Author Topic: Testing a Soda Can Mortar (Read 8708 times)

Double D · « **Reply #30 on:** December 21, 2008, 03:29:40 PM »

Bad news Tim, modern soup cans are now drawn pull tabs. 2.658 rim 2.6 body. Better head down Food Lion and stock up on two rimmers. You migh have to start paper patching.

Man it's getting rough to find match grade ammo.

Victor3 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 21, 2008, 07:53:12 PM »

Quote from: Double D on December 21, 2008, 01:41:10 PM

Sure wish it would warm up a bit so I can test the theory.

I recommend a nice hot bowl of chicken noodle soup (save the can)

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #32 on:** December 22, 2008, 02:15:18 AM »

Quote from: Double D on December 21, 2008, 03:29:40 PM

Bad news Tim, modern soup cans are now drawn pull tabs. 2.658 rim 2.6 body. Better head down Food Lion and stock up on two rimmers. You migh have to start paper patching.

Man it's getting rough to find match grade ammo.

There always seems to be someone who manages to make a living on anchient machinery, so I think I'll find the old style cans around for some time - just maybe not in the premium brands or the brands I prefer.

Some of the soups I've bought (this week) were in FOIL packages - dry as a bone. (And that WAS chicken noodle soup too.) That was at Wades (a smaller chain than Food Lion).

It may be that I'll just have to bore a new tube for the new caliber of the season.

Victor3 · « **Reply #33 on:** December 22, 2008, 03:30:17 AM »

Some of the soups I've bought (this week) were in FOIL packages - dry as a bone. (And that WAS chicken noodle soup too.)

I had the same experience; Cup-O-Soup. Totally dry. Someone told me you have to add boiling water to the things. Can you believe that

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #34 on:** December 22, 2008, 05:59:05 AM »

Yea. The Army made that shift too when they went from 'C's to MRE's.

leesecw · « **Reply #35 on:** December 22, 2008, 08:38:28 AM »

There are some varieties of dog food cans that still have the rims. They are bigger than beer cans though

dan610324 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 23, 2008, 12:15:38 PM »

anyone know how dogfood tastes ??

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #37 on:** December 23, 2008, 02:03:04 PM »

Quote from: dan610324 on December 23, 2008, 12:15:38 PM

anyone know how dogfood tastes ??

woof ?

Ex 49'er · « **Reply #38 on:** December 23, 2008, 02:09:43 PM »

Better start taking the caliper grocery shopping. You'll probably get some strange stares.

"Yessir, I'm just looking for ammunition for my mortar."

leesecw · « **Reply #39 on:** December 23, 2008, 02:42:11 PM »

The three dogs love it so it must taste good. The big german shepard downs one whole can thats close to 2.90 in size in 15 seconds. Unfortunately it's left later to freeze solid in the yard at about coors can size. Waaaiiit-a-minute? New Ammo for the beer can mortar? Hmmmmm?

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #40 on:** December 25, 2008, 11:25:22 AM »

Quote from: Ex 49'er on December 23, 2008, 02:09:43 PM

Better start taking the micrometer grocery shopping. You'll probably get some strange stares.

"Yessir, I'm just looking for ammunition for my mortar."

I've taken in a clipboard and a calculator into a grocery (on a class project). Within minutes the manager was right there beside me. Theirs is a VERY competitive business!

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #41 on:** December 25, 2008, 11:27:02 AM »

Quote from: leesecw on December 23, 2008, 02:42:11 PM

The three dogs love it so it must taste good. The big german shepard downs one whole can thats close to 2.90 in size in 15 seconds. Unfortunately it's left later to freeze solid in the yard at about coors can size. Waaaiiit-a-minute? New Ammo for the beer can mortar? Hmmmmm?

We, now, just have cats. The cat food cans just aren't tall enough for good ballistics.

jeeper1 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 25, 2008, 04:19:27 PM »

Quote

anyone know how dogfood tastes ??

It has got to be better than cat food.

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #43 on:** December 25, 2008, 06:02:16 PM »

Quote from: jeeper1 on December 25, 2008, 04:19:27 PM

Quote
anyone know how dogfood tastes ??
It has got to be better than cat food.

I REALLY should not ask, but, how would you know?

jeeper1 · « **Reply #44 on:** December 26, 2008, 06:52:03 AM »

If it tastes anything like it smells, cat food has to be one of the most vile tasting substance on this planet.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #45 on:** December 26, 2008, 09:03:45 AM »

Quote

anyone know how dogfood tastes ?

huh

We had turkey and ham with all kinds of sides, and it was just scrumptious; but no Alpo!

waynef · « **Reply #46 on:** December 28, 2008, 11:47:10 AM »

Tracy,

Sorry for the long delay but with work, holidays & a new computer I have not been able to reply till now.

The attached photo should give u an idea how I aligned for each shot.

First, a line is struck to the target using two stakes and a string. Then the mortar bed is set next to and parallel to the line (string) then leveled. The mortar is placed on the bed using the reference lines in black. That way I can position it for each shot the same way.
If the first round falls left of target I move the rear stake slightly to the left say 1/2" then align the bed to again be parallel to the string.
Usually I can drop the second round within a few feet of the target.

Yes, I used "Mortar Mix" in all three projectiles. The tennis ball using the least amount but the heavier can fly truer. Less wind deflection.

Using the pin as u did is a good idea. I'm not a machinist so I did not think of that...

Santa brought me a digital camera so I hope to learn how to use it and post better pictures.

Happy New Year,

Wayne

Terry C. · « **Reply #47 on:** December 28, 2008, 12:20:23 PM »

Nice platform!

As for the cat food, I haven't eaten any (to the best of my knowledge, or at least since I quit drinkin') but I've had a few near-misses lately.

Our Japanese Bobtail, Lucy (Lucretia MacEvil) eats mainly dry food. But she does get the occasional spoonful of "the good stuff" as a treat now & then.

My wife keeps the unused food in a small plastic container in the refrigerator. We have more than one type of these snap-top containers, and it's not always kept in the same one.

More than once I've been rummaging through the fridge looking for something edible, and come out with cat food in-hand. A good whiff is enough to alert me to my error.

One day I'm gonna be really hungry...

leesecw · « **Reply #48 on:** December 28, 2008, 03:52:31 PM »

As for Dog food cans. This can is right around 2.90. The bore on the coehorn is at 2.95 . Might have to fill the dog food can with mortar or cement after feeding dogs though. We are going to try one with the tab unpulled anyways {or two or three depending what shows up in the yard after the can bursts] Thats doggy entertainment and not a part of this board.

leesecw · « **Reply #49 on:** December 28, 2008, 03:54:15 PM »

Oh darn it ive screwed up again with photos. Maybe double d can help again

intoodeep · « **Reply #50 on:** December 28, 2008, 04:52:02 PM »

leesecw,

Is this them?

leesecw · « **Reply #51 on:** December 29, 2008, 02:32:42 AM »

Thanks!

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #52 on:** December 29, 2008, 02:48:41 AM »

My first trys with tin cans (1975) were with cans filled with water. As the pressure increased the water displaced and pressed the can walls against the insides of the bore. At a little more pressure the can would rupture (even with no top). My point: start with a small charge unless you WANT a dog food distribution device that might have more than just widespread effects.

dominick · « **Reply #53 on:** January 31, 2009, 07:48:33 AM »

Blaster,

Here's the post.

Blaster · « **Reply #54 on:** January 31, 2009, 02:50:48 PM »

Quote from: dominick on January 31, 2009, 07:48:33 AM

Blaster,

Here's the post.

Dom, thanks again.
Blaster

Parrott-Cannon · « **Reply #55 on:** April 22, 2011, 11:11:13 AM »

I have written a number of ballistic programs, including a ballistic coefficient estimator, an exterior ballistic program and an interior ballistic program. The data in this post provides information to validate these programs (all calculation reflect the wind data provided in the original post. The table documents the calculations from each program and demonstrates the validity of those calculations:

Concrete filled Tennis Ball:

   Weight (grains): 3500
   Calculated Velocity (fps): 319
Measured Range (ft): 1036
   Calculated Range (ft): 1033
   Calculated Ballistic Coefficient: 0.0724

Concrete filled 8 oz Pop Can:

   Weight (grains): 8312
   Calculated Velocity (fps): 292
Measured Range (ft): 825
   Calculated Range (ft): 826
   Calculated Ballistic Coefficient: 0.034

Concrete filled 12 oz Pop Can:

Weight (grains): 12250
   Calculated Velocity (fps): 271
Measured Range (ft): 822
   Calculated Range (ft): 832
   Calculated Ballistic Coefficient: 0.0327

The data clearly explains the observed range differences. Tennis balls because of the rough covering have a higher drag than a smooth ball of the same diameter and weight. This is reflected in the ballistic coefficient - 0.1315 for a smooth ball as compared to 0.0724 for the tennis ball. A smooth ball filled with concrete of the same diameter has a ballistic coefficient of 0.1315 and would have a range of 1425 feet.

The can data is very interesting. My interior ballistic program calculated a 21 fps difference in the velocity between the two size cans. This is due to the weight difference and only a slight change in the powder burnt (the short barrel problem). The problem with cans is they tumble this has a major effect on the ballistic coefficient. A concrete filled 8 oz pop can that does not tumble has a ballistic coefficient around 0.196 and would reach a range of 1820 feet. While a concrete filled 12 oz pop can that does not tumble has a ballistic coefficient of around 0.296 and would have a range of 1796 feet

Double D · « **Reply #56 on:** April 22, 2011, 11:25:18 AM »

Quote from: Parrott-Cannon on April 22, 2011, 11:11:13 AM

I have written a number of ballistic programs, including a ballistic coefficient estimator, an exterior ballistic program and an interior ballistic program. The data in this post provides information to validate these programs (all calculation reflect the wind data provided in the original post. The table documents the calculations from each program and demonstrates the validity of those calculations:

Concrete filled Tennis Ball:

   Weight (grains): 3500
   Calculated Velocity (fps): 319
Measured Range (ft): 1036
   Calculated Range (ft): 1033
   Calculated Ballistic Coefficient: 0.0724

Concrete filled 8 oz Pop Can:

   Weight (grains): 8312
   Calculated Velocity (fps): 292
Measured Range (ft): 825
   Calculated Range (ft): 826
   Calculated Ballistic Coefficient: 0.034

Concrete filled 12 oz Pop Can:

Weight (grains): 12250
   Calculated Velocity (fps): 271
Measured Range (ft): 822
   Calculated Range (ft): 832
   Calculated Ballistic Coefficient: 0.0327

The data clearly explains the observed range differences. Tennis balls because of the rough covering have a higher drag than a smooth ball of the same diameter and weight. This is reflected in the ballistic coefficient - 0.1315 for a smooth ball as compared to 0.0724 for the tennis ball. A smooth ball filled with concrete of the same diameter has a ballistic coefficient of 0.1315 and would have a range of 1425 feet.

The can data is very interesting. My interior ballistic program calculated a 21 fps difference in the velocity between the two size cans. This is due to the weight difference and only a slight change in the powder burnt (the short barrel problem). The problem with cans is they tumble this has a major effect on the ballistic coefficient. A concrete filled 8 oz pop can that does not tumble has a ballistic coefficient around 0.196 and would reach a range of 1820 feet. While a concrete filled 12 oz pop can that does not tumble has a ballistic coefficient of around 0.296 and would have a range of 1796 feet

Have tried any of the group buy zinc round balls?

VA Rifleman · « **Reply #57 on:** April 23, 2011, 04:23:42 AM »

One heck of a program you have there Parrot Cannon.

Parrott-Cannon · « **Reply #58 on:** April 25, 2011, 05:02:27 AM »

Quote from: VA rifleman on April 23, 2011, 04:23:42 AM

One heck of a program you have there Parrot Cannon.

I will post the programs when complete. I have validated the exterior ballistics calculations and the ballistic coefficient calculations for bullets, balls, and tumbling pop cans. I still need to complete the ballistic coefficient calculation for larger tumbling cylinders. The internal ballistic program for smooth bore cannon is complete and has been posted. I need to complete and validate the internal ballistic the progam for mortars and howitzers. Mortars and Howitzers present a very difficult nut to crack - the powder energy use is highly dependent on the internal shape of the mortar and the shape of the powder chamber.

John

VA Rifleman · « **Reply #59 on:** April 26, 2011, 03:47:13 PM »

Parrot Cannon,

I'm amazed on how accurate your program is when validated with data from other sources.
That you have successfully built what many would call the holy grail and made it available to us for free, says a lot about yourself.

DD should award you a Kewpie.

Bruce

.