AD-A260 Il I I I Nli iI - DTIC · AD-A260 631 Il I I I Nli iI ARM4Y RESEARCH LABORATORY FI1 Test...

AD-A260 631Il I I I Nli iI

ARM4Y RESEARCH LABORATORY FI1

Test Comparison for

20mm Perforated Muzzle Brakes

Douglas S. Savick

ARL-MR-3. .February.1993

9 3 -0 3 8 5 7..,,: I-II.......,,.--'-,.. ..... .... .1... ... .. .. .... .. .... .. ..........

... ~ ~ ~ PP O E FO .U U ................ D..STRI.UTIO. IS. . ......... D..

NOTICES

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. DO NOT return it to the originator.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical InformationService, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Armyposition, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

The use of trade names or manufacturers' names in this report does not constituteindorsement of any commercial product.

DISCLAIMEI NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY

FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF

PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.

Form Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 0Mo No ved

PubliC reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average i hour oer response, including the time for reviewing instructions. searching existing data sources.gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 JeftersonDavis Highway. Suite 1204. Arlington. VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington. OC 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

February 1993 Final, August 1990 - Octobr 19924. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS

Test Comparison for 20mm Perforated Muzzle Brakes WO: 612618A-00-001 AJ

PR: IL162618AH806. AUTHOR(S)

Douglas S. Savick

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING / MONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER

U.S. Army Research LaboratoryATTN: AMSRL-OP-CI-B (Tech Lib) ARL-MR-31Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Tests were conducted at the Ballistic Research Laboratory for a 20mm perforated muzzle brake. Six muzzlebrake designs were analyzed for their influence on muzzle velocity, blast overpressure, and brake efficiency. Thedesigns were a combination of scaled versions of 105mm and 120mm muzzle brakes and new designs that werefabricated to reduce blast overpressure at the breech. Certain designs were tested to verify computer predictions thatupstream venting in a muzzle brake could reduce the blast overpressure at the breech.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES23

blast; overpressure; perforated; muzzle brakes; muzzle velocity; 20mm; x-ry; Fresnel; 16. PRICE CODEefficiency

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACTOF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED ULTNSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI id2 139-192981'02

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

ii

Acknowledgements

This program was made possible thanks to Bill Thompson, John Carnahan, Brendoii Pattonof BRL, Don McClellan of Dynamic Science Inc., and Ken Paxton, student contractor forBRL, for their excellent efforts in instrumentation setup and operations.

Acceý,ion For

NTIS c, - -

DL

1ByI

D1


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pag ve

LIST OF FIGURES ................. i

LIST O F TABLES .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. vii

I. Introduction..................................... 1

2. T est Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3. M uzzle Velocity. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

4. Blast Overpressure ......... ................................. 35. Shadowgraphs ........ ................................... 3

6. Recoil Attenuation.. .......................................... 4

7. Summary and Conclusions ....... ............................. 5

S. References ........... ..................................... 15


vi

LIST OF FIGURESFigure Pg

1 Schematic Drawing of Test Setup ........ ......................... 6

2 Photograph of Test Setup...............................6

3 20rmm Perforated Muzzle Brake Devices ......... ..................... 7

4 Drawings for Device 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Drawings for Device 3 ............. ............................... 8

6 Drawings for Device 4 ............. ............................... S


S Drawings for Device 6 ............. ............................... 9


10 Blast Peak Overpressure at 30 Calibers from Muzzle ...... .............. 10



13 Shadowgraph of Blast Waves from Device 4 ....... ................... 12

14 Shadowglaph of Blast \Vaves from Device 7 ....... ................... 12

15 Blast Wave from Device 5 Traveling toward Breech ...... ............... 13

16 Blast \Vave from Device 7 Traveling toward Breech ...... ............... 13

LIST OF TABLESTable

I Effects of Brake on Nluzzle \'elocitv. ................................. 14

"2 Recoil Eflicieiicv ............. ................................. 14

vii

INTENTIONALLY LEFI' BLANK.

viii

PREFACE

The U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory was deactivated on 30 September 1992 and subsequentlybecame a part of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) on 1 October 1992.

ix

1. Introduction

A series of tests were performed at the Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) oi at 2Onimperforated muzzle b~rake. The tests were conducted for Benet W'eaponls Laboratory (BNNWL)to v'erify computer predictions that. upstream venting could reduce peak blast overpressurenear the breech of a gunl.' It is claimed that the blast wave from the perforated muzzle b~rakeinterferes with the main blast and reduces its strength.

This report. will contain a description of the test, setup and a detailed analysis of thefollowing areas of the 20mm perforated muzzle brakes:

0 Muzzle Velocity

* Blast Overpressure

9 Shadowgiaphs

* 1Recoil Att enua tion

2. Test Setup

T[le test wvas performed at BRL's indoor Aerodynamics Range.' A schematic drawingof the test set up is shown in Figure 1. An actual photograph of the test settup is shownili Figure 2. Most of the Inistrumentation is contained in the area called thle blast room.\ locitv screens are located furt hler clown range.

Perforated muzzle brake designs from 105mm and 120mnm tests w\ere scaled dlown forlhe 20mmn guin to verify their efficiency. A total of six brakes were tested. The devices.

SeuiI inl Figure :1. were designed1 and fabricated to be screwed on to a 201111 Mlann barrelthat wvas thlreaded at the muzzle. A seventh device was used to represent. a bare muzzle.having the same leumo,ýh as thme other six devices (a~pprox. 28 cmn) but no perforations. Thehare muzzle device was used as it baseline for the six designs. Ammunition used for thist est was Cart ridge. '20min. TP. NI55A2.A Comparisons b~eing made with the 105mm andI 20minin bra kes arie resul ts uising- Cartridge, 105mmn, TP-T, IN1490 and Cart ridIge. I 20mim.HIEAT-TIP-T. N1831I aummunitionl.

Fligure 3., viewing" fromm- left to right, shows devices 1 through 7. Devices 2. :3, and -1wvere designs t estedl for the 120mmin gun. Dev'ices 6 and T were tested for the 1051ni gun.Device 5 is the scaled down version of the EX35 p)erforated muzzle brake desigil that is usedfor thle 1 051ninm gun. Thie L\3.) Is being sup)plied ats government furnished equipmneijlt forthe A rn-ored Gun SystemI1 which is currently in full development . Device T was of sp~ecialInterest beca use of Its un1(ique design as being a "'split brake" (perforations are sp~aced] apart).D~rawvings foi thle six designs canl be seen reslpectively in Figures 4-9.

( Can fano' .(C.. -Bi I Vheld Con toiiinrg Us ing U pst ream Venting",. 4 th Int ernatijonal Syniiipsilln (ii n ComputIllational Filuid

[)naiiacs. U. of Cadif 11ivii-;i-Dvis, Davis, Califorijia, Sept enilier 9-12. 1991.2 Hi~alln, W.F., tAhe Fietv Hight Aelwi'yllallics Ranlge." H1RL-t1- lOIS U.S. ArnY Ballistic Researchl Laboiatoi-Y. Ab~erdeen

Provitig Grot ind. M a:t iaid, Atr gulst 1958. (ADI 2022.49)

P~iezoelectric gTages Were suspended from above the muzzle to measure the b~last over-pressure at seven stations located at the following angles from the line of fire in front of themuzzle: 15'. 300, 60'. 900. 1200. 1500. and 1650. The gages measured pressure at distancesof 30, 410. and 50 calibers from the muzzle. The gunl barrel was mounitedI on a free recoilmount that offeredl negligible resistance to the recoiling gun . Attached to tile gTun mountwas anl LVDT (Linear \ariable Differential Transformer) measuring dlevice that sensed the(listaince t raveledl by the gunf mouint in time. From this measurement, t he recoil velocitycould be obtained. Two x-ravs wvere used side by side to capture the projectile imiage attwo predetermiiied times on the samie p~ic~e of film. A fiducial was also exposed oil the filmat the same timec to determine the distance between them. From this, tile muzzle velocitycould b~e determined. Further down range, velocity screens were used as another method tomecasuire velocity. Finalix', a Fresnel lens was used to aid photographing the shadow of tileprojec tile and~/or the blast wave.

A piezoelectric gage was p)laced at the muzzle to trigger on the main blast and providea zero timne. A delay generator was used t~o trigger the instrumentation at the appropriate

mie. Nicolet oscilloscopes recordled the required data.

3. Muzzle Velocity

The purpose' for recording muzzle velocity was to determ-ine if any or all of the muzzlebr-akes affected it. From Savick and( Baur, the 120mm perforated muzzle brake decreasedlie muizzle velocityv by approximiately 2%4.

N l izzle velocityv was ilot (let erminiled for every round fired since X- rays Were itot ulsed foreach~~~~~~ sht.''omzl eoiies were recordled for each muzzle dlevice. These velocitlies

were ;Iver1agedl foreach device and are provided in TIabhle 1. The light screen velocities werere(Coil,(lc for all rot 11(15 fired. TIhouigh thIiis sample is not the same as thle muzzle velocit v(velocityv loss over dhistaiice due to dIrag) it is acceptable for comparison between devices.

T1he average velocities for thle light, screen are also provided inl Table 1.0

It was expected that this test would provide similar results for velocity loss in the per-forat ed muzzle brakes as were found in the 105mim and 120mnm tests. From Table 1. it issceen that t here w\as ain illsglaificant difference between the ba~seline velocit v and thle variousbrake velocil ies. The largest difference was .4% or- 4 rn/s. Comparison Of MUzzle vel'ocitiesbet ween inimzzle (devices was not attainable because of the inconsistency of the amninlinit ion1it self.' The st andardI dev iatIion for the projectile velocities mevasured for thle device 1 (nob)rake) was .1.5 in/s. Hatir had also notedI simlilar results In hIls work wvit Ili muzzle velocit v forniuzzle brakes onl a 5.56mmn rifle. 5

3S;tvick. D.S anl 1>11. Hour, "1 201J1111 'vriforal ed Mluzzle Brake Performanvce. BRil, Nlenorandlrru Rleport WI'I.-MR 1-3816,1'.S. A Fur' vBallistic llesearcir Labrorat ory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Mtaryland, 1990 (Confident iai)

4 Logi, ics - (onriete Hound Charts". [)AICONI Pamphlet 700-3-2. U.S. Army Mlaterial Development and Rea~diness(.anrnigmd. Aics~unlria. Virginia 22333, Mlay 1984.

'Baur, ElI1. anid 3-C. Foiri, "A Parametric StudY of Miuzzle Brakes for Small Caliber Automatic Rf~iles. BRL-TR-323 1, U.S.A ru' Pallistic fifsrarrh LahIorat or'. Aberd.-nv Proving Ground. M~aryland. Mlay 1991.

4. Blast Overpressure

Muizzle brakes redirect the blast towards the breech raising thle ovýerpressujre iii thiat area.sometimes to dangerous levels. By- measuring the blast ov-erpressure distr-bution for eachdev-ice at v-arious posit ions aroindl the mutzzle, it can lbe (letermined ho0W muLch tilie 1muzz.le

dlevice increases pressure behind the gun relativ-e to the bare mutzzle. Pressuire dat a wereacquiired withI piezoelectrnc gages located at 1.50. 300. 600. 900. 1200. 1.5) 0 . and 165 aro *imnifr

lie mutzzle al( nl masuriring the pressure ovecr a desired time period.

Pressure (hata were taken at each angle at thruee different (list ances from thle mutzzle: :30.40, and 50 calibers, In accordlance with thle test plan giv-en by 13\L. pressuire dat a were

auired for all dev-ices at 30 calibers brat only dev-ice 1. 5, and( 7 were uised to deterine]lhast ov-erpressuire at 10 andl 50 calibers. Figures 10, 11. and 12 show th liea1 Ck movrpressurefor all three (list ances.

Observat iou of blast overpressilre was concentrated most ly for dev-ices 1. . 5. arid 71. in1Figutre 10. all sevecii (hevices are comrpared to each ot her with respect to dc. -ice 1. A.s wvasexpected. (ldcec I had the Ii iglrest peak overpressure 'in front of the inuzzle and thle lowestat the breech. MIiizzle brakes generally decreaise the pressure iii tihe front of the mutzzle buitincrease it towards thle rear. Device .5 p)erformedl thle same as most of the ot her lev.ices.

)ev-Ice 7 showed somiewhat lower pressuire fin the breech area than tire ot her d(leices. l'mgures11 arid 12 show a comparison between devices 1. 5. anid 7 at 410 and .50 calibers. Similarresuilts are fouind for each dev-ice as found in Figure 10.

5. Shadowgraphis

S Iiadowgra )plis were t aker i to I rov~lde a quali tativye descripjt ion of thli blast wave. Toii hce at sI iad owgraph th Ile Sh adow of t lie blast wave was projected Ihoiomg 1 r Ieit e lenls

aitilh acquiiiredl by at Ca imiera. Thle Iblast. room was (darkened andl thle canrera 's slu t t er wasleft open. A I gI it source was illumintated at, a desired t ime after' thle inmst runmentat ion w\astri "-ered. Tire pressure signalI from tire mutzzle gage triggered a delay generat or whIiich IIItii rim t riggere(I thle Ii 'lit sonilce to Captumre a shadowgraph at the desired location of thre blast

wv.For cert a in mIrizzle devices. the b~last 'ave was phiot ographred uip to 1.5 iii (5 ft ) 1behiindI lie riiuzzle at iIicrermierits of 1.5 cmii (6 iii) from tire mutzzle.

SI iadowgrapIhis kw re ta ke to qiral itat i vel observe the lblast pressure wave\-( as it I ra\'elsrearw'ard fronti thre niizzle. Figure 1:3 shows rexanmple of tilie b~last w\avec. mII t lIII. part cicu arp~hotographiniil]- te gases exit outi the mu1 ..le brake and then the miuzzle. Twvo indmidi ~i alh1)ast "'ax-cs, arce form me(l . Eventtira I h. t lie mu mizzle blast wa\'e ov-ertakes tilie im nzzle brake blastwavec as thley t raA''h t ow~ard tire breech. 1)n-ing the period of testing. shadowgraplms wereta ken at, \'armolls posit ionrs alonrg thle gunl tutbe to obsei'we the strengthr of tilie blast wa\'..Emiphiasis w'as plaiced Ol on(ev'ice 1. 5, and 7. Device, 7. thre split br'ake (Figure 14). "'as(l('igmr('d withl thle e~xpect ationi that thle rear most holes (two rows) %\-oiml)( pro6'ide a w~eakerIdast wav-e t I at woil b11 reak upl Ihi(' applroachi ing bl)ast \\-ave an(] reduice its strmengt h t I ins('hl('i rigl" tli(' Pr~siir'C III thme breech regiomi.

Shadowgraplhs p)ictorially display the blast wave at different positions along thlie gun barrelas it travels toward the breech. Figure 15 displays the blast wave from device 5 at 750 /isafter the instrumentation had been triggered. Figure 16 shows the blast wave of device 7at the same time delay as Figure 15. The blast wave from device 7 is seen to be furtheruprange than that from device 5 since the vent holes are further uprange. The blast wavedoes not appear to be as strong.

6. Recoil Attenuation

The main l)url)ose of a muzzle brake is to reduce the momentum being applied to therecoil system. Mluzzle brakes redirect a portion of the exiting gases to the side exert ing aforward force oil the brake, thus reducing recoil. The six devices were compared to determinetheir recoil efficiency.

The gun was mounted on a free recoil mount that allowed the gun to recoil with negligibleresist ance. The mount, shown in Figure 2, was seated on two shafts and traveled freely alongthem bv use of ball bearings between the mount and the shafts. The mount stopped at aspring-damper at the end of the recoil travel and was manually reset for the next lest round.

As the gun was fired, the mount movement was measured with respect to t ine. A:nILDT (Linear Variable Differential Transformer) was used to measure the movement. Thedata were recorde(d on a Nicolet oscilloscope. The data were then differentiated to determinetle recoil velocitv.

As stated before. finding the brake efficiency of the muzzle brake was the main ol)jectivein performing these tests. In thils report, brake efficiency will be defined in two ways. Thefirst expl)ression is the overall brake efficiency, which is the percent red uction in tile recoilillpllIse due to thlie action of tlhe muzzle brake. Ikepresented by <, it is defined as tlie followinlrg.

i;" = • 100(4 (1)IWO

IN,, symnbolizes t lie total impulse of the guni without the brake and I, is tile total impulse oflie gun with t lie Irake. The second expression for recoil efficiency is the gas dynamic brake

(ffic(ilcvy. .3. This efficiency is a modification of the overall efficiency. It is the percentage ofni(inl'l(,ii iiii ext ract e I frouii the exlausting propellant gases. Defined as

I/o -/0,IWO - 717) 1 (2)

i11, is lhe mass of tle projectihe al(d I", is tile projectihe muTizzle velocilv. 1, and I,,', aredetemI iil ned I multip)lying the mass of the recoiling unit by its velocity.

I rr (3)

whe're 771 is the uiiass of the recoiling unit and Vr is the velocity of the recoiling unit. I - was(let e iiined for each device by usinrg the average of all the recoil velocities recorded while(aCl(I device was tested.

4

The brake efficiencies are listed in Table 2. Most of the brakes had similar efficiencieswith the devices 5 and 7 being somewhat better. Some results for the full scale 1055mm and120mm muzzle brake tests are also included in Table 2. For device 5, the overall efficiencywas comparatively close to the 105mm results from Plostins and Clay.6 Results from devices"2, 3. and 4 did not agree with results from the 120mm test.

This difference is attributed to a lack of resolution in the full scale tests. The 120rammuzzle brakes were fired from the MIA1 concentric recoil mount. Recoil impulse could notbe directly measured in these tests, but had to be inferred from the integration of data suchas breech pressure, recoil oil cylinder pressure, and gun displacement-time history. However,friction forces on the recoiling tube could not be measured and had to be inferred from otherdata. It is felt that this approximation resulted in an overestimation of brake efficiencies.

7. Summary and Conclusions

1. Muzzle velocity reduction due to the use of the muzzle brake could not be determineddue to inconsistency of projectile velocity.

2. Device 7 showed the lowest peak overpressure at the breech.

3. Shadowgraphs show the blast wave to be weaker along the cannon for device 7 thanblast waves of other devices.

-1. Device 5 and device 7 had the highest brake efficiency of all devices tested.

5. TI'hle overall efficiency for the 20rmm and the 105mm EX35 design were close in com-pa risoli to each other.

6. Results for devices 2, 3. and 4 did not agree in brake efficiency with the corresponding120mnT tests. It appears that the method for solving brake efficiency for the 120mam testTleds refinement.

", LoII I P. .im I (I it), %•'.I , I. I formuaIce of L[igihit Weig,1 1 I OF, (', annoll Designs", Bit [. rr uical iep.it RII- 1 I -2719, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-5O66., 19•6 (('onfidenti;d)

5

TR �NITIflNAL BALLISTICS AERELYNAMICS RANGE

ARA,

DD D DPiCZOELECTRIC SPARP SOjR�E SPAP� SOURCE

�' PC�I. MOUNT PREZUPE GAGES

nH

TRIUGEP -�fl fl II

/ LiTAROT STPtPPEP �T4tON E CC�EEN OTATION *�'T TARGET

2L GE�.OP PR�5NEL LENG

A�ff PA

_______ __________________________________ ___________________ iL __________________________

E9�3T FEt�rA IFAF- ShADZD�'bRAPH STATIENS.

Figure 1. Schematic Drawing of Test Setup

Figure 2. Photograph of lest Setup

6

I_ 2jL31 I U6 LL7

Figure 3. 20mm Perforated Miizzle Brake Dices

a-?(* To Uaf 1*f

-- "

'J'0

S4JFigurFigu2rem 4.rforawicdg for zzlc Bae 2ci',

S ......... ....SICTJO st R -R sEcrov s-s

Figure 4. Drawings for Decvice '2

A•l pVACP OF MME LS""rT" To a-If*

I 0|" I Cil

R R S R0

A C6

SECTON R-R SECTIO S-S

Figure 5. Drawings for Device 3

•kF1w ToC U) Tmr

IC"

iA

030

o .... . 4EIIIIm II

r-ATU1212 P S0M222222 S-S


T'T*cT Ia.,=not8

-T

---7 . . . • tr •r-l - •,

'WII

R

SEC rT R-R


IjAAn

DETA& A

-------- - -- - - O(TAL A


9

-- Sam___

--- -- - - -----


-2= DEVICE 10= DEVICE 2L= DEVICE 3

12.5 - DVICE 4

X DEVICE 50= DEVIC6,7= DEVICE 7S12

Cf) 75 -

ryA + x

>- x

2.5 -

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

ANGLE LOCATION (DEG)

Figure 10. Blast Peak Overpressure at 30 Calibers from Muzzle

10

10 -

,-~ 8- -- Z-3EVlKE I

) X DEV1CE 5X -- ;EV'V E 7

iU I V7

r 6-6

0L!)

r),' 4

0 I

0 20 40 60 so 100 120 140 16 0 180

ANGLE LOCATION (DECG)

Figure 11. Blast Peak Overpressure at 40 Calibers from Mluzzle

V) 6

LJ

f4~

Lj

> 2

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

ANGLE LOCATION (DEC)

Figure 12. Blast Peak Overpressure at 50 Calibers from Muzzle

8 -1

F'igiire 13. ShaIdu\\-rap1 of lil;ist \\ilvc> fioiii DcI)

FiueFl ) ill\ý~>11)l121

Vjoj r e 1G(~j . W~

Device X-ray Velocity (111/s) Light Screen \elocitv (ni's)1 1058 10592 10612 1059: 1059 1056- 1056 1059

1.) 10 1 10606 1056 1062_ 10.58 1058

Table 1. Effects of Brake on Muzzle Velocity

20inii 20ini( 105mm 10.5m l 120111m 12()ninDcvi'c 0 ,3 C' J 11

__ 15.8 WC 51..5 /0 46.3 cX 99.6 Wc3 17.4 Wc 56.4 V _ 47.0 V 101.2 Wc

32 16.5 V -53.6 I1c, 51.8 V7 111.4 (7.5 /19.2 W/ 62..5 W/ 32.0 •7i67.0 W/

6 18.3 (X .59.5 'V7_F 19. 1 (A 62.3 W

Table 2. Recoil Efficiency

1 'I

8. References

1. Carofano, G.C.. "Blast Field Contouring Usn IUpstream V'enting" 4thI InternationalSym*nposiumn on Computational Fluid Dynamics. U. of California-Davis. Davis. California,September 9-12. 1991.

2. Brauin. W.F.. -Tlhe Free Flligt Aerodvinamics Range.- BRL-R-10 IS. U.S. Ar my BallisticResearch Laboratory. Aberdeen Proving Ground. Maryland. August 19.58. (AD 2~022-19)

;3. Savick. D.S. and E.11. Baur, "120mmi Perforated Muzzle Brake Performiance-. BR1L Memo-rand~iznl Report BR L-MR-3S1 6, U.S. Ar my Ballistic Research Lab~oratory. Aberdeent ProvingfG roundl, MIaryland, 1990. (Confidential)

4-. Baur. E.1-. and .J.C. Ford. "A P~arametric Study of Muzzle for Small Caliber A-ut omaticRifles", BR L-TR-323-1. US.S Ar my Ballistic Research Laboratory. Aberdeen Proving Ground.Maryland, May 1991.

5. "Logistics - Complete Round Charts-. DARC'ONI Pamphlet 7100-:3-2). U.S. Ar my MaterialD~evelopmenmt and Readiness Command, A\lexandria, Virginia May 198-1.

6. P'lostins. P. and Clay. \V.HI.. -Performance of Lighit \Veliht 105 MMI Cannon Designis'"BR L Technical Report B l{ -TRZ-27-19. U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory. Al erdeenlProving Ground, NID1. 21005-5066. 1986. (Confidential)

15


16

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Gas dynamic brake efficiencyI1, Recoil impulse with brakeIWO Recoil impulse without brake

Mr Mass of recoiling partsn71 P Mass of projectile

Overall brake efficiencyr; \Velocitv of recoil system

V Projectile muzzle velocity

17


18

No. of No. ofCopies Organization Copies Organization

2 Administrator I CommanderDefense Technical Info Center U.S. Army Missile CommandATTN: DTIC-DDA A'ITN: AMSMI-RD-CS-R (DOC)Cameron Station Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5010Alexandria, VA 22304-6145

1 CommanderCommander U.S. Army Tank-Automotive CommandU.S. Army Materiel Command ATTN: ASQNC-TAC-DIT (TechnicalATTN: AMCAM Information Center)5001 Eisenhower Ave. Warren, MI 48397-5000Alexandria, VA 22333-0001

1 DirectorDirector U.S. Army TRADOC Analysis CommandU.S. Army Research Laboratory ATTN: ATRC-WSRATTN: AMSRL-D White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002-55022800 Powder Mill Rd.Adelphi, MD 20783-1145 1 Commandant

U.S. Army Field Artillery School

Director ATTN: ATSF-CSIU.S. Army Research Laboratory Ft. Sill, OK 73503-5000A'ITN: AMSRL-OP-CI-AD,

Tech Publishing (Cls&. only) I Commandant2800 Powder Mill Rd. U.S. Army Infantry SchoolAdelphi, MD 20783-1145 ATTN: ATSH-CD (Security Mgr.)

Fort Benning, GA 31905-56602 Commander

U.S. Army Armament Research, (Lnclau. only) I CommandantDevelopment, and Engineering Center U.S. Army Infantry School

ATTN: SMCAR-IMI-I ATIN: ATSH-CD-CSO-ORPicatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000 Fort Benning, GA 31905-5660

2 Commander I WL/MNOIU.S. Army Armament Research, Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5000

Development, and Engineering CenterATT'N: SMCAR-TDC Aberdeen Proving GroundPicatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

2 Dir, USAMSAADirector ATTN: AMXSY-DBenet Weapons Laboratory AMXSY-MP, H. CohenU.S. Army Armament Research,

Development, and Engineering Center I Cdr, USATECOMATTN: SMCAR-CCB-TL A1TN: AMSTE-TCWatervliet, NY 12189-4050

1 Dir, ERDEC(LUncam Only) I Commander A1TN: SCBRD-RT

U.S. Army Rock Island ArsenalATTN: SMCRI-IMC-RT/Technical Library I Cdr, CBDARock Island, IL 61299-5000 A1TN: AMSCB-CI

Director I Dir, USARLU.S. Army Aviation Research ATTN: AMSRL-SL-I

and Technology ActivityATTN: SAVRT-R (Library) 10 Dir, USARLM/S 219-3 ATTN: AMSRL-OP-CI-B (Tech Lib)Ames Research CenterMoffett Field, CA 94035-1000

19

No. ofCopies Organization

DirectorBenet Weapons LaboratoryArmament RD&E CenterUS Army AMCCOMATTN: SMCAR-CCB-D. Dr. .John ZweigATTN: SNICAR-CCB-AR. Dr. Garrv Carofano\\atervliet. NY 121S9-40.50

20

USER EVALUATION SHEET/CHANGE OF ADDRESS

This Laboratory undertakes a continuing effort to improve the quality of the rcports it publishes. Yourcomments/answers to the items/questions below will aid us in our efforts.

1. ARL Report Number ARL-MR-31 DateofReport Febuary 1993

2. Date Report Received

3. Does this report satisfy a need? (Comment on purpose, related project, or other area of interest for

which the report will be used.)

4. Specifically, how is the report being used? (Information source, design data, procedure, source of

ideas, etc.)

5. Has the information in this report led to any quantitative savings as far as man-hours or dollars saved,

operating costs avoided, or efficiencies achieved, etc? If so, please elaborate.

6. General Comments. What do you think should be changed to improve future reports? (Indicatechanges to organization, technical content, format, etc.)

Organization

CURRENT NameADDRESS

Street or P.O. Box No.

City, State, Zip Code

7. If indicating a Change of Address or Address Correction, please provide the Current or Correct address

above and the Old or Incorrect address below.

Organization

OLD NameADDRESS

Street or P.O. Box No.

City, State, Zip Code

(Remove this sheet, fold as indicated, staple or tape closed, and mail.)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYNO POSTAG-NECESSAPYIF MAILEO

IV. THEI UNITED STATESOFFICIAL BUSINESS I BUSUN SS REPLY.MILA_____

I FRST CLASS PEIT o 0001, A~r, WDPostage *111l be paid by addressee

Director ________

U.S. Army Research LaboratoryATTN: AMSRL-OP-CI-B (Tech Lib)Aberdeen Proving Ground. MD 21005-5066

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AD-A260 Il I I I Nli iI - DTIC · AD-A260 631 Il I I I Nli iI ARM4Y RESEARCH LABORATORY FI1 Test...

Documents

Transcript of AD-A260 Il I I I Nli iI - DTIC · AD-A260 631 Il I I I Nli iI ARM4Y RESEARCH LABORATORY FI1 Test...