cheap yes and that is why we use it for modern firearms... but we have to consider also that lead is Teal New and it get's a difrent colour with age. but Steel bullet are hard also cheap and easy to craft.. |
Steel is used as a core for modern armor-piercing bullets. Steel was not and still is not the material predominantly used to manufacture bullets. Bullets used for modern sporting ammunition, with some exceptions, are lead with copper jackets. The price of lead is NOT the reason it is used to make bullets. It is because it is the best material available in terms of mass, ease of manufacture and the fact that it expands - when used in sporting ammunition - producing a larger wound channel and increasing the chances of a one-shot kill on game, as George Hill pointed out. Steel core ammunition is used in military applications.
Jesse...I cannot require you to do this, but I would suggest that you make an attempt to read more on this topic before you continue with posting.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another aspect of lead that I suspect some will agree is "good" is that it is softer than the materials typically used to make gun barrels. The use of dissimilar hardness materials has a natural lubricating effect that reduces wear on gun barrels. If we used equal strength and hardness materials for both the bullet and barrel, there would probably be much more wear and tear of the gun barrel! I suspect ballistics would also be poor, unless shot cups were used as is done for slugs and some specialty bullet cartridges made for shotguns.
Often overlooked, lead is pretty dense (heavy for its size, about 1.44 times the weight of an equal volume of steel.) This allows a lot of kinetic impact energy to be transmitted for whatever size sphere or bullet we are talking about. It is tougher to make a cartridge for a different dense alloy such as bizimuth, or tungsten since you generally have to add lubricants, jackets, etc to get acceptable ballistic performance from these substitutes for lead.
Now that the cost of a 20 pound bag has increased to roughly $35 U.S. range (used to be around $12 ten years ago, $22 just 1.5 years ago) I am wondering how long it will be until someone develops an effective machine to scavenge all of those tons of spent lead laying on the grounds of sporting target ranges! Where I live, one of our club members has made his own shot casting apparatus and collects spent tire weights and such to provide himself and the local youth trap league with shot at no charge.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | | Another aspect of lead that I suspect some will agree is "good" is that it is softer than the materials typically used to make gun barrels. The use of dissimilar hardness materials has a natural lubricating effect that reduces wear on gun barrels. If we used equal strength and hardness materials for both the bullet and barrel, there would probably be much more wear and tear of the gun barrel! I suspect ballistics would also be poor, unless shot cups were used as is done for slugs and some specialty bullet cartridges made for shotguns.. |
You're quite right. The major reason lead is used in barrels with rifling, is that it's soft enough to deform and 'grip' the rifling. Nowadays we cover the lead with a thin jacket of copper to reduce lead residue in the rifling, which required much more cleaning to get out.
interestingly I understand the USSR/former USSR actually use significant amounts of steel in their bullets, not as a penetrator, but as a cost cutting measure, because of the price of lead in those countries.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Nov, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
You will have to forgive my ignorance but was not rifling a more modern occurance that was not common until fairly recently? I thought a musket with rifling was called... a rifle..
From what I have read of early modern warfare a number of materials were used for balls- I had a huge drawer at work full of little musket and other fiream balls where I worked. Interesting stuff.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic