To bloop, or not to bloop?
Close
Login to Your Account
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Tennessee
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    44
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Default To bloop, or not to bloop?

    Greetings,

    So I know bloop tubes were originally introduced to lengthen sight radius on iron sighted rifles.

    (While I wonder if it would be universal to center-fires and rimfire alike...I'm thinking of my rimfire rifle here

    But I've heard it theorized that a bloop tube allows a (very temporary) more stabile atmosphere for the little bullet to "go to sleep" in(rid itself of some nutation and precession) and thereby increases accuracy.

    Does anybody have first hand knowledge or comparison of a scoped, HIGH accuracy rimfire with and without a bloop tube??

    Big thanks,
    TM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Brusly, LA
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    290

    Default

    Bullets don't "go to sleep" outside of the bore, I honestly don't know why people believe that. If a bullet is unstable when it leaves the muzzle that is only boing to get worse. Groups open up as distance increases, not shrink.
    Bloop tubes are as you say, only beneficial to lengthen your sight radius and yes they work on both centerfire and rimfire, I have/had them on both.
    The only other thing I could think of is if you had a tube on the gun acting as a "tuner" ie maximizing the barrels harmonics.

  3. Likes Flail liked this post
  4. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Tennessee
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    44
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akajun View Post
    Bullets don't "go to sleep" outside of the bore, I honestly don't know why people believe that. If a bullet is unstable when it leaves the muzzle that is only boing to get worse. Groups open up as distance increases, not shrink.
    Bloop tubes are as you say, only beneficial to lengthen your sight radius and yes they work on both centerfire and rimfire, I have/had them on both.
    The only other thing I could think of is if you had a tube on the gun acting as a "tuner" ie maximizing the barrels harmonics.
    akajun,I appreciate you responding.

    If your interested in accurate information, I humbly submit that what you stated is totally incorrect. If you wish to understand why and have correct information, study up on gyroscopic precession, Yaw of repose and nutation.

    Best,
    TM

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Brusly, LA
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    290

    Default

    My studies are in 30 years of competition shooting highpower , prone, smallbore, etc. if the bullet is not stable when it leaves the muzzle, it is not going to be accurate. This is why we pay so much attention to our crowns, especially in smallbore.
    I’ve heard all the arguments your making before, the only problem is that it’s never from anyone that wins matches or builds match winning rifles.
    The easiest way to explain this that a person can see is to watch Drew Brees throw a football. It is smooth and stable from the time it leaves his hand till it gets to the receiver. Now watch a lesser quarterback throw , it may wobble a bit when he releases it and it may look like it’s stable but it is not following a predictable path, ie not accurate

  6. Likes Curt Brown liked this post
  7. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Tennessee
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    44
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Default

    Well sir, you can never say never again, regarding "never" by anyone that builds match winners and wins matches.""

    You're still wrong. And you obviously have not even an inkling of an idea of how bullet R&D and research was done before computer modeling. I humbly tired to give you good info.

    I humbly leave you to your arrogant wealth of incorrect information. You likely even believe bullets fly in straight alignment with their own central axis.

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,133
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akajun View Post
    I’ve heard all the arguments your making before, the only problem is that it’s never from anyone that wins matches or builds match winning rifles.
    Nor handguns, shotguns, machine-guns, 8" howitzers nor 16"-50's.

    Extending the "sight radius" has to do with addressing the physical limitations of the shooter. Only.

    A(ny) tube that is NOT an intimate part of the "guidance system" (think flash-hiders & muzzle-brakes vs the rifled part of the barrel, billions of military tubes, small and large) is a DIS advantage as far as the projectile sees it.

    Expanding propellant gases overtake the projectile get around and ahead of it? Nothing favourable for accuracy comes of that turbulent contest.

    An Oxygen lance, OTOH? The longer the burning-bar.... the better the odds of discovering true humility...


  9. Likes MonCeret Gunsmit liked this post
  10. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    peekskill, NY
    Posts
    24,221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MonCeret Gunsmit View Post
    ...you obviously have not even an inkling of an idea of how bullet R&D and research was done before computer modeling.
    From your earlier post: "But I've heard it theorized that a bloop tube allows ..."

    Don't usually involve myself in suchlike, however - which is it, a mathmatical theory which describes in detail how projectiles behave, OR a computer simulation
    based on a specific model that predicts behavior?

    Suggest you convince the folks here by detailing who published this work.

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,133
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jim rozen View Post
    From your earlier post: "But I've heard it theorized that a bloop tube allows ..."

    Don't usually involve myself in suchlike, however - which is it, a mathmatical theory which describes in detail how projectiles behave, OR a computer simulation
    based on a specific model that predicts behavior?

    Suggest you convince the folks here by detailing who published this work.
    Aye. Might need to achieve and hold a fairly hard vacuum inside the tube before the projectile enters... then HOLD it so gases expanding behind it that have lower molecular mass and ordinarily overtake the moving projectile as soon as it clears the confined bore cannot do so.

    Electrically powered - as-in "rail gun" - mebbe that could work in the lab. Or in orbit and further-out, yet - where vacuum or near-as-dammit is cheap and available.

    Conventional powder propellants and "down to Earth"?

    B****y expensive, and not all that portable, one might "hear it theorized".


  12. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Tennessee
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    44
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jim rozen View Post
    From your earlier post: "But I've heard it theorized that a bloop tube allows ..."

    Don't usually involve myself in suchlike, however - which is it, a mathmatical theory which describes in detail how projectiles behave, OR a computer simulation
    based on a specific model that predicts behavior?

    Suggest you convince the folks here by detailing who published this work.
    Call David Tubb, of DTAC bullets. Call Brian Litz of Applied ballistics, formerly chief ballistician at Berger bullets. Bullets are not stabile immediately clear of the bore. Learn if you want to. Or not. Whatever.

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    339

    Default

    I am not sure exactly what that video is showing. It appears to be showing a mathematical simulation based on 6DOF modeling of an initial rate of yaw of 25 radians per second. The question then becomes where does that number come from?

  14. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,133
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MonCeret Gunsmit View Post
    Bullets are not stabile immediately clear of the bore. Learn if you want to. Or not. Whatever.
    They are "stable ENOUGH" to deliver greater accuracy that most projectile systems need or can put to practical use whilst they must operate across an uncontrolled atmosphere between muzzle and target.

    What is your plan or proposal? Run a "bloop tube" clear the whole distance, muzzle to target?

    Even so, that is not even close to the "only variable" involved in a given projectile's "numbers".

    And then.. shooter's are but human.

    "We" are the greatest set of variables of all. Thus the more realistic set of of hard-limits to what is worth chasing, "real world"... and which OTHER remaining variables are for practical purposes, already "down in the noise".

    In the field. Or on the internet.
    Last edited by thermite; 07-04-2019 at 01:37 PM.

  15. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Webster Groves, MO
    Posts
    7,184
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1802
    Likes (Received)
    3259

    Default

    I can't claim any special knowledge of ballistics, but I have watched my share of gyros nutating, so I can believe that bullets do it when perturbed by something like gases blowing past them. One of the many things I have long wanted to do and haven't is to put pressure relief ports in a barrel back a way from the muzzle to reduce the effect.

    A somewhat related question, if other forces were absent, a bullet would maintain its alignment with the bore so that long range it would be falling sideways. I can think of reasons that it would streamline to the flight path and other reasons it wouldn't. I'm sure ballisticians know the answer but I have never seen a statement on it.

    Bill

  16. Likes MonCeret Gunsmit liked this post
  17. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Tennessee
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    44
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9100 View Post
    I can't claim any special knowledge of ballistics, but I have watched my share of gyros nutating, so I can believe that bullets do it when perturbed by something like gases blowing past them. One of the many things I have long wanted to do and haven't is to put pressure relief ports in a barrel back a way from the muzzle to reduce the effect.

    A somewhat related question, if other forces were absent, a bullet would maintain its alignment with the bore so that long range it would be falling sideways. I can think of reasons that it would streamline to the flight path and other reasons it wouldn't. I'm sure ballisticians know the answer but I have never seen a statement on it.

    Bill
    Falling sideways? Are you speaking of Magnus effect or tumbling projos?

  18. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Webster Groves, MO
    Posts
    7,184
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1802
    Likes (Received)
    3259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MonCeret Gunsmit View Post
    Falling sideways? Are you speaking of Magnus effect or tumbling projos?
    No, although the Magnus effect may get in there. If you launch an arrow with tail fins at a 45 degree angle above horizontal, the fins will keep it aligned with the trajectory and it will hit the ground point first. If you fire a spin stabilized projectile at the same angle with no forces acting on it but gravity, it will stay pointed up at 45 degrees and hit the ground base first. If the bullet shape and weight distribution has the center of gravity ahead of the wind resistance profile center, I can imagine that it will tip also and land point first. If the CG is behind the center of wind pressure, it should not. Some military bullets have a fiber filler in the nose and the lead at the back, supposedly to give longer bearing surface for the rifling but actually to make it keyhole when it hits a man, inflicting more damage. In such a case, what reason would there be to align with the flight path?

    Bill

  19. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    RC, CA
    Posts
    1,968
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    211
    Likes (Received)
    371

    Default

    Franklin Mann did the experiments with venting barrels over a hundred years ago. I don't see any point in wasting time replicating it. It does nothing.

    There is a relationship between center of lift and center of pressure that forces a bullet to stay aligned with its trajectory. Which is breakable with either under or overstabilization.

    Moderately understabilized projectiles, too slow a twist, can be corrected with higher velocity. This has to do with the angle of the shock cone shifting the center of lift.

    That's about the limits of my understanding. You might look for a website called bulletfly, or something like that. German origin I think.

  20. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Webster Groves, MO
    Posts
    7,184
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1802
    Likes (Received)
    3259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wesg View Post
    Franklin Mann did the experiments with venting barrels over a hundred years ago. I don't see any point in wasting time replicating it. It does nothing.

    There is a relationship between center of lift and center of pressure that forces a bullet to stay aligned with its trajectory. Which is breakable with either under or overstabilization.

    Moderately understabilized projectiles, too slow a twist, can be corrected with higher velocity. This has to do with the angle of the shock cone shifting the center of lift.

    That's about the limits of my understanding. You might look for a website called bulletfly, or something like that. German origin I think.
    It is no surprise that someone else had thought of venting a barrel- I had not seen anything about it except for purposes of relieving gas pressure with a silencer.

    Re shock waves, a solid object shaped like the shock waves would align itself with the direction of flight. I wonder how much the shock wave couples to the bullet. I guess I was thinking mostly in subsonic terms. Predicting supersonic behavior is beyond my pay grade.

    Here is some great video.

    YouTube

    Bill

  21. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    19

    Default

    Without digging into the poorly understood world of projectile motion, and let me state, I count my own understanding as poor, let me try and drag this thread back to the OP question. Is a bloop tube worth having?

    If a tube was a cure-all solution to fixing bullet instability, well, it would be a widely known and widely used solution to that problem by now. Since you dont see all the major and minor manufacturers putting bloop tubes on their guns from the factory, I think it's safe to say it is not a cure-all solution.

    That said, there is another side to this. Each and every shooter is an individual. We all have our own little rituals we perform to extract the maximum accuracy from our rifles. Some do special break in procedures, some lap the bore, some use a certain brand ammo or a certain type of lube. Why? Because they think it helps them shoot better. Because shooting is not a one size fits all sport.

    So, to the OP, if you want to try a bloop tube, go ahead and try one. See what happens. It may not help enough to notice, or it may give you the confidence to help you shoot better. Try it, that's my advice.

  22. Likes MonCeret Gunsmit liked this post
  23. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    27

    Default

    Hi:
    I have several rifles with bloop tubes (rimfire and high power). I have shot my Anschutz super match with scope and iron sights with the tube on and off. I could not detect a difference in accuracy. Testing rimfire ammunition to find a lot your rifle likes makes a huge difference. I put the tube on to extend the sight radius to improve front front sight and target clarity. Ditto for my high power match rifles. My simple observation after many years of match shooting, if you believe it will help improve accuracy, it probably will.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •