This is one thkng that never made sense to me and seems (at least to me) counterintuitive even though the historical precedents speak for themselves (case in point, the long-barrelled Sherman Firefly variant which became a very effective weapon against WWII German armor that the ordinary Sherman wouldn’t normally be able to penetrate)
The way I see it, the projectile is in the barrel (and therefore engaging the rifling) for that much longer – in that time, more of the shell’s kinetic energy is lost as friction in the barrel than it would be normally, wouldn’t it?
Is the effect of friction negligible and outweighed by the increased rotation imparted by the long barrel? I just don’t understand how it makes as significant a difference as it does.
In: Engineering
Intuitively, I’d believe it’s similar to using different lengths of rubber band. There’s more thrust time or push time on the back of a longer/more stretched band than a smaller band.
In a long barrel, the force continues to push outward excelling the speed of the bullet faster and faster. In a short barrel with the same force, that force loses its thrusting power as soon as it exits the barrel.
Latest Answers