Conceptual Design Approach For Small-Caliber Aerob

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/235144241
Conceptual Design Approach for Small-Caliber Aeroballistics With Application

to 5.56-mm Ammunition
Article · September 2005
CITATIONS READS
11 18,869
3 authors, including:
James Newill Paul J. Conroy

Army Research Laboratory Army Research Laboratory
30 PUBLICATIONS 296 CITATIONS 30 PUBLICATIONS 173 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Paul J. Conroy on 17 February 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Conceptual Design Approach for Small-Caliber
Aeroballistics With Application to 5.56-mm Ammunition
by Paul Weinacht, James F. Newill, and Paul J. Conroy
ARL-TR-3620 September 2005
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

NOTICES
Disclaimers
The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless
so designated by other authorized documents.
Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the
use thereof.
Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
Army Research Laboratory
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066
ARL-TR-3620 September 2005
Conceptual Design Approach for Small-Caliber

Aeroballistics With Application to 5.56-mm Ammunition
Paul Weinacht, James F. Newill, and Paul J. Conroy

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL

Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to
comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
September 2005 Final 2003–2005
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Conceptual Design Approach for Small-Caliber Aeroballistics With Application
to 5.56-mm Ammunition 5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Paul Weinacht, James F. Newill, and Paul J. Conroy 1L1612618AH
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-WM-BC ARL-TR-3620
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
A conceptual design approach for small-caliber ammunition is presented. The analysis is based on analytical solutions of the
point mass trajectory equations obtained using a power law model of the drag coefficient variation with Mach number. The
method is validated by comparison with numerical trajectory predictions for the 5.56-mm M855. Using existing data, several
important observations regarding small arms drag characteristics are quantified. The results of the analysis form the basis for a
conceptual design approach for examining the aeroballistics of small-caliber munitions. Application is then made to 5.56-mm
ammunition. Results are presented that examine the design boundaries for 5.56-mm ammunition in terms of trajectory match
relative the 5.56-mm M855. By considering interior ballistics constraints and dependence of muzzle velocity on launch mass,
the design space is further refined. The results allow the projectile performance to be characterized in terms of impact velocity
and energy, gravity drop, trajectory mismatch at range, and cross-wind sensitivity.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
aerodynamics, aeroballistics, small-caliber ammunition
17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES
Paul Weinacht
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
UL 74
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 410-278-4280
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
ii
Contents
List of Figures iv
List of Tables vii
1. Introduction 1
2. Technical Approach 2
3. Drag Characteristics of Small-Caliber Ammunition 11
4. Trajectory Mismatch 28
5. Combined Exterior and Interior Ballistics Results 39

5.1 Comparison of the Relative Performance of the M855 and Mk262 .............................54
5.2 Copper and Steel-Cored M855 Variants .......................................................................54
6. Conclusion 55
7. References 57
List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms 59
Distribution List 61
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Fit of drag coefficient for the M855. ...............................................................................3

Figure 2. Fractional remaining velocity as a function of range, M855...........................................5
Figure 3. Time of flight vs. range, M855........................................................................................6
Figure 4. Gravity drop vs. range, M855..........................................................................................6
Figure 5. Trajectories to hit 300- and 600-m targets, M855...........................................................7
Figure 6. Cross-wind drift due to 10-m/s cross wind, M855. .........................................................7
Figure 7. Drift due to yaw of repose and aerodynamic jump due to 50-rad/s angular rate at
muzzle, M855. ...........................................................................................................................8
Figure 8. Velocity vs. range for baseline M855, M855 with 10% higher muzzle velocity,
M855 with 10% higher retardation, and M855 with n = 0.25. ................................................10
Figure 9. Gravity drop vs. range for baseline M855, M855 with 10% higher muzzle velocity,
M855 with 10% higher retardation, and M855 with n = 0.25. ................................................10
Figure 10. Cross-wind drift (10-m/s cross wind) vs. range for baseline M855, M855 with
10% higher muzzle velocity, M855 with 10% higher retardation, and M855 with n =
0.25...........................................................................................................................................11
Figure 11. Drag coefficient exponent and form factor for various 0.308-projectiles; bullet
photographs from Sierra Bullets (8). .......................................................................................18
Figure 12. Drag coefficient exponent, n, vs. drag form factor with illustration of effect of
bullet shape; bullet photographs from Sierra Bullets (8). ........................................................19
Figure 13. Scaled impact velocity as a function of scaled range. .................................................25
Figure 14. Scaled impact velocity as a function of scaled range (close-in)..................................25
Figure 15. Scaled cross-wind drift as a function of scaled range. ................................................26
Figure 16. Scaled cross-wind drift as a function of scaled range (close-in). ................................26
Figure 17. Scaled gravity drop as a function of scaled range. ......................................................27
Figure 18. Scaled gravity drop as a function of scaled range (close-up)......................................27
Figure 19. Gravity drop for M855 and ±1.0 mil mismatch trajectories for 949 m/s muzzle
velocity.....................................................................................................................................29
Figure 20. Gravity drop in mils for M855 and ±1.0 mil mismatch trajectories for 949 m/s
muzzle velocity. .......................................................................................................................30
Figure 21. Gravity drop for M855 and –1.0 mil mismatch trajectories for different muzzle
velocities. .................................................................................................................................30
Figure 22. Acceptable range of muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation to attain ±1.0 mil
mismatch. .................................................................................................................................31
iv
Figure 23. Sensitivity of the acceptable range of muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation for
±1.0 mil mismatch to drag coefficient exponent. ....................................................................32
Figure 24. Muzzle velocity, muzzle retardation, and trajectory mismatch for M855 and
M193 and their companion tracer rounds, M856 and M196, respectively..............................33
Figure 25. Percent increase or decrease in wind drift at 200 m relative to the M855 as a
function of muzzle velocity for constant values trajectory mismatch at 600 m. .....................34
Figure 28. Trajectories for M855 and modified ammunition with –1.0 mil mismatch at
600 m with rezeroing at 200 and 300 m. .................................................................................37
Figure 29. Gravity drop for M855 and modified ammunition with –1.0 mil mismatch at
600 m when fired at same gun elevation as M855 or zeroed at 100, 200, and 300 m.............37
Figure 30. Predicted breech pressure and case mouth pressure (Gage 0.32 in) compared with
measured case mouth pressure for standard M855 cartridge...................................................40
Figure 31. Muzzle velocity vs. charge mass for M855 cartridge and propellant..........................41
Figure 32. Typical projectile shapes for projectiles with form factors of 0.6 and 0.8; bullet
photographs from Sierra Bullets (8). .......................................................................................42
Figure 33. Muzzle retardation vs. projectile mass for form factors of 0.6 and 0.8 compared
with retardation of M855, Mk262, and M193. ........................................................................43
Figure 34. Impact velocity vs. projectile mass for ranges of 0, 150, 300, 450, and 600 m. .........44
Figure 35. Impact velocity vs. projectile mass for ranges of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 m. ...............44
Figure 36. Impact energy vs. projectile mass for ranges of 0, 150, 300, 450, and 600 m. ...........46
Figure 37. Impact energy vs. projectile mass for ranges of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 m. .................46
Figure 38. mV 3 / 2 vs. projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m. ...........................47
Figure 39. Gravity drop vs. projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m...................47
Figure 40. Gravity drop relative to M855 for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m......................48
Figure 41. Tangent of impact angle vs. projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and
600 m. ......................................................................................................................................49
Figure 42. Cross-wind drift for 10-m/s cross wind vs. projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300,
450, and 600 m........................................................................................................................50
Figure 43. Cross-wind drift relative to M855 vs. projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450,
and 600 m.................................................................................................................................51
Figure 44. Impact velocity vs. projectile mass for form factors of 0.6 and 0.8 at ranges of
150, 300, 450, and 600 m.........................................................................................................51
Figure 45. Impact energy vs. projectile mass for form factors of 0.6 and 0.8 at ranges of 150,
300, 450, and 600 m.................................................................................................................52
v
Figure 46. Gravity drop of projectiles with form factor of 0.8 relative to M855 vs. projectile
mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m. .........................................................................53
Figure 47. Cross-wind drift of projectiles with form factor of 0.8 relative to M855 vs.
projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m. .........................................................53
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Results from curve-fitting velocity data, 0.224-caliber projectiles. ...............................14

Table 9. Sensitivity of muzzle velocity on results from trajectory fitting, 0.308 150-gr HPBT
Match King. .............................................................................................................................20
Match King. .............................................................................................................................21
Match King. .............................................................................................................................22
Table 12. Sensitivity of muzzle velocity on results from trajectory fitting, 0.224 52-gr, G1
drag curve, constant ballistic coefficient C = 0.225.................................................................23
vii
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
viii
1. Introduction
The current generation of 5.56-mm ammunition for the M16 and M4 rifles has provided the
U.S. Army with high performance projectiles for several decades. Currently, the U.S. Army is
investigating possible replacements for the existing family of 5.56-mm ammunition. Some of
the factors driving the replacement include cost and performance. The reduction of the
environmental impact associated with the materials currently used in 5.56-mm ammunition, in
particular the heavy metal lead core, is an additional important consideration and is being
addressed by the U.S. Army’s Green Ammunition programs.
As part of the design effort, conceptual design studies are being performed to define the design
space and highlight the important design variables. A recent study (1) has provided the
framework for examining the exterior ballistic performance in a conceptual design environment
where many details of the design have not been fully established. This allows the gross
characteristics of the round to be examined and the design tradeoffs regarding the aeroballistics
to be more fully quantified and understood. In the current effort, interior ballistic considerations
have also been incorporated as well. The analysis also considers relatively simple metrics that
allow the terminal performance to be assessed in a very general qualitative manner. These types
of metrics are appropriate for a conceptual design approach, although, clearly, more detailed
analysis is required to quantify the terminal performance as the design process evolves.
The basis of the current approach is a simple but accurate method for predicting the trajectories
for high velocity direct-fire munitions (1). The method allows the trajectories to be characterized
in terms of three parameters: the muzzle velocity, the muzzle retardation (or velocity fall-off),
and a parameter defining the shape of the drag curve. The method provides an excellent means
of assessing the exterior ballistic performance in a conceptual design environment where details
of the designs have not been completely defined.
In the following sections, the analytical approach for solving the three-degree-of-freedom
(3DOF) trajectory equations is briefly described and benchmarked with numerical predictions of
the trajectory of the 5.56-mm M855 projectile. The drag characteristics of existing small arms
bullets are then analyzed and several important observations regarding the drag characteristics
are quantified. Results are then presented for a family of potential 5.56-mm ammunition
designs. The first set of results examines the performance of 5.56-mm ammunition assuming the
muzzle velocity is an independent parameter. The boundaries of the design space are defined in
terms of trajectory match with the existing M855 projectile. The second set of results considers
the effect of interior ballistic considerations and constraints on the muzzle velocity resulting
from the dependence of muzzle velocity on projectile mass. Both sets of results provide
important design guidance for current efforts in 5.56-mm ammunition development.
1
2. Technical Approach
The flat fire trajectory of a projectile can be characterized as follows (2):

⎡The Complete ⎤ ⎡The Flat Fire ⎤ ⎡Lateral ⎤ ⎡Aerodynamic ⎤
⎢Flat Fire Trajectory⎥ = ⎢Point Mass Trajectory⎥ + ⎢Throwoff ⎥ + ⎢Jump ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
(1)
⎡Epicyclic⎤ ⎡Drift ⎤
+⎢ ⎥+⎢ ⎥ .
⎣Swerve ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
The flat fire point mass trajectory accounts for the most dominant characteristics of the trajectory
and is most heavily influenced by the mass and drag characteristics of the projectile. It includes
such effects as gravity drop and cross-wind drift. It is this portion of the trajectory that is the
focus of the current concept design approach. The aerodynamic jump and lateral throwoff of the
projectile produce angular deviations of the flight path from the intended line of flight due to
launch disturbances and mass asymmetries within the projectile, respectively. Bias errors
associated with these effects are normally removed through the rifle zeroing process. These
effects can also produce random errors that contribute to the ammunition dispersion. Normally,
these effects would not be considered in any detail in a conceptual design process as the relative
magnitude of these effects can only be quantified later in the design cycle. Additionally, the
relative magnitude of the lateral throwoff is heavily influenced by manufacturing quality
considerations. The epicyclic swerve represents fluctuating motions of the projectile about the
trajectory due to the angular motion of the projectile. For a stable projectile, these motions are
typically small relative to the mean path of the projectile. The drift produces a small horizontal
deflection of the projectile that is fairly consistent from shot to shot. The deflection is typically
small compared with cross-wind drift.
The flat fire point mass trajectory can be obtained by solving the 3DOF equations. This
approach considers only the linear displacement of the projectile’s center of gravity along the
flight path and ignores the angular motion of the projectile. Using this approach, the projectile is
characterized by its muzzle velocity, mass, and the variation of its drag coefficient with Mach
number. Typically, the integration of the 3DOF equations is performed numerically. However,
it is also possible to obtain analytical solutions of the 3DOF equations under the assumption of
direct fire using an assumed form of the drag coefficient variation with Mach number (1). For
supersonic flight, it can be shown that the drag coefficient variation with Mach number can be
modeled as a function of Mach number to a power as shown in equation 2. For constant
atmospheric conditions, the sound speed is constant, and the Mach number and velocity are
directly proportional. In this case, the drag coefficient varies with Mach number and velocity in
the same manner.
2
1 1
CD ∝ ∝ . (2)
Mn Vn
Figure 1 shows the variation of the drag coefficient with Mach number for the 5.56-mm M855.
The Firing Tables Branch (FTB), U.S. Army Armament Research, Development, and
Engineering Center (ARDEC) “aeropack” data (3) used to construct firing tables for the round
are shown along with aerodynamic spark range data (4). The fit of the FTB aeropack drag
coefficient data obtained using the power law formulation shown in equation 2 is also shown.
The computed exponent for the M855 is 0.53 for the range between Mach 2.8 (muzzle velocity)
and Mach 1.1. The power law fit shows excellent agreement over this Mach number range.
0.6
0.5
FTB Aeropack
Power Law Fit
0.4 Range Data
Drag Coefficient
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Mach Number
Figure 1. Fit of drag coefficient for the M855.
Weinacht et al. (1) examined the drag coefficient variation of a wide variety of munitions and
found that the drag coefficient exponent varied between 0.0 and 1.0 for supersonic flight.
Additional results specifically aimed at small arms ammunition have been obtained as part of the
current study. These results are discussed in a subsequent section.
Using this approach, analytical solution of the governing equations can be obtained resulting in
closed form equations for the dependent variables characterizing the projectile trajectory. These
include the velocity V , time of flight t , gravity drop sg-drop , vertical displacement of the
projectile along the trajectory sy, and vertical deflection due to cross wind sz, as a function of
range sx, as shown in equations 3–7.
3
1
⎧ ⎛ dV ⎞ s x ⎫ n
V = V0 ⎨1 + n⎜ ⎟ ⎬ . (3)
⎩ ⎝ ds ⎠ 0 V0 ⎭
⎡ 1−
1
⎤
1 ⎧
⎢ 1 + n⎛⎜ dV ⎞ x s ⎫ n
⎥
t= ⎟ ⎬ − 1⎥ . (4)
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎢ ⎨⎩ ⎝ ds ⎠ 0 V0 ⎭
( n − 1)⎜ ⎟ ⎣⎢ ⎥⎦
⎝ ds ⎠ 0
⎡ 2 ( n −1)
⎤
−g ⎢ ⎧ ⎛ dV ⎞ s x ⎫ n
⎛ dV ⎞ s x ⎥
s g−drop = 2 ⎢⎨
1 + n⎜ ⎟ ⎬ − 1 − 2( n − 1)⎜ ⎟ . (5)
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎩ ⎝ ds ⎠ 0 V0 ⎭ ⎝ ds ⎠ 0 V0
⎥
2( n − 2)( n − 1)⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
⎝ ds ⎠0
s y = s x tan θ0 + s g−drop . (6)
⎡ s ⎤
sz = w z ⎢t − x ⎥ . (7)
⎣ V0 ⎦
Through the analysis, it can be shown that these trajectory characteristics are functions of only
⎛ dV ⎞
three primary variables, the projectile’s muzzle velocity V0 , muzzle retardation ⎜ ⎟ , and the
⎝ ds ⎠ 0
exponent defining the shape of the drag curve n . The trajectory is also a function of two
independent parameters, the gravitational constant g , and the cross-wind velocity w z . The gun
elevation angle θ0 also appears in equation 6 and can be treated as another independent
parameter. However, the gun elevation angle θ0 required to hit a target at range can be related
to the three primary variables: the muzzle velocity, muzzle retardation, and drag coefficient
exponent. In this regard, the gun elevation angle itself can be treated as a dependent variable.
The muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation have the strongest influence on the trajectory and the
exponent defining the shape of the drag curve can be shown to be a higher-order effect whose
influence is less important that the first two variables, particularly at shorter ranges.
The muzzle retardation is dependent on the projectile mass and muzzle drag coefficient as shown
in equation 8.
⎛ dV ⎞ 1
⎜ ⎟ =− ρV0 S ref C D V0
. (8)
⎝ ds ⎠ 0 2m
Thus, the effect of both projectile mass and muzzle drag coefficient on the trajectory are
represented by a single parameter, the muzzle retardation. The effect on the trajectory of a 20%
increase in the drag coefficient is the same as a 20% decrease in the projectile mass.
The approach was validated in Weinacht et al. (1) for large-caliber tank-fired munition such as
the M829A1, M830, M865, and M830A1 by comparing the results of the analytical method with
4
numerical solutions obtained with the 6DOF option of the aerodynamic and trajectory prediction
code PRODAS (5). Excellent agreement between the two approaches was found. In fact, in
most cases, the uncertainty or variability in the muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation (in
particular, the muzzle drag coefficient) produces more error than the approximations made to
obtain the analytical integrations, although both of these errors are typically small.
Similar validation for small-caliber munitions was performed as part of the current study.
Predictions of the trajectory history were made for the 5.56-mm M855 munition using the
analytical approach and 6DOF predictions from PRODAS. To provide a fair basis for
comparison, both simulations used the identical muzzle velocity and projectile mass. The drag
coefficient exponent used in the analytical approach was obtained by fitting the drag coefficient
variation with Mach number obtained from U.S. Army ARDEC FTB “aeropack” data for the
M855. The aeropack data is used to compute the firing tables for the round. This data was also
used to determine the muzzle drag coefficient and, subsequently, the muzzle retardation used in
the analytical approach. This drag data was also used for the PRODAS simulations. The 6DOF
simulations also require additional aerodynamic data. Updated aerodynamics based on
aerodynamic range firings (4) were used for the PRODAS 6DOF simulations, although these
data have little effect on the point mass trajectory parameters considered here. Figures 2–6 show
the velocity history, time of flight, gravity drop, vertical displacement for 300- and 600-m range
trajectories, and cross-wind deflection due to 10-m/s cross wind as a function of range.
Excellent agreement is seen between the PRODAS simulations and the analytical predictions.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
V/V0
0.6
M855-Prodas
M855-Analytical
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 2. Fractional remaining velocity as a function of range, M855.
5
1.2
1
M855-Prodas
M855-Analytical
Time of Flight - Seconds
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 3. Time of flight vs. range, M855.
-0.5
-1
Gravity Drop - Meters
-1.5
M855-Prodas
M855-Analytical
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 4. Gravity drop vs. range, M855.
6
1.5
Height - Meters 0.5
-0.5
M855-Prodas
M855-Analytical
-1 M855-Prodas
M855-Analytical
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 5. Trajectories to hit 300- and 600-m targets, M855.
-0.5
Drift due to Cross Wind - Meters
-1
-1.5
M855-Prodas
-2 M855-Analytical
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 6. Cross-wind drift due to 10-m/s cross wind, M855.
7
Figure 7 also shows two important contributions to the vertical and horizontal displacement of
the projectile along the trajectory obtained from the 6DOF predictions. These two contributions
are the horizontal drift due to yaw of repose and the deflection (vertical or horizontal) due to
aerodynamic jump. Prediction of these displacements requires additional details of the projectile
physical properties and aerodynamics beyond those required for 3DOF trajectory predictions
presented here. Typically, these details are not available in the conceptual design process
considered here, but are defined as the design evolves. In any event, these effects exist and must
be considered in the conceptual design even if they can’t be predicted in the conceptual design
process.
0.25
0.2
0.15
Deflection - Meters
0.1 Aerodynamic Jump

Yaw of Repose
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 7. Drift due to yaw of repose and aerodynamic jump due to 50-rad/s angular rate
at muzzle, M855.
There are two notable sources of error or uncertainty in applying the approach of Weinacht et al.
(1). The first is the approximation made to obtain closed form analytical solution of the point
mass trajectory equations. This approximation assumes that the component of velocity produced
by gravity is small and can be ignored when computing the aerodynamic drag of the projectile.
This approximation is valid for flat fire and has been shown to produce very little error when
compared with more exact numerical solutions of the governing equations.
The second source of error is associated with modeling the variation of the drag coefficient with
Mach number using a power law approach. The analysis of Weinacht et al. (1) shows that the
drag variation of a wide variety of munitions can be accurately modeled using this approach.
8
Furthermore, the predicted trajectories obtained using this approach show surprisingly little
sensitivity to the exponent used in the power law approach. This implies that the shape of the
drag curve is not a dominant factor in predicting the trajectory, particularly when compared with
the muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation. This is significant because when the current
approach is used in a conceptual design approach, the design process can focus on muzzle
velocity and muzzle retardation as the significant design variables defining the point mass
trajectories. The second source of uncertainty must be considered whether analytical or
numerical solutions of the point mass equations are sought. In either case, the variation of the
drag coefficient with Mach number must be specified. The power law approach represents a
very useful approach for conceptual design because of its simplicity and accuracy in representing
the drag variation with Mach number. The geometric details required to obtain a more accurate
drag variation are unavailable at this point in the design cycle.
Figures 8–10 show the relative effect of uncertainty in the muzzle velocity, muzzle retardation,
and the exponent defining the shape of the drag curve on the predicted velocity, gravity drop, and
cross-wind drift, respectively. Here, the results show differences between the baseline M855, a
projectile with 10% more muzzle velocity, a projectile with 10% higher retardation, and a
projectile with a drag coefficient exponent of 0.25 (relative to the baseline drag coefficient of
0.53). The selected differences are indicative of uncertainties that might be present in a
conceptual design environment where the physical characteristics of the munition are not
completely defined. (They should not be interpreted as representative of any variability in
performance of the M855.) The selected drag coefficient exponents represent a relatively large
difference given the ability to appropriately estimate this parameter. Analysis presented in the
following section provides a means of estimating this parameter with greater fidelity than that
represented by the differences presented here.
The results show a greater sensitivity to muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation although the
magnitude of the sensitivity depends somewhat on the dependent variable being considered.
Gravity drop appears to be more heavily influenced by muzzle velocity than muzzle retardation
since the gravity drop is strongly affected by the time of flight, which, to first order, is a function
of muzzle velocity and range. Cross-wind drift shows significant sensitivity to both muzzle
velocity and muzzle retardation. The greatest sensitivity of the results to the drag coefficient
exponent relative to the muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation is seen for the velocity history
shown in figure 8. At ranges up to about 300 m, the difference between predicted velocities for
the baseline results and the results with a drag coefficient exponent of 0.25 is less than 2%. The
differences increase to about 10% at 600 m. The sensitivity of the results to drag coefficient
exponent is less for the cross-wind drift and gravity drop. These results provide further
demonstration that the muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation are dominant independent
variables defining the characteristics of the 3DOF trajectory.
9
1200
1000
800
Velocity - (m/s)
600
400
M855 Baseline
M855 10% Higher Muzzle Velocity
200 M855 10% Higher Retardation
M855 n=0.25
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 8. Velocity vs. range for baseline M855, M855 with 10% higher muzzle velocity,
M855 with 10% higher retardation, and M855 with n = 0.25.
-0.5
-1
-1.5
M855 Baseline
-2
M855 10% Higher Retardation
M855 n=0.25
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 9. Gravity drop vs. range for baseline M855, M855 with 10% higher muzzle
velocity, M855 with 10% higher retardation, and M855 with n = 0.25.
10
0
-0.5
Cross Wind Drift - Meters -1
-1.5
M855 Baseline
-2
M855 10% Higher Retardation
M855 n=0.25
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 10. Cross-wind drift (10-m/s cross wind) vs. range for baseline M855, M855 with
10% higher muzzle velocity, M855 with 10% higher retardation, and M855
with n = 0.25.
3. Drag Characteristics of Small-Caliber Ammunition
The analysis of Weinacht et al. (1) examined a wide range of munition types, geometric shapes,
and calibers and found that the exponent defining the variation of the drag coefficient in the
supersonic regime varied between 0 and 1. For the current study, which is focused on small
arms munitions, an addition study of the variation of the drag coefficient with Mach number
(velocity) has been performed using data available from a commercial small arms ammunition
manufacturer. This information includes ballistic coefficients and trajectory vs. range data.
The ballistic coefficient C typically provided by small arms ammunition manufacturers is
defined in equation 9.
m 1
C= . (9)
D 2 i Form
The ratio of the mass to reference diameter squared is referred to as the sectional density. The
sectional density for a given bullet is either quoted by the manufacturer or is easily calculated
from manufacturer’s data. It depends purely on the physical properties of the bullet and is a
11
constant for a given bullet type. Generally, the sectional density increases with bullet caliber
because the bullet mass increases at a rate proportional to the cube of the caliber whereas the
denominator of the sectional density increases with the square of the caliber. The variation of
sectional density with bullet caliber reflects only a general trend. Variations of sectional density
within a fixed bullet caliber are common because the length and material composition (and hence
mass) vary between different bullet designs.
The form factor i Form in the ballistic coefficient represents the ratio of the drag coefficient of the
actual round to the drag coefficient corresponding to a reference drag curve. For most
commercial arms manufacturers, this reference drag curve is the G1 drag curve. The form factor
for a low-drag streamlined bullet is generally about 0.6, indicating that the drag coefficient of the
bullet is 60% of the reference drag coefficient. For bullets with very large nose bluntness, the
form factor can be larger than 1.0. In contrast to the sectional density, there is likely little
variation of the form factor between bullet calibers for the same shape bullet. The ratio
represented by the form factor generally varies with Mach number. Typically, the form factor
quoted by most small arms ammunition manufacturers represents the average value of this ratio
over a range of velocities or Mach numbers. In some cases, the velocity regime may be broken
into several intervals with a different ballistic coefficient and form factor assigned to each
velocity interval.
Many manufacturers quote a single ballistic coefficient (and hence form factor) for each bullet.
Presumably, this single value represents the ballistic coefficient or form factor over a
representative velocity range for the bullet. If a single form factor is used, the drag curve of the
actual projectile is simply increased or decreased by a multiplicative constant over the reference
drag curve. Thus, many commercial small arms ammunition manufacturers essentially assume
that the shape of the drag curve for their bullet is identical to the shape of the reference G1 drag
curve. In the context of the power law drag variation used in the current approach, these
manufacturers essentially assume that the shape of the drag curve is represented by the drag
coefficient exponent for the G1 drag curve, n = 0.36 for flight velocities between Mach 1.5 and
3.0. As concluded in Weinacht et al. (1), the exponent defining the shape of the drag curve has a
relatively small effect on the accuracy of the trajectory prediction compared to the muzzle
velocity and muzzle retardation, especially at short ranges. In a sense, the analysis of reference
Weinacht et al. (1) provides some measure of justification of the approach of quoting a single
ballistic coefficient and representing the shape of the drag curve of all small arms bullets with the
G1 drag function.
At least one small arms ammunition manufacturer, Sierra Bullets, quotes several ballistic
coefficients for each round that are valid over specified velocity regimes. Essentially, the
manufacturer is attempting to account for differences in the shape of the actual drag curve
relative to the reference G1 drag curve. This implies that if the drag curve is modeled using a
power law representation, the drag coefficient exponent may be different from the exponent
associated with the G1 drag curve. If the quality of the drag data used to derive the form factors
12
and ballistic coefficients is good, the resulting trajectory predictions are likely to be more
accurate using multiple ballistic coefficients than the predictions made using a single ballistic
coefficient.
An important observation regarding the drag coefficient exponent can be made by examining the
ballistic coefficient data. For a given bullet, if the ballistic coefficient decreases with decreasing
velocity in the supersonic regime, the drag coefficient exponent will be greater than the value of
the exponent for the reference drag curve (n = 0.36). This is because the form factor of the bullet
is increasing with decreasing velocity (or Mach number) and the drag coefficient is increasing
faster with decreasing Mach number than the reference drag coefficient. Conversely, if the
ballistic coefficient increases with decreasing velocity, the drag coefficient exponent will be less
than the value of exponent for the reference drag curve (0.36). In this case, the form factor of the
bullet is decreasing with decreasing velocity (or Mach number). This may indicate that the drag
coefficient is either increasing more slowly with Mach number than the reference drag
coefficient or perhaps even decreasing with Mach number.
The database of ballistic coefficients and trajectory data provided by Sierra Bullets provides a
wealth of data from which very useful information can be derived on the drag properties of small
arms bullets. An extensive set of ballistic coefficients and trajectory data is provided by the
manufacturer for a wide variety of projectile shapes and calibers (6, 7). This trajectory data is
derived from the manufacturer’s ballistic coefficient data and includes velocity, gravity drop, and
cross-wind drift vs. range.
In the current study, the velocity vs. range data were curve fit to the functional form shown in
equation 3 using a nonlinear least-squares approach. Since the muzzle velocity of the bullet is
specified in the data, only the muzzle retardation and the exponent defining the shape of the drag
curve were treated as variables in the fitting process. For each bullet type, trajectory data were
available for a range of muzzle velocities. However, in the fitting process, only a single
trajectory was typically fit. Where available, the trajectory data corresponding to 3100-ft/s
muzzle velocities were selected. The 3100-ft/s muzzle velocity is close to the muzzle velocity of
the M855 which is the focus of the current study. Sensitivity of the results to muzzle velocity
was examined and is discussed below. In some cases, trajectories were not available at muzzle
velocities as high as 3100 ft/s and, in these cases, the trajectory for the closest available muzzle
velocity was selected. Any velocity data below Mach 1.1 (1241 ft/s) was ignored to avoid the
transonic/subsonic velocity regime where drag coefficient changes rapidly with Mach number.
For each trajectory, six to nine range locations were fit for each projectile.
Following the fitting process, the manufacturer’s trajectory data was compared with the
prediction made with the analytical method using both the muzzle retardation and drag
coefficient exponent obtained from the corresponding fit and the specified muzzle velocity.
Comparisons were made for the velocity, gravity drop, and cross-wind drift vs. range and root
mean square (RMS) errors were computed for the individual trajectories. The average of the
13
RMS errors from the individual trajectories for the impact velocity, gravity drop, and cross-wind
drift were 0.85 ft/s, 0.04 in, and 0.03 in, respectively.
Tables 1–8 display the data obtained from the fitting process for eight different bullet calibers.
Shown in these tables are the exponent and muzzle retardation obtained from the fitting process
along with the muzzle velocity. Since the fitting process was accomplished for different muzzle
velocities for some rounds, the muzzle retardation was normalized to a reference muzzle velocity
VRe f of 3100 ft/s. This corresponds to the muzzle velocity of the majority of the trajectory
selected for the fitting process. It is also close to the muzzle velocity of the M855. The
normalized muzzle retardation provides a means of comparing the muzzle retardation between
the rounds on a consistent basis. Muzzle retardation was adjusted for muzzle velocity as shown
in equation 10 using the power law formulation for the drag coefficient.
1− n
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛⎜ VRe f ⎞
⎟⎟
⎜ ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ . (10)
⎝ ds ⎠ VRe f ⎝ ds ⎠ 0 ⎜⎝ V0 ⎠
Table 1. Results from curve-fitting velocity data, 0.224-caliber projectiles.
Results Normalized to VRef

⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Projectile Exponent ⎝ ds ⎠ 0 V0 SD ⎝ ds ⎠ VRe f CD V
Ref iForm
2
(n) ([m/s]/m) (m/s) (lb/in ) ([m/s]/m)
40-gr Hornet 0.099 –2.9038 945.1 0.114 –2.9038 0.521 1.049
40-gr HP 0.267 –2.1609 945.1 0.114 –2.1609 0.388 0.781
45-gr Hornet 0.093 –2.2819 823.2 0.128 –2.5865 0.522 1.049
45-gr SMP 0.266 –2.0273 945.1 0.128 –2.0273 0.409 0.822
45-gr SPT 0.498 –1.6415 945.1 0.128 –1.6415 0.331 0.666
50-gr SMP 0.389 –1.7355 945.1 0.142 –1.7355 0.388 0.781
50-gr SPT 0.429 –1.5034 945.1 0.142 –1.5034 0.336 0.677
50-gr Blitz 0.429 –1.5034 945.1 0.142 –1.5034 0.336 0.677
55-gr SPT 0.404 –1.3860 945.1 0.157 –1.3860 0.343 0.690
55-gr Blitz 0.404 –1.3860 945.1 0.157 –1.3860 0.343 0.690
55-gr SMP 0.252 –1.6219 945.1 0.157 –1.6219 0.401 0.807
55-gr FMJBT 0.523 –1.3147 945.1 0.157 –1.3147 0.325 0.654
55-gr SBT 0.461 –1.3325 945.1 0.157 –1.3325 0.330 0.663
55-gr HPBT 0.321 –1.7866 945.1 0.157 –1.7866 0.442 0.889
60-gr HP 0.372 –1.3693 945.1 0.171 –1.3693 0.369 0.742
63-gr SMP 0.317 –1.4336 945.1 0.179 –1.4336 0.404 0.813
52-gr HPBT Match King 0.410 –1.5131 945.1 0.148 –1.5131 0.353 0.710
53-gr HP Match King 0.425 –1.5004 945.1 0.151 –1.5004 0.357 0.718
14
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Projectile Exponent ⎝ ds ⎠ 0 V0 SD ⎝ ds ⎠ VRe f C D VRef i
Form
(n) ([m/s]/m) (m/s) (lb/in2) ([m/s]/m)
60-gr HP 0.186 –1.8474 945.1 0.145 –1.8474 0.422 0.850
75-gr HP 0.242 –1.5379 945.1 0.181 –1.5379 0.440 0.884
80-gr SPTSSP 0.560 –1.1137 914.6 0.194 –1.1299 0.345 0.693
80-gr SBT Blitz 0.570 –1.0141 914.6 0.194 –1.0285 0.314 0.631
85-gr HPBT 0.235 –1.1776 945.1 0.206 –1.1776 0.381 0.768
85-gr SPT 0.499 –1.0492 945.1 0.206 –1.0492 0.340 0.684
90-gr FMJBT 0.507 –0.8545 945.1 0.218 –0.8545 0.293 0.590
100-gr SPT 0.587 –0.8786 945.1 0.242 –0.8786 0.335 0.674
100-gr SBT 0.594 –0.7615 945.1 0.242 –0.7615 0.290 0.584
100-gr SMP 0.099 –1.2170 945.1 0.242 –1.2170 0.464 0.933
The drag coefficient at the reference muzzle velocity was extracted from the normalized muzzle
retardation using equation 11.
− 2m ⎛ dV ⎞
CD = ⎜ ⎟ . (11)
VRe f ρVRe f S ref ⎝ ds ⎠ VRe f
The form factor evaluated at the reference muzzle velocity was obtained by taking the ratio of
the drag coefficient obtained from equation 11 and the drag coefficient from the G1 drag curve
evaluated at the reference velocity, C DG1 = 0.53 .
VRe f
CD VRe f
i Form = . (12)
C DG1
VRe f
Comparisons were also made between the ballistic coefficients quoted by the manufacturer and
the ballistic coefficients obtained from the fitting process. In general, the results agreed very
well, typically within 3% or less. However, several rounds, typically the flat nose projectiles,
showed differences in the ballistic coefficient coefficients of as much as 12%. For these rounds,
the manufacturer’s ballistic coefficient shows large changes (20% or greater) across adjacent
velocity intervals traversed by the projectile for the trajectory used in the fitting process. In these
cases, the ballistic coefficient derived from the fitting process was bracketed by the
manufacturer’s ballistic coefficients in adjacent velocity intervals near the muzzle velocity.
15
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Form
(n) ([m/s]/m) (m/s) (lb/in2) ([m/s]/m)
110-gr RN 0.125 –2.2966 945.1 0.166 –2.2966 0.599 1.206
110-gr FMJ 0.125 –2.0914 853.7 0.166 –2.2863 0.597 1.200
110-gr HP 0.157 –1.8672 945.1 0.166 –1.8672 0.487 0.980
125 -gr HP –0.359 –2.1834 762.2 0.188 –2.9247 0.867 1.745
125 -gr SPT 0.485 –1.1747 945.1 0.188 –1.1747 0.348 0.701
150 -gr FN –0.275 –1.3202 701.2 0.226 –1.9315 0.687 1.383
150-gr RN 0.024 –1.6469 945.1 0.226 –1.6469 0.586 1.179
150-gr SPT 0.314 –0.9856 945.1 0.226 –0.9856 0.351 0.706
150-gr SBT 0.522 –0.8628 945.1 0.226 –0.8628 0.307 0.618
150-gr FMJBT 0.489 –0.8115 945.1 0.226 –0.8115 0.289 0.581
165-gr SBT 0.269 –0.8343 945.1 0.248 –0.8343 0.327 0.657
165-gr HPBT 0.453 –0.9097 945.1 0.248 –0.9097 0.356 0.716
170-gr FN –0.247 –1.1877 701.2 0.256 –1.7236 0.695 1.399
180-gr RN –0.246 –1.3663 945.1 0.271 –1.3663 0.583 1.174
180-gr SPT 0.292 –0.8201 945.1 0.271 –0.8201 0.350 0.705
180-gr SBT 0.368 –0.6592 945.1 0.271 –0.6592 0.282 0.566
200-gr SBT 0.409 –0.5911 945.1 0.301 –0.5911 0.280 0.564
220-gr RN –0.109 –1.0000 853.7 0.331 –1.1194 0.584 1.175
155-gr HPBT Palma Match
0.445 –0.7330 945.1 0.226 –0.7330 0.261 0.525
King

⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Ref iForm
(n) ([m/s]/m) (m/s) (lb/in2) ([m/s]/m)
125-gr SPT 0.267 –1.1366 853.7 0.185 –1.2246 0.356 0.717
150-gr SPT 0.451 –0.8991 853.7 0.222 –0.9508 0.332 0.668
180-gr SPT 0.394 –0.7260 792.7 0.266 –0.8077 0.338 0.681
16
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Form
(n) ([m/s]/m) (m/s) (lb/in2) ([m/s]/m)
150-gr SPT 0.518 –0.9734 945.1 0.205 –0.9734 0.315 0.634
175-gr SPT 0.445 –0.8611 945.1 0.240 –0.8611 0.325 0.654
220-gr SBT 0.404 –0.6325 945.1 0.301 –0.6325 0.300 0.604
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Form
(n) ([m/s]/m) (m/s) (lb/in2) ([m/s]/m)
215-gr SBT 0.430 –0.6777 945.1 0.269 –0.6777 0.287 0.577
250-gr SBT 0.446 –0.5811 945.1 0.313 –0.5811 0.286 0.576
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Ref iForm
2
(n) ([m/s]/m) (m/s) (lb/in ) ([m/s]/m)
200-gr FN 0.041 –1.7963 945.1 0.203 –1.7963 0.575 1.157
250-gr SBT 0.258 –0.9379 945.1 0.254 –0.9379 0.375 0.755
300-gr SBT 0.413 –0.6782 914.6 0.305 –0.6913 0.332 0.668
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Ref iForm
(n) ([m/s]/m) (m/s) (lb/in2) ([m/s]/m)
300-gr HP/FN –0.481 –2.1156 731.7 0.204 –3.0906 0.995 2.001
17
In general, the data show that the exponent defining the shape of the drag curve varies between
–0.5 and 0.6 for these small arms bullets. When comparing the geometric shape of the bullet to
both the drag coefficient exponent and form factor, there appears to be some correlation.
Figure 11 shows a tabular listing of the drag coefficient exponent and the form factor along with
a picture of each round for the 27 0.308-caliber projectiles considered in the study. The tabular
listing is shown in order of increasing drag coefficient exponent. The negative drag coefficient
exponents all corresponded to blunt nosed (flat or rounded) projectiles with the largest negative
values observed for the flat faced projectiles. The negative drag coefficient exponent indicates a
decreasing drag coefficient with decreasing Mach number as opposed to the more typical
increasing trend with decreasing Mach number. A decreasing trend of the drag coefficient with
Mach number in the supersonic regime has been previously documented for flat nose projectiles
(9, 10). The round nose (spherically blunted) projectiles exhibit a drag coefficient exponent
close to 0 which is similar to the drag coefficient exponent for a spherical ball projectile
previously discussed in Weinacht et al. (1). As the projectile becomes more streamlined, the
drag coefficient exponent increases. The low drag boattailed projectiles with long noses have
drag coefficient exponents approaching 0.5. Figure 11 also appears to show a correlation
between drag coefficient exponent and form factor. Although figure 11 shows data for a single
projectile caliber, similar observations were made for the other projectile calibers examined in
the study.
n Iform n Iform n Iform

-0.36 1.74 0.27 0.66 0.43 0.53
-0.27 1.38 0.29 0.70 0.45 0.52
-0.25 1.40 0.31 0.71 0.45 0.71
-0.25 1.17 0.36 0.59 0.49 0.70
-0.11 1.18 0.37 0.57 0.49 0.58
0.02 1.18 0.41 0.56 0.49 0.54
0.12 1.20 0.42 0.56 0.52 0.57
0.12 1.21 0.42 0.55 0.52 0.62
0.16 0.98 0.42 0.56 0.53 0.57
Figure 11. Drag coefficient exponent and form factor for various 0.308-projectiles; bullet photographs from
Sierra Bullets (8).
18
Figure 12 shows the correlation between the drag coefficient exponent and the form factor for
each of the eight calibers of munitions examined in the current study. The results appear to be
independent of bullet caliber. A curve fit of the data was obtained using a second-order
polynomial. The resulting polynomial is shown in equation 13. The maximum error in the drag
coefficient exponent n from the fit is 0.25 with a standard deviation of 0.085.
n = 0.0848 i 2Form − 0.932 i Form + 0.9841 . (13)
0.8
0.224
0.243
0.6
0.308
0.311
Drag coeff. exponent, n
0.4 0.323
0.338
0.375
0.2
0.458
Trend Line
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Drag Form Factor, iForm
Figure 12. Drag coefficient exponent, n, vs. drag form factor with illustration of effect of bullet
shape; bullet photographs from Sierra Bullets (8).
The significance of the correlation is that the drag coefficient exponent can be estimated from the
ballistic coefficient since the form factor is easily determined from equation 9 using the sectional
density of the projectile. This is particularly important when a manufacturer only quotes a single
value of the ballistic coefficient and uses the standard G1 drag function to predict trajectory
data—a common practice within the commercial small arms ammunition industry. The results
presented here indicate the possibility of improving the trajectory predictions using the power
law formulation with the exponent estimated from the correlation in equation 13. This is
particularly important when the exponent estimated using the correlation varies significantly
from the 0.36 exponent corresponding to the G1 drag function. It is also important to understand
that the correlation in equation 13 is best suited for small arms axisymmetric bullets, since it was
19
derived using data for these types of bullets. It may be completely inappropriate for other classes
of munitions such as kinetic energy projectiles.
The sensitivity of the results obtained in the fitting process to muzzle velocity was examined by
fitting several trajectories corresponding to different muzzle velocities for several bullet types.
Some of the results of this study are shown in tables 9–12. The tables show the drag coefficient
exponent and muzzle retardation obtained from the fitting process for each muzzle velocity. The
results also show the muzzle retardation, drag coefficient, and form factor normalized to the
reference muzzle velocity of 3100 ft/s. Table 9 shows a typical result. The drag coefficient
exponent shows only minor variation over the range of muzzle velocities available for this round.
The muzzle retardation from the fit shows a decreasing trend with decreasing muzzle velocity.
However, when each of the muzzle retardations is normalized to the reference velocity using
equation 10, the only small variations in the normalized retardation are seen as the muzzle
velocity is varied. Both the drag coefficient and form factor when normalized to the reference
velocity also show correspondingly little variation with muzzle velocity.
Table 9. Sensitivity of muzzle velocity on results from trajectory fitting, 0.308

150-gr HPBT Match King.
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
V0 Exponent ⎝ ds ⎠ 0 SD ⎝ ds ⎠ VRe f CD V
Ref iForm
2
(m/s) (n) ([m/s]/m) (lb/in ) ([m/s]/m)
1067 0.532 –0.8512 0.226 –0.8042 0.286 0.576
1037 0.529 –0.8378 0.226 –0.8021 0.285 0.574
1006 0.519 –0.8259 0.226 –0.8014 0.285 0.574
976 0.534 –0.8108 0.226 –0.7989 0.284 0.572
945 0.519 –0.8003 0.226 –0.8003 0.285 0.573
915 0.532 –0.7875 0.226 –0.7997 0.285 0.573
884 0.539 –0.7763 0.226 –0.8006 0.285 0.573
854 0.534 –0.7675 0.226 –0.8048 0.286 0.576
823 0.562 –0.7502 0.226 –0.7970 0.284 0.571
793 0.581 –0.7327 0.226 –0.7887 0.281 0.565
762 0.561 –0.7222 0.226 –0.7937 0.282 0.568
732 0.524 –0.7122 0.226 –0.8046 0.286 0.576
For some bullets, trajectory data was available for a very wide range of muzzle velocities.
Tables 10 and 11 show two such sets of data. In these tables, the drag coefficient exponent and
the normalized retardation are fairly consistent down to muzzle velocities of 732–762 m/s.
Below these velocities, the drag coefficient exponent decreases to a value near zero indicating
that the drag coefficient is relatively constant with Mach number. This behavior can be traced to
the G1 drag function which is used in conjunction with the form factor contained in the ballistic
20
coefficient to determine the variation in drag coefficient with Mach number for the individual
rounds. For both of these rounds, a constant ballistic coefficient is used below 671 m/s. For the
low muzzle velocities, this constant ballistic coefficient is used for the bulk of the trajectory.
The drag coefficient exponent for these trajectories at the lower muzzle velocities represents the
shape of the G1 drag curve at these velocities rather than the shape of the drag curve as modified
through the variation in the ballistic coefficients with velocity.
Table 10. Sensitivity of muzzle velocity on results from trajectory fitting,

0.224 69-gr HPBT Match King.
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Ref iForm
2
(m/s) (n) ([m/s]/m) (lb/in ) ([m/s]/m)
1128 0.271 –1.2611 0.196 –1.1085 0.343 0.690
1098 0.279 –1.2329 0.196 –1.1070 0.343 0.689
1067 0.282 –1.2069 0.196 –1.1061 0.342 0.689
1037 0.283 –1.1814 0.196 –1.1057 0.342 0.688
1006 0.289 –1.1543 0.196 –1.1041 0.342 0.687
976 0.290 –1.1292 0.196 –1.1040 0.342 0.687
945 0.284 –1.1054 0.196 –1.1054 0.342 0.688
915 0.281 –1.0803 0.196 –1.1061 0.342 0.689
884 0.271 –1.0568 0.196 –1.1094 0.343 0.691
854 0.253 –1.0342 0.196 –1.1159 0.345 0.695
823 0.221 –1.0154 0.196 –1.1308 0.350 0.704
793 0.189 –0.9942 0.196 –1.1467 0.355 0.714
762 0.208 –0.9634 0.196 –1.1424 0.354 0.711
732 0.176 –0.9394 0.196 –1.1598 0.359 0.722
701 0.226 –0.9012 0.196 –1.1356 0.351 0.707
671 0.210 –0.8701 0.196 –1.1409 0.353 0.710
640 0.108 –0.8542 0.196 –1.2090 0.374 0.753
To demonstrate this point, the trajectories were constructed using the G1 drag curve with a
constant ballistic coefficient of 0.225 for a 52-gr 0.224-caliber projectile. Essentially, this
represents a 52-gr 0.224-caliber HPBT Match King projectile with a constant ballistic coefficient
equal to the value used for the actual round at velocities above 914 m/s. The trajectories were
then curve fit in a manner identical to the approach used to generate the results in tables 9–11.
The results of the fits are shown in table 12. The drag coefficient exponent and normal muzzle
retardation show relatively little variation with muzzle velocity until about 732–762 m/s. The
values of the drag coefficient exponent are close to the value obtained by directly fitting the drag
curve (n = 0.36). At lower velocities, the drag coefficient exponent approaches zero. For the
results in table 12, the drag coefficient exponent represents the shape of the G1 drag curve over
the velocity regime of the trajectory since the ballistic coefficient is constant.
21
0.224 52-gr HPBT Match King.
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Ref iForm
2
(m/s) (n) ([m/s]/m) (lb/in ) ([m/s]/m)
1250 0.379 –1.8095 0.148 –1.5211 0.355 0.714
1220 0.401 –1.7681 0.148 –1.5178 0.354 0.712
1189 0.421 –1.7297 0.148 –1.5144 0.353 0.711
1159 0.440 –1.6920 0.148 –1.5097 0.352 0.708
1128 0.454 –1.6578 0.148 –1.5051 0.351 0.706
1098 0.462 –1.6262 0.148 –1.5006 0.350 0.704
1067 0.468 –1.5961 0.148 –1.4962 0.349 0.702
1037 0.464 –1.5713 0.148 –1.4953 0.349 0.702
1006 0.457 –1.5471 0.148 –1.4954 0.349 0.702
976 0.438 –1.5283 0.148 –1.5013 0.350 0.704
945 0.410 –1.5131 0.148 –1.5131 0.353 0.710
915 0.374 –1.5005 0.148 –1.5316 0.357 0.719
884 0.443 –1.4520 0.148 –1.5070 0.351 0.707
854 0.415 –1.4321 0.148 –1.5199 0.354 0.713
823 0.374 –1.4157 0.148 –1.5436 0.360 0.724
793 0.321 –1.4004 0.148 –1.5782 0.368 0.741
762 0.406 –1.3521 0.148 –1.5365 0.358 0.721
732 0.343 –1.3367 0.148 –1.5813 0.369 0.742
701 0.255 –1.3258 0.148 –1.6561 0.386 0.777
671 0.140 –1.3167 0.148 –1.7684 0.412 0.830
640 0.148 –1.2718 0.148 –1.7722 0.413 0.832
610 0.024 –1.2465 0.148 –1.9116 0.446 0.897
579 0.005 –1.1979 0.148 –1.9498 0.455 0.915
549 –0.011 –1.1445 0.148 –1.9831 0.463 0.931
It is difficult to determine from the existing Sierra Bullet data whether the drag coefficient at
lower velocities is well represented by the G1 drag curve. Drag results for the M855 obtained
from an aeroballistic range (shown previously in figure 1) show a much stronger variation with
Mach number than does the G1 drag curve. Not withstanding, the results presented here show
that the drag coefficient exponent is relatively constant over a range of velocities and projectile
geometries that are of interest for current study and validate the approach of characterizing the
shape of the drag curve using a power law approach.
The approach taken here is to fit the velocity vs. range data to obtain the muzzle retardation and
drag coefficient exponent. It may also be possible to perform fits of the drag curve directly using
the form factors obtained from the ballistic coefficients and the reference drag curve. This
approach yields similar results to the results presented here. However, the results show some
22
0.224 52-gr, G1 drag curve, constant ballistic coefficient C = 0.225.
⎛ dV ⎞ ⎛ dV ⎞
CD ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Ref iForm
2
(m/s) (n) ([m/s]/m) (lb/in ) ([m/s]/m)
1250 0.289 –1.8276 0.148 –1.4980 0.349 0.703
1220 0.307 –1.7852 0.148 –1.4962 0.349 0.702
1189 0.325 –1.7441 0.148 –1.4936 0.348 0.701
1159 0.341 –1.7044 0.148 –1.4903 0.348 0.699
1128 0.355 –1.6662 0.148 –1.4865 0.347 0.698
1098 0.367 –1.6297 0.148 –1.4824 0.346 0.696
1067 0.375 –1.5949 0.148 –1.4785 0.345 0.694
1037 0.380 –1.5622 0.148 –1.4753 0.344 0.692
1006 0.379 –1.5318 0.148 –1.4735 0.344 0.691
976 0.373 –1.5036 0.148 –1.4740 0.344 0.692
945 0.361 –1.4775 0.148 –1.4775 0.345 0.693
915 0.341 –1.4535 0.148 –1.4852 0.346 0.697
884 0.312 –1.4317 0.148 –1.4990 0.350 0.703
854 0.367 –1.3870 0.148 –1.4793 0.345 0.694
823 0.337 –1.3646 0.148 –1.4955 0.349 0.702
793 0.296 –1.3439 0.148 –1.5211 0.355 0.714
762 0.241 –1.3248 0.148 –1.5598 0.364 0.732
732 0.318 –1.2748 0.148 –1.5180 0.354 0.712
701 0.260 –1.2520 0.148 –1.5614 0.364 0.733
671 0.183 –1.2299 0.148 –1.6276 0.380 0.764
640 0.179 –1.1910 0.148 –1.6398 0.382 0.769
610 0.072 –1.1648 0.148 –1.7494 0.408 0.821
579 0.056 –1.1199 0.148 –1.7775 0.415 0.834
549 –0.102 –1.0868 0.148 –1.9787 0.461 0.929
slight sensitivity to the velocity or Mach number range used in fitting the drag curve. By fitting
the velocity data over the values of range quoted by the manufacturer, a more representative
velocity range of the bullet is considered.
As previously discussed, the analytical predictions of the velocity, gravity drop, and wind drift
using the muzzle retardation and drag coefficient exponent extracted from the fitting process
were in excellent agreement with Sierra Bullets’s trajectory data. It is also possible to plot all of
the manufacturer’s data on a family of universal curves using the nondimensionalization that
results from the analytical method of Weinacht et al. (1). For instance, the analytical method
shows that the ratio of the impact velocity to muzzle velocity is a function of the nondimensional
range coordinate s as shown in equations 14 and 15.
23
1 1
V ⎧ ⎛ dV ⎞ s x ⎫ n ⎧ ⎫n
= ⎨1 + n ⎜ ⎟ ⎬ = ⎨ 1 + ns ⎬ n ≠0. (14)
V0 ⎩ ⎝ ds ⎠0 V0 ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
⎛ dV ⎞ s x
s =⎜ ⎟ . (15)
⎝ ds ⎠ 0 V0
Similarly, the gravity drop and the wind drift can be expressed in nondimensional terms as
functions of the nondimensional range coordinate as shown in equations 16 and 17. The
formulae for the special cases n = 0,1,2 shown in Weinacht et al. (1) also produce the same
nondimensionalization as equations 14, 16, and 17, but the functional form is slightly different.
2
⎛ dV ⎞
s g − drop ⎜ ⎟ ⎡ 2 ( n −1)
⎤
⎝ ds ⎠0 = − 1 ⎧
⎢ 1 + ns ⎫ n
⎨ ⎬ − 1 − 2(n − 1) s ⎥ n ≠ 0,1,2 . (16)
g ⎢
2(n − 2)(n − 1) ⎩ ⎭ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
⎛ dV ⎞
sz ⎜ ⎟ ⎡ 1−
1
⎤
⎝ ds ⎠0 = 1 ⎧
⎢ 1 + ns ⎫ n
⎥
⎢ ⎨ ⎬ − 1⎥ n ≠ 0, n ≠ 1 . (17)
wz (n − 1) ⎩ ⎭
⎣⎢ ⎥⎦
When the velocity, gravity drop, and wind drift are nondimensionalized, as previously shown,
and plotted vs. the nondimensional range, the result is a family of curves in terms of a single
parameter, the drag coefficient exponent n. Using this approach, the velocity ratio, gravity drop
and wind-drift data available from the manufacturer for eight different calibers and a variety of
different projectile masses and shapes can be collapsed on individual plots for each of these three
variables. Figures 13 and 14 show the velocity ratio as a function of nondimensional range.
Figure 13 presents the complete range of data, while figure 14 presents a close-up view at shorter
ranges. Similar plots of the results for gravity drop and wind drift are shown in figures 15–18.
This data provides additional validation of the approach. Most of the data is contained between
the n = 0 and n = 0.5 curves from the analytical theory. This is consistent with the results from
the fitting process. The analytical curves also offer some estimate of the error that results from
estimating the drag coefficient exponent or from directly assuming that the shape of the drag
curve is represented by the G1 drag function (n = 0.36 from the fitting). At close ranges, the
results are relatively insensitive to the drag coefficient exponent. The error increases slightly at
longer ranges.
24
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
V/V0
0.6 0.224
0.243
0.308
0.311
0.5 0.323
0.338
0.375
0.4 0.458
n=1
n=0.5
0.3 n=0
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Scaled Range
Figure 13. Scaled impact velocity as a function of scaled range.
0.95
0.9
V/V0
0.85 0.224
0.243
0.308
0.311
0.323
0.8 0.338
0.375
0.458
n=1
0.75 n=0.5
n=0
0.7
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Scaled Range
Figure 14. Scaled impact velocity as a function of scaled range (close-in).
25
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Scaled Wind Drift
0.6 0.224
0.243
0.308
0.5
0.311
0.323
0.4 0.338
0.375
0.3 0.458
n=1
n=0.5
0.2 n=0
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Scaled Range
Figure 15. Scaled cross-wind drift as a function of scaled range.
0.06
0.05
0.04
Scaled Wind Drift
0.224
0.243
0.308
0.03
0.311
0.323
0.338
0.375
0.02
0.458
n=1
n=0.5
n=0
0.01
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Scaled Range
Figure 16. Scaled cross-wind drift as a function of scaled range (close-in).
26
0
-0.1
-0.2
Scaled Gravity Drop
-0.3
0.224
0.243
-0.4 0.308
0.311
0.323
-0.5 0.338
0.375
0.458
-0.6 n=1
n=0.5
n=0
-0.7
-0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Scaled Range
Figure 17. Scaled gravity drop as a function of scaled range.
-0.01
Scaled Gravity Drop
-0.02
-0.03 0.224
0.243
0.308
0.311
-0.04 0.323
0.338
0.375
0.458
-0.05 n=1
n=0.5
n=0
-0.06
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Scaled Range
Figure 18. Scaled gravity drop as a function of scaled range (close-up).
27
4. Trajectory Mismatch
One approach for defining the requirements for new ammunition or modified ammunition based
on a previous design is to specify that the trajectories must be similar to existing ammunition.
This allows the new ammunition to be used by the Soldier with little apparent difference in its
aeroballistic performance. It may also allow compatibility between the new ammunition and the
existing tracer round.
For small-caliber ammunition, this requirement is often cited as ±1.0 gunner’s mil mismatch in
impact location for ranges up to 600 m. It is implied that the gun elevation used to meet this
requirement is the same for both the modified and baseline ammunition. From a practical
standpoint, this essentially assumes that the existing sights and sight adjustments for the baseline
ammunition are used for the modified ammunition, or alternatively, both baseline and modified
ammunition use the same firing tables. The second part of this requirement can be shown to be
equivalent to requiring that the gravity drop of baseline and modified ammunition to be within
±1.0 gunner’s mil mismatch in impact location for range up to 600 m. Equation 6 shows the
vertical displacement in the trajectory as a function of range. This expression is valid for both
baseline and modified ammunition. By assuming that the gun elevation Өo is equivalent for
both, the difference in the vertical impact location can be seen to be produced by the differences
in the gravity drop alone.
As previously shown in equation 5, the gravity drop, like the other trajectory characteristics, is a
function of the muzzle velocity, muzzle retardation and, to a lesser extent, a function of the
exponent defining the shape of the drag curve. Assuming the shape of the drag curve is the same
for a similar class of ammunition, the gravity drop is then a function of only the muzzle velocity
and muzzle retardation. For the results presented here, the exponent defining the shape of the
drag curve is assumed to be 0.53, the same as the M855.
Equation 5 provides some very important insights into the trajectory mismatch problem. First,
for each muzzle velocity there exists a value of the muzzle retardation for the modified
ammunition that produces the identical impact at 600 m as the M855. For each muzzle velocity
there are also corresponding values of muzzle retardation that produce impacts 1.0 mils above
and below the baseline M855 impact at 600 m. The value of the muzzle retardation required to
obtain a specified value of mismatch at range can be obtained by solving equation 5 for the
muzzle retardation. Unfortunately, because of the complicated nature of equation 5, closed form
solutions for the muzzle retardation cannot be obtained and the muzzle retardation must be
determined in an iterative manner.
Figure 19 shows the gravity drop as a function of range for the baseline M855 and projectiles
with a ±1.0 mil mismatch at 600 m for a constant muzzle velocity equal to the baseline M855
28
muzzle velocity. It can be seen that all three trajectories show little deviation from each other at
shorter ranges. This deviation increases with range with the maximum deviation occurring at
600 m. For the ±1.0 mil mismatch trajectories, the muzzle retardation decreases by 27% for
impacts above the baseline impact and increases by 20% for impacts below the baseline impact.
-0.5
-1
-1.5
M855 Baseline
-2
-1 mil Mismatch
-2.5 +1 mil Mismatch
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 19. Gravity drop for M855 and ±1.0 mil mismatch trajectories for 949 m/s muzzle
velocity.
Figure 20 shows the gravity drop in mils for the baseline M855 and projectiles with a ±1.0 mil
mismatch at 600 m for a constant muzzle velocity. Considering the differences between the
baseline and mismatch trajectories, the greatest mismatch occurs at maximum range (in this case,
600 m). Thus, a projectile that meets the ±1 mil mismatch requirement at 600 m also meets this
requirement at all intermediate ranges.
Additional trajectories that produce ±1.0 mil mismatches at 600 m can be obtained by varying
the muzzle velocity. As the muzzle velocity increases, the corresponding values of the muzzle
retardation increase as well. Figure 21 shows the trajectories for –1.0 mil mismatch for three
different values of muzzle velocity compared with the baseline M855 trajectory. Although the
three –1.0 mil mismatch trajectories are relatively similar, as the muzzle velocity increases, the
trajectory becomes flatter at shorter ranges, but shows much larger gravity drop at longer ranges.
The range of values of muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation that produce a fixed vertical
impact mismatch at 600 m compared with the baseline M855 ammunition can be determined
29
0
-1
-2
Gravity Drop - Mils
-3 M855 Baseline
-1 mil Mismatch
-4 +1 mil Mismatch
-5
-6
-7
-8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 20. Gravity drop in mils for M855 and ±1.0 mil mismatch trajectories for 949 m/s
muzzle velocity.
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2 M855 Baseline
850m/s Muzzle Velocity
-2.5 949m/s Muzzle Velocity
1050m/s Muzzle Velocity
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 21. Gravity drop for M855 and –1.0 mil mismatch trajectories for different muzzle
velocities.
30
from equation 5 and are represented as a contour plot shown in figure 22. Here, the lines of
constant vertical impact mismatch are plotted as functions of muzzle retardation and muzzle
velocity. Any combination of muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation contained between the
±1.0 mil mismatch lines will produce a vertical impact at 600 m that meets the ±1.0 mil
requirement. Also shown are the values of muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation that produce
the same impact location at 600 m as the baseline M855.
-0.2
+1 mil Mismatch -1 mil Mismatch at 600m
+1 mil Mismatch at 600m
-0.4 0 mil Mismatch at 600m
M855
Retardation - (m/s)/m
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1 mil Mismatch
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
850 875 900 925 950 975 1000 1025 1050
Muzzle Velocity - m/s
Figure 22. Acceptable range of muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation to attain ±1.0 mil
mismatch.
The sensitivity of these bounds to the value of the drag coefficient exponent is shown in figure
23. Here, the bounds on muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation to meet the ±1.0 mil
requirement are shown for the baseline drag coefficient exponent of 0.53 and a drag coefficient
exponent of 0.25. These two drag coefficient exponents represents a rather wide variation for
this parameter, especially for the streamlined low drag shapes typical of tactical small arms
bullets which are more typically characterized by values of the drag coefficient exponent closer
to the baseline value of 0.53. For the –1.0 mil mismatch results, the difference in the predicted
retardation for a given muzzle velocity is less than 8% between the drag coefficient exponents of
0.25 and 0.53. Somewhat larger differences are observed for the +1.0 mil mismatch trajectory
results at lower muzzle velocities. However, these low values of muzzle retardation necessary to
achieve a +1.0 mil vertical impact above the M855 may be very difficult to obtain in practice.
31
0
-0.2 M855
-1 mil Mismatch, n=0.53
-0.4 +1 mil Mismatch, n=0.53
-1 mil Mismatch, n=0.25
-0.6
+1 mil Mismatch, n=0.25
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
-2
850 875 900 925 950 975 1000 1025 1050
Figure 23. Sensitivity of the acceptable range of muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation for
±1.0 mil mismatch to drag coefficient exponent.
The trajectory mismatch requirement can be examined in light of current ammunition. Muzzle
velocities, muzzle retardations, and vertical impact locations were obtained from the firing tables
(11) for the M855, M856, M193, and M196 fired from the M16A2 and M4 rifles. The M856 and
M196 are tracer rounds for the M855 and M193, respectively. Difference in the impact locations
and muzzle retardations for identical rounds fired from the M16A2 and M4 rifles are produced
by the differences in muzzle velocity. Figure 24 displays the mismatch for each of the four
projectiles and two rifle combinations as a function of muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation on
mismatch contours similar to those shown in figure 22. It can be seen that the companion tracer
rounds are well matched to the tactical round for each of the round/rifle combinations with little
difference in the relative impact locations noted. This occurs despite a rather large variation in
muzzle velocity produced by firing the same round from a different rifle.
In addition to trajectory mismatch, the aeroballistician must also consider the wind sensitivity of
the projectile. In general, firing a projectile with a higher muzzle velocity and lower (less
negative) muzzle retardation will produce less wind drift. However, the previous results
demonstrate that for a constant value of trajectory mismatch, as the muzzle velocity increases,
the muzzle retardation increases (becomes more negative). Equation 7 can be applied to
determine the relative wind drift as a function of muzzle velocity for constant values of trajectory
mismatch.
32
0 M855/M16A2
M856/M16A2
M855/M4
-0.2 M856/M4
M193/M16A2
M196/M16A2
-0.4 M193/M4
M196/M4
-1 Mil Mismatch at 600m

-0.6 +1 Mil Mismatch at 600m
-0.5 mil Mismatch at 600m
+0.5 mil Mismatch at 600m
-0.8 0 mil Mismatch at 600m
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
850 875 900 925 950 975 1000 1025 1050
Figure 24. Muzzle velocity, muzzle retardation, and trajectory mismatch for M855 and M193 and their
companion tracer rounds, M856 and M196, respectively.
Figures 25–27 show the predicted wind drift at 200, 300, and 600 m, respectively, relative to the
M855 for constant values of the trajectory mismatch at 600 m. The results shown in figures
25–27 demonstrate that, for constant trajectory mismatch, the wind drift increases with
increasing muzzle velocity. These trends are consistent across each of the ranges examined
although the relative increase is larger at longer ranges. Although decreased wind sensitivity
should be expected with increasing muzzle velocity, for constant mismatch, the muzzle
retardation also increases (becomes more negative) with increasing muzzle velocity. The
combined effects of increasing muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation result in increased wind
sensitivity. The results also show that the target mismatch varies from –1.0 to +1.0 mils, the
wind drift decreases. This trend is expected because, for a constant muzzle velocity, the muzzle
retardation decreases (becomes less negative) as the mismatch varies from –1.0 to +1.0 mils,
resulting in less wind sensitivity.
Results are also shown in figures 25–27 for the M855, M856, M193, and M196 fired from the
M16A2 and M4 rifles. In each case, the M855 and M856 fired from the M16A2 produces the
least wind sensitivity. A slight increase in wind sensitivity in the M855 and M856 is noted when
fired from the M4 rifle as a result of the lower muzzle velocity. The M193 and M196 produce
slightly more wind drift than the M855 and M856 when fired from the same rifle.
33
80
60
Additional Wind Drift - %
40
20
0
M855/M16A2
M856/M16A2
-20 M855/M4
M856/M4
M193/M16A2
M196/M16A2
-40 M193/M4
M196/M4
-60 +1 Mil Mismatch at 600m
0 mil Mismatch at 600m
-80
850 875 900 925 950 975 1000 1025 1050
Figure 25. Percent increase or decrease in wind drift at 200 m relative to the M855 as a function of muzzle
velocity for constant values trajectory mismatch at 600 m.
80
60
40
20
0
M855/M16A2
M856/M16A2
-20 M855/M4
M856/M4
M193/M16A2
M196/M16A2
-40 M193/M4
M196/M4
-80
850 875 900 925 950 975 1000 1025 1050
34
80
60
40
20
M855/M16A2
-20 M856/M16A2
M855/M4
M856/M4
M193/M16A2
-40 M196/M16A2
M193/M4
M196/M4
-80
850 875 900 925 950 975 1000 1025 1050
Because small arms rifles are zeroed at some specified range, it would be natural to question the
necessity of the second part of the mismatch requirement that assumes the gun elevation is fixed
for baseline and modified ammunition. The Rifle Marksmanship Field Manual (FM) (12) for the
M16/M4 series rifle discusses various approaches for zeroing the rifle. Zeroing is typically
performed at 25-m range. With proper marksmanship fundamentals, 25-m zeroing will allow the
Soldier to hit all targets out to 300 m using the existing ammunition. Known distance (KD)
zeroing at 300 m can also be performed to confirm or refine the 25-m zero. As stated in the FM,
the zero for the 300-m target is more valid than the zero obtained on the 25-m range when the
wind is properly compensated for. It would seem that the zeroing process at a known distance
could eliminate some of the mismatch between the baseline and modified ammunition or allow
greater flexibility in the selection of the muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation for the modified
ammunition while still meeting the ±1.0 mil mismatch at 600 m. In other words, allowing
zeroing at a known distance might be less restrictive than assuming that the gun elevation is
fixed for the baseline and modified ammunition.
An analysis was performed allowing zeroing of the weapon at various intermediate ranges
between 25 and 300 m so that both the baseline and modified ammunition had the same vertical
impact location at the known distance downrange used for zeroing while allowing a
±1.0 mil mismatch for the modified ammunition at 600 m. For the baseline M855, the gun
35
elevation angle required to produce a vertical impact along a horizontal line-of-sight at the
known distance range was computed using equations 5 and 6. Using this gun elevation angle,
the vertical impact location was also computed at 600-m range. For the modified ammunition,
the muzzle retardation required to produce a trajectory that satisfied the following two
constraints was obtained for fixed values of the muzzle velocity. This trajectory had the identical
vertical impact location as the M855 at the KD range used for zeroing and a ±1.0 mil mismatch
at 600 m relative to the M855 impact. Similar to the trajectory mismatch results previously
presented, an iterative procedure was used to determine the retardation of the modified
ammunition required to meet these constraints. At each iteration step, the gravity drop and the
gun elevation angle for the modified ammunition were computed using equations 5 and 6 to
produce the identical vertical impact location at the KD range used for zeroing as for the baseline
M855. Based on this gun elevation angle, the vertical impact locations were determined at
600-m range using equations 5 and 6. The retardation of the modified ammunition was adjusted
until the proper vertical impact locations were obtained at both the KD range used for zeroing
and at 600 m.
Figure 28 shows sample trajectories with KD zeroing for the M855 and the modified ammunition
at a muzzle velocity of 949 m/s. For the sample trajectories shown in figure 28, the M855 and
the modified ammunition have been rezeroed at either 200 or 300 m to produce the same vertical
impact at the respective KD ranges. For each set of trajectories rezeroed at the same KD range,
the impact locations at 600 m for the M855 and the modified ammunition differ by –1.0 mils.
Figure 29 compares the gravity drop of the modified ammunition for rezeroing at 100, 200, and
300 m, with the gravity drop obtained when assuming both the M855 and the modified
ammunition are fired with the same gun elevation angle. Also shown is the gravity drop for the
baseline M855. There is very little difference in the gravity drop when rezeroing is allowed at
ranges less than 300 m, compared to the results obtained by assuming the M855 and the
modified ammunition are fired with the same gun elevation angle. These differences in gravity
drop are due to the differences in the predicted muzzle retardation obtained using the procedure
previously outlined. These results indicate that rezeroing at a known distance offers little
difference in the modified ammunition performance compared with using the same gun elevation
for both the modified and baseline ammunition.
Comparison of the values of the muzzle retardation obtained using rezeroing at 300 m, with the
muzzle retardation values obtained assuming a fixed gun elevation angle, show less than a 2%
difference for a muzzle velocity of 949 m/s. Similar results were obtained for muzzle velocities
between 949 and 1050 m/s. Velocities below 949 m/s showed somewhat more sensitivity to
rezeroing with differences in the predicted muzzle retardation of about 10% obtained for a
muzzle velocity of 850 m/s. The differences in the predicted muzzle retardation decreased as the
KD for rezeroing was decreased. The results indicate that the performance envelope of
36
0.5
-0.5
-1
Height - Meters
-1.5
-2
-2.5
M855 Re-zero at 300m
-3 -1mil Mismatch - Re-zero at 300m
M855 Re-zero at 200m
-3.5
-1mill Mismatch - Re-zero at 200m
-4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 28. Trajectories for M855 and modified ammunition with –1.0 mil mismatch
at 600 m with rezeroing at 200 and 300 m.
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Height - Meters
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5 M855 Baseline

Re-zero at 100m
-4 Re-zero at 200m
Re-zero at 300m
-4.5
Same Gun Elevation as M855
-5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Range - Meters
Figure 29. Gravity drop for M855 and modified ammunition with –1.0 mil mismatch
at 600 m when fired at same gun elevation as M855 or zeroed at 100, 200,
and 300 m.
37
allowable retardations (such as that shown in figure 22) for trajectory mismatches of ±1.0 mils is
not significantly changed by allowing rezeroing at a KD. The results also show that the
differences in the gun elevations between the M855 and modified ammunition are generally
quite small when rezeroing is employed. For example, for the baseline muzzle velocity of
949 m/s, the largest differences in gun elevation occurs for the 300-m rezeroing case, but is less
than 0.2 mils.
The results obtained for zeroing the rifle at 25 m were nearly identical to the results obtained by
assuming the baseline M855 ammunition and the modified ammunition were fired at the same
gun elevation angle. The differences in the gun elevation angle between the baseline M855 and
the modified ammunition required to zero the rifle at 25 m were extremely small. Essentially,
zeroing at 25 m is equivalent to assuming a constant gun elevation angle for the baseline and
modified ammunition. The predicted muzzle retardation for the modified ammunition obtained
by allowing zeroing at 25 m was within 1% of the results obtained assuming the modified
ammunition had the same gun elevation as the baseline M855 ammunition for muzzle velocities
between 850 and 1050 m/s.
Clearly, the additional effort of considering rezeroing at ranges less than 300 m does not result in
significant difference in the performance of the modified ammunition compared with the results
obtained assuming both the M855 and the modified ammunition are fired at the same gun
elevation angles. Thus, the second part of the ±1.0 mil mismatch requirement which assumes the
same gun elevation for both the baseline ammunition and the modified ammunition simplifies
the analysis process without adding any significant constraint to the modified ammunition
design. Rezeroing at ranges beyond 300 m for the purpose of removing differences in the
gravity drop between the baseline and modified ammunition appears to have more of an effect,
although there is some question whether rezeroing at these ranges could be accomplished in
practice.
It is important to note that the previous comments regarding rezeroing only apply to the
requirements for trajectory mismatch. Zeroing the rifle remains an important approach for
correcting other sources of inaccuracy produced by launch disturbances which are not considered
here. It appears then that the requirement for 1.0 mil mismatch in impact location for ranges up
to 600 m with the additional constraint of fixed gun elevation provides a meaningful but simple
requirement for trajectory mismatch. It is relatively easy to implement both in practice and in
engineering analysis and provides nearly the same performance envelope for the modified
ammunition as requirements which involve rezeroing.
38
5. Combined Exterior and Interior Ballistics Results
The previous results show the possible bounds on muzzle velocity and muzzle retardation to
meet the ±1 mil trajectory mismatch requirement. These results show that the best performance
(in terms of reduced wind sensitivity and gravity drop and increased impact velocity and energy)
is obtained by firing bullets with low retardation and high muzzle velocity. These results treat
the muzzle velocity as an independent variable, but, in fact, the muzzle velocity itself is
constrained by the interior ballistic constraints and considerations. In particular, for the M16
rifle, there are limitations on chamber pressure and charge mass. For example, the M855 attains
nearly the maximum allowable chamber pressure during the interior ballistic cycle. If heavier
variants of the M855 are fired with the existing charge, the maximum allowable chamber
pressure would be exceeded resulting in possible catastrophic failure of the gun tube. The result
is that lower charge weights must be utilized for heavier bullets so that the maximum allowable
chamber pressure is not exceeded. This typically produces lower muzzle velocity as the
projectile mass is increased. Additionally, for the M855, the volume available for propellant is
nearly completely occupied by the current propellant load and it is difficult to add additional
propellant to increase the current muzzle velocity of the round. This is particularly a problem for
lighter bullets that can be fired with increased charge masses without exceeding the maximum
chamber pressure. For these lighter variants of the M855, the maximum charge volume becomes
the constraint limiting muzzle velocity rather than the maximum allowable chamber pressure.
Efforts are underway to develop new propellants that will provide increased performance within
the 5.56 constraints.
To demonstrate the effect that these constraints have on muzzle velocity and, subsequently, on
the exterior ballistic performance, interior ballistics computations using the IBHVG2 interior
ballistics code (13) were performed to obtain predictions of muzzle velocity for different
projectile masses using the existing WC844 propellant. Two separate series of computations
were run. The first series of computations constrained the chamber pressure to the maximum
allowable chamber pressure while allowing the charge mass to vary. Predictions of the resulting
muzzle velocity were obtained for each projectile mass. A second series of computations
constrained the charge mass to the existing M855 charge mass while allowing the chamber
pressure to vary. Again, predictions of the resulting muzzle velocity were obtained for each
projectile mass. For both series of computations, the change in chamber volume due to projectile
intrusion resulting from the varying projectile mass was taken into account by assuming that the
change in projectile mass relative to the M855 was produced by a right circular cylinder with the
density of lead. Validation of the model for the baseline M855 was obtained by comparing the
predicted case mouth pressure with experimental measurements as shown in figure 30. The
predictions are in excellent agreement with the experimental measurements. Also shown is the
predicted breech pressure which represents one of the constraints on the M855 performance.
39
60000
50000 Predicted Case Mouth Pressure

Case Mouth Pressure - Shot 1
40000 Case Mouth Pressure - Shot 10
Pressure (psi)
Predicted Breech Pressure

30000
20000
10000
-10000
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Time (µs)
Figure 30. Predicted breech pressure and case mouth pressure (Gage 0.32 in) compared with
measured case mouth pressure for standard M855 cartridge.
Figure 31 shows the predicted muzzle velocities as a function of projectile mass for both series
of computations. As a benchmark for the results, muzzle velocity measurements for the 56-gr
M193, the 62-gr M855, and the 77-gr Mk262 are plotted on the same graph. Additional
experimental results are presented from a recent firing of 5.56-mm prototypes. All of the rounds
from this set of firings were lighter or weighted the same as the existing M855 and were fired
using the M855 charge mass. In general, the experimental results confirm the predictions for
muzzle velocity.
Obviously, an acceptable charge is one that meets both constraints, so only muzzle velocities that
are below both curves are acceptable. For the heavier projectiles, the muzzle velocity decreases
with increasing projectile mass. For lighter projectiles, the muzzle velocity is relatively constant
showing only a slight increase with decreasing projectile mass. It is interesting to note that the
62-gr projectile is close to the intersection of both performance constraints, meaning that the
62-gr projectile has nearly the maximum charge mass and attains a maximum chamber pressure
that is close to the maximum allowable.
The interior ballistic performance yields the muzzle velocity as a function of projectile mass.
The data shown in figure 31 was curve fit using a second-order polynomial to obtain a
representation of the muzzle velocity vs. charge mass. These fits are shown in equations 18 and
19 where the velocity is in m/s and the projectile mass is in gr.
40
1400
1200
1000
Muzzle Velocity - (m/s)
800
600
Fixed Chamber Pressure
Fixed Charge Weight

400 ARDEC Measurements, M855, Mk262
Recent Prototype Firings
Recent ARL Measurements, M855, Mk262, M193

200
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Projectile Mass (Grains)
Figure 31. Muzzle velocity vs. charge mass for M855 cartridge and propellant.
V0 (m/s) = −0.0191m 2 + 0.6793m + 1009.5 m < 61.3 gr. (18)
V0 (m/s) = 0.0026m 2 − 6.1077m + 1344.2 m > 61.3 gr. (19)
These results can be used to predict exterior ballistic performance as a function of projectile
mass. As previously discussed, the velocity history, gravity drop, and cross-wind drift can be
obtained if the muzzle velocity, muzzle retardation, and exponent defining the shape of the drag
curve are known. With the muzzle velocity known for each projectile mass, the muzzle
retardation can be predicted using equation 8. For the prediction shown here, the standard
atmospheric density of 1.22 kg/m3 was used. The reference area is easily obtained as shown in
equation 20 using a reference diameter of 5.56 mm.
π
S ref = D2 . (20)
4
The drag coefficient was computed as shown in equation 21.
n
⎛V ⎞
CD V0
= ⎜⎜ Re f ⎟⎟ i Form C D
G1
. (21)
⎝ V0 ⎠ VRe f
41
The last two terms of equation 21 represent the drag coefficient as the product of the form factor
i Form and the drag coefficient of the standard G1 drag curve at a reference velocity of 3100 m/s.
The G1 drag function is a standard drag function used within the commercial small arms
community. These last two terms represent the drag coefficient of a given bullet geometry at the
reference velocity of 3100 m/s. The form factor represents the ratio of the actual drag coefficient
of a projectile to reference drag coefficient. (This is the same form factor that appears in the
ballistic coefficient quoted for many commercial bullets.) In the current results, the form factor
was treated as a parameter with results obtained for form factors of 0.6 and 0.8. As previously
seen, the form factor of 0.6 represents the form factor for a low drag slender boattailed projectile
with a long ogive. The form factor of 0.8 represents the form factor of a less streamlined
projectile. A sampling of projectile shapes having form factors of 0.6 and 0.8 is shown in figure
32. The first term of equation 21 represents the variation of the drag coefficient with velocity (or
Mach number) for a given bullet geometry. As previously shown, the exponent defining the
shape of the drag curve can be estimated using the form factor using equation 13.
Bullets with Iform =0.6 Bullets with Iform =0.8

Figure 32. Typical projectile shapes for projectiles with form factors of 0.6 and 0.8; bullet photographs from
Sierra Bullets (8).
Using the predicted muzzle velocity (equations 18 or 19), the muzzle retardation was obtained
for each projectile mass using equation 8. Figure 33 shows the muzzle retardation as a function
of projectile mass for form factors of 0.6 and 0.8 using the predicted dependence of the muzzle
velocity on projectile mass. As seen in equation 8, the muzzle retardation varies explicitly with
the inverse of the projectile mass. Because of the dependence of muzzle velocity on projectile
mass, the muzzle retardation also has an additional implicit dependence on projectile mass
through the muzzle velocity (equations 18 or 19) and drag coefficient (equation 21). The net
effect is a decreasing trend of the muzzle retardation with projectile mass. The results for the
form factor of 0.8 represent an increase in retardation of ~33% over the results for the form
factor of 0.6. (Generally, the increase in muzzle retardation reflects the proportional increase in
the factor factor, although this is a relatively minor effect due to small changes in the drag
coefficient exponent due to form factor.) The results for the M193, M855, and Mk262 are
reasonably well represented by the results for the form factor of 0.6.
With the muzzle velocity, muzzle retardation, and exponent characterizing the shape of the drag
curve defined for each projectile mass, the velocity history, gravity drop, and cross-wind drift
were predicted. Baseline results are presented for a form factor of 0.6 representing the expected
42
-3
-2.5 Form Factor = 0.6

Muzzle Retardation (m/s)/m
Form Factor = 0.8
M855
-2 Mk262
M193
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Projectile Wt. (grains)
Figure 33. Muzzle retardation vs. projectile mass for form factors of 0.6 and 0.8 compared with
retardation of M855, Mk262, and M193.
performance for a well-designed, low-drag, streamlined (typically boattailed) projectile.

Additional results are presented for higher drag shape with a form factor of 0.8 to quantify the
relative sensitivity of the results to form factor. Results for the dependent variables of interest
are presented as a function of projectile mass. Each projectile mass is associated with a
particular muzzle velocity by virtue of the results shown in figure 31.
Figure 34 shows the impact velocity as a function of projectile mass for ranges of 0, 150, 300,
450, and 600 m. The results at 0-m range are essentially the muzzle velocity results shown in
figure 31. Corresponding results for short ranges are shown in figure 35. For short ranges, the
lighter bullets have higher impact velocity due to the higher muzzle velocity, but these lighter
bullets decelerate at a higher rate (due to the lighter mass) and the maximum impact velocity at a
given range occurs for a progressively heavier bullet as the range increases. The impact velocity
at 450–600 m shows relatively little variation with projectile mass for masses greater than 60 gr.
The sonic velocity for standard atmospheric conditions is also shown in figure 34. Some care
must be taken in interpreting results that have impact velocities below the sonic velocity. The
results presented here do not consider the significant decrease in drag that occurs in the transonic
to subsonic velocity regime. The current results should overestimate the decrease in impact
velocity below the sonic velocity. (It is possible to adapt the current approach to more accurately
predict the flight behavior in this regime. However, this is beyond the scope of the current
effort.) These comments also applied to the corresponding results for the impact energy, gravity
43
1200
1000
800
Velocity (m/s)
600
400
150 m Range 300 m Range

200 450 m Range 600 m Range
Muzzle Velocity M855
Mk262 M193
Sonic Velocity
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 34. Impact velocity vs. projectile mass for ranges of 0, 150, 300, 450, and 600 m.
1050
1000
950
900
Velocity (m/s)
850
800
25 m Range
750 50 m Range
75 m Range
700 100 m Range
Muzzle Velocity
650
600
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 35. Impact velocity vs. projectile mass for ranges of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 m.
44
drop, and wind drift, which are derived from the same approach. The desirability of designs
which result in impact velocities below the sonic velocity must also be carefully considered.
Significant changes in projectile stability occur in the transonic velocity regime and these must
be investigated as part of the design process to ensure projectile stability for those designs which
operate in this flight regime. These issues can be avoided by considering only designs that fly at
supersonic velocities within their operational ranges.
Results are also shown in figure 34 for the 56-gr M193, the 62-gr M855, and 77-gr Mk262
projectiles. Muzzle velocities used in the analysis for these rounds were experimentally
determined from multiple sources using existing data (14) as well as recent in-house
measurements. The experimentally determined muzzle velocities are slightly lower (2%, 3%,
and 5% lower for M193, M855, and Mk262, respectively) than the predictions shown in figure
31. Actual values of form factor (0.65, 0.57, and 0.63, for the M193, M855, and Mk262,
respectively) and drag coefficient exponent (0.40, 0.53, and 0.43, for the M193, M855, and
Mk262, respectively) were used rather than the baseline form factor of 0.6 and the corresponding
drag coefficient exponent of 0.46 computed from equation 13. The form factor and drag
coefficient exponent for the Mk262 were derived from the 77-gr HPBT Match King ballistic
coefficients published by Sierra Bullets (7) using an approach similar that that described in
section 3. The form factor and drag coefficient for the M193 and the M855 was derived from the
FTB aeropack data using the approach described in section 2. In general, the results for the
M193, M855, and Mk262 are consistent with the results presented as a function of projectile
mass, especially when the slight differences in muzzle velocity is taken into account.
Figure 36 shows the impact energy as a function of projectile mass for ranges of 0, 150, 300,
450, and 600 m. The impact energy at short range is shown in figure 37. The results show a
relatively strong decrease in impact energy with decreasing projectile mass below a projectile
mass of 62-gr due to the relatively constant muzzle velocity for these lighter bullets. The impact
energy at the muzzle is relatively constant for the heavier bullets, but the heavier bullets have
higher impact energies at longer ranges due to the lower decelerations associated with the heavy
projectile mass. Also shown are the results for the M193, M855, and Mk262 projectiles. These
results follow the general trends of the analysis when the slight differences in muzzle velocity
are accounted for. The M855 and Mk262 show only minor differences in impact energy relative
to each other.
A traditional qualitative measure of lethality has been the product of mass and velocity to the 3/2
power (15). Results for this metric are shown in figure 38 as a function of projectile mass for
various ranges. Compared to the impact energy, this metric is slightly less dependent on velocity
and shows increased values of the metric as the projectile mass increases.
Figure 39 shows the gravity drop as a function of projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450,
and 600 m. At shorter ranges, the heavier bullets show the most gravity drop due to their lower
muzzle velocity and longer time of flight. However, as the range increases, the 62-gr
45
2500
150 m Range
300 m Range
450 m Range
2000 600 m Range
Muzzle Velocity
M855
Mk262
M193
Energy (J)
1500
1000
500
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 36. Impact energy vs. projectile mass for ranges of 0, 150, 300, 450, and 600 m.
2000
1750
Energy (J)
1500
25 m Range
50 m Range
1250
75 m Range
100 m Range
Muzzle Velocity
1000
750
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 37. Impact energy vs. projectile mass for ranges of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 m.
46
80
150 m Range
300 m Range
70 450 m Range
600 m Range
60 Muzzle Velocity
M855
mV3/2 (kg-(m/s)3/2)
Mk262
50
M193
40
30
20
10
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 38. mV 3 / 2 vs. projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m.
-7
-6
Gravity Drop (meters)
-5 150 m Range
300 m Range
-4 450 m Range
600 m Range
M855
-3
Mk262
M193
-2
-1
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 39. Gravity drop vs. projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m.
47
bullet shows the lowest gravity drop due to the combination of higher muzzle velocity relative to
the heavier bullets and lower retardation compared to the light bullets. Also shown are results
for the M193, M855, and Mk262. After accounting for differences in muzzle velocity, these
results compare relatively well with the predictions for the baseline form factor of 0.6. The
Mk262 shows slightly higher gravity drop relative to the M855 as a result of its lower muzzle
velocity. On the other hand, the M193 shows a slightly higher gravity drop due to its increased
retardation (and relatively similar muzzle velocity) relative to the M855.
Figure 40 shows the gravity drop in mils relative to the M855 as a function of projectile mass.
Projectile masses between 46 and 95 gr all meet the ±1.0 mil mismatch requirement relative to
the M855. For projectile masses below 46 gr, the mismatch increases rapidly as the projectile
mass decreases. The candidate designs which have projectile masses close to 62-gr impact
above the M855 impacts due to the slight higher muzzle velocity of the candidate designs.
-4
-3.5
150 m Range
-3 300 m Range
450 m Range
Gravity Drop (mils)
-2.5 600 m Range

1 Mil Spec
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 40. Gravity drop relative to M855 for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m.
The effect of gravity drop can be accounted for by proper aiming of the weapon. However, this
requires the range to target to be correctly determined. Errors or uncertainty in determining
range in turn will produce deviations from the desired vertical impact location. Ranging errors
have been shown to be a significant source of impact errors at longer ranges (16). The deviation
from the vertical impact location can be shown to be the product of the ranging error ε R and the
tangent of the angle of impact θ I as shown in equation 22.
∆s y = ε R tan θ I . (22)
48
The ranging error may be dependent on range. One approach is to estimate the ranging error as a
percentage of the range to target (16). However, in the current context, the ranging error should
be fixed for a given range and only the tangent of the impact angle should vary as the projectile
mass changes. Figure 41 shows the variation in the impact angle with projectile mass as a
function of range. A strong variation in the tangent of the impact angle is seen at longer ranges
for projectile masses below 60 gr. There is much less variation with projectile mass above 60 gr.
If the ranging error can be estimated as a fraction of the range to target, the effect on the vertical
miss distance as a function of range is increased significantly over the results in figure 41 which
just consider the tangent of the impact angle. For ranges less than 150 m, the heavier projectiles
show increased impact angle relative to the lighter projectiles. However, these trajectories are
relatively flat and the trajectory is likely considered within point-blank range so that no
adjustment for gravity drop is required.
-0.035
-0.03 150 m Range

300 m Range
450 m Range
-0.025 600 m Range
Tan(Impact Angle)
M855
-0.02 Mk262
M193
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 41. Tangent of impact angle vs. projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m.
Figure 42 shows the cross-wind drift for a 10-m/s cross wind as a function of projectile mass for
ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m. Although the 10-m/s cross wind is relatively high, the
cross-wind drift varies linearly with the cross-wind velocity, allowing the cross-wind drift for
other wind velocities to be easily obtained from the presented results. The cross-wind drift
increases significantly with range. The heavier bullets show less wind sensitivity than the lighter
bullets particularly at longer ranges. This is because of the stronger influence of muzzle
retardation compared with muzzle velocity (see equation 17). Results are also shown for the
M193, M855, and Mk262. The M855 and Mk262 show nearly the same degree of wind
49
9
8 150 m Range
300 m Range
7
Cross Wind Drift (meters)
450 m Range
600 m Range
6 M855
Mk262
5
M193
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 42. Cross-wind drift for 10-m/s cross wind vs. projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300,
450, and 600 m.
sensitivity. The M193 shows increase wind sensitivity compared to the M855 as a result of its
increased retardation.
Figure 43 shows the percentage of cross-wind drift relative to the M855 as a function of
projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m. Bullets heavier than the M855 are less
sensitive to cross winds. Correspondingly, bullets lighter than the M855 show increased
sensitivity to cross winds. On a percentage basis, the difference in cross-wind drift relative to the
M855 increases with range for a constant projectile mass.
Results were also obtained using a form factor 0.8 to compare with the baseline results obtained
using a form factor of 0.6. Figure 44 compares the sensitivity of the impact velocity to form
factor at various ranges as a function of projectile mass. The results show that the impact
velocity decreases as the form factor increases from 0.6 to 0.8. This is primarily due to the
increase in muzzle retardation that occurs as the form factor increases. (The results also show a
slight dependence on the drag coefficient exponent produced by differences in the form factor.)
The impact energy, shown in figure 45, is similarly affected by the change in form factor,
although the differences are nearly twice that shown for the velocity because the impact energy
varies with the square of the impact velocity.
50
250
Cross Wind Drift - % of M855 200 150 m Range

300 m Range
450 m Range
150 600 m Range
100
50
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 43. Cross-wind drift relative to M855 vs. projectile mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and
600 m.
1200
1000 Muzzle
800
Velocity (m/s)
150m
600
300m
400
450m
200 Form Factor=0.6
600m Form Factor=0.8
Muzzle Velocity
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 44. Impact velocity vs. projectile mass for form factors of 0.6 and 0.8 at ranges of 150,
300, 450, and 600 m.
51
2500
Form Factor=0.6
2000 Form Factor=0.8
Muzzle Velocity Muzzle
Energy (J)
1500
150m
300m
1000
450m
500 600m
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 45. Impact energy vs. projectile mass for form factors of 0.6 and 0.8 at ranges of 150, 300,
450, and 600 m.
The gravity drop of projectiles with a form factor of 0.8 relative to the gravity drop of the M855
is shown in figure 46. The vertical impact location is nearly 1.0 mil or greater below the vertical
impact location of M855 at 600 m for all projectile masses when the form factor is increased to
0.8. Given the predicted variation in the muzzle velocity with projectile mass, the form factor of
0.8 represents an upper limit for meeting ±1.0 mil mismatch requirement for projectile masses
between 62 and 73 gr. A reduction in the form factor below 0.8 is required for projectile outside
this range of projectile masses to meet the ±1.0 mil mismatch requirement.
Figure 47 shows the cross-wind drift of the projectile with a form factor of 0.8 as a percentage of
the cross-wind drift of the M855. The cross-wind drift is greater than the M855 across the range
of projectile masses considered here. For the 62-gr projectile, the increase in the form factor
from 0.6 to 0.8 produces 35%–40% more cross-wind drift for ranges of 150–600 m. The relative
effect decreases slightly as the projectile mass increases. The differences increase more
substantially as the projectile mass decreases.
The results indicate some degree of sensitivity to the form factor associated with the drag
coefficient. The survey of existing designs indicates that form factor of 0.6 can be reasonably
accomplished, although significant reductions in form factor below 0.6 may be difficult.
Projectile core configuration and mass distribution may result in designs with have drag form
factors above 0.6. The current results provide a means of assessing the tradeoffs between
52
-4.5
-4
150 m Range
-3.5 300 m Range
450 m Range
Gravity Drop (mils)
-3 600 m Range
1 Mil Spec
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 46. Gravity drop of projectiles with form factor of 0.8 relative to M855 vs. projectile
mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m.
400
350
Cross Wind Drift - % of M855
150 m Range
300 300 m Range
450 m Range
250 600 m Range
200
150
100
50
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 47. Cross-wind drift of projectiles with form factor of 0.8 relative to M855 vs. projectile
mass for ranges of 150, 300, 450, and 600 m.
53
performance parameters associated with the point mass trajectory and the overall projectile
effectiveness of the projectile.
5.1 Comparison of the Relative Performance of the M855 and Mk262

Currently within the U.S. Army there is discussion and perhaps some interest in use of the
Mk262 in lieu of the M855. The Mk262 is based on the Sierra 77-gr match ammunition. The
results shown here shed some light on the relative performance of the two rounds. In terms of
impact velocity, impact energy, gravity drop, and cross-wind sensitivity, the Mk262 shows only
marginal performance improvements in some cases (impact energy at long range, cross-wind
drift) and slightly lower performance in other cases (gravity drop and impact velocity). These
performance parameters represent an important subset of the complete set of performance
parameters. Important considerations such as impact dispersion and lethality are not addressed
here. Impact dispersion is influenced strongly by manufacturing considerations and there are
significant differences in the manufacturing approaches and requirements for the high volume
production of the M855 and the match grade Sierra 77-gr. Differences in the impact dispersion
of the two rounds may exist. However, these differences must be considered in light of the other
sources of delivery errors including cross wind and ranging errors that are directly related to the
cross-wind sensitivity and gravity drop parameters examined here.
5.2 Copper and Steel-Cored M855 Variants

Environmental considerations have resulted in suggestions for removing the lead core of M855
and replacing it with alternative materials. One suggestion is to replace the lead core of the
M855 with a steel core resulting in a projectile that weighs 52 gr. Another suggestion is to
replace the lead core and steel penetrator with copper producing a projectile that weighs 57 gr.
The current design approach can be used to predict the performance of potential designs.
The results show that over the first 150 m of flight, both the steel and copper variants have
slightly impact higher velocity than the M855 because of the higher launch velocity. However,
due to their lighter weight and correspondingly higher retardation, their impact velocity is lower
at longer ranges and decreases to 83% and 92% of the impact velocity of the M855 at 600-m
range. Because of the lighter weight of the both variants, the impact energy is less than the
M855 across the trajectory. Both the copper- and steel-cored M855 variants have trajectories
early in flight that are slightly above (less than 0.1 mil) the M855 due to the higher launch
velocity, but the vertical impact point at 600 m is 0.1 mil and 0.5 mil, respectively, below the
vertical impact point of the M855. The copper and steel cored M855 variants have 8%–12% and
18%–28% more cross-wind sensitivity, respectively, than the M855 over 150–600-m ranges,
with the largest difference observed at the longest ranges.
54
6. Conclusion
A conceptual design approach for small-caliber munitions has been developed and applied to
5.56-mm ammunition. The method is based on an analytical approach for predicting the point
mass trajectories for direct-fire munitions. The method utilizes a power law variation to
characterize the variation of the drag coefficient with Mach number. High quality aerodynamic
range data is used to demonstrate the validity of the power law approach for small-caliber
munitions including the 5.56-mm M855. The method allows closed form solutions to be
obtained for several important design quantities including the impact velocity and energy,
gravity drop, and cross-wind drift. From the analytical method, it can be shown that these
performance parameters are functions of three parameters: the muzzle velocity, muzzle
retardation, and the exponent defining the power law drag variation. The analytical trajectory
predictions has been validated by comparison with numerical predictions for the 5.56-mm M855
and excellent agreement is found.
An extensive database of trajectory data developed by a commercial small arms bullet
manufacturer has been analyzed as part of the current study. From the database, a correlation
that expresses the drag coefficient exponent as a function of the drag coefficient form factor has
been developed for small arms bullets. The range of the form factor for low drag streamlined
(typically boattailed) projectiles which represent likely candidates for tactical small arms bullets
is also obtained from the database.
The method is then applied to investigate candidate designs for 5.56-mm ammunition. An initial
set of results examines the performance of candidate designs in terms of muzzle velocity and
muzzle retardation for a fixed value of the drag coefficient exponent. The results show the
performance of candidate designs relative to the 5.56-mm M855 for a variety of performance
metrics including trajectory mismatch and cross-wind sensitivity. In general, the results show
that the best performance is obtained from projectiles which have high muzzle velocity and low
muzzle retardation. The relative insensitivity of the results to the drag coefficient exponent is
also demonstrated.
Recognizing that muzzle velocity is not truly an independent variable, but is dependent on
launch mass and interior ballistic constraints, an additional set of results is obtained using
interior ballistic computations to quantify the relationship between muzzle velocity and projectile
mass. By considering designs with a drag coefficient form factor of 0.6, the performance of
candidate designs can be assessed as a function of projectile mass. Performance parameters
examined include impact velocity and energy, gravity drop, and cross-wind drift. For several
performance parameters, the optimal performance is obtained for projectile masses close to that
of the current 62-gr M855. Possible performance improvements are possible for some
performance metrics with projectiles heavier than 62 gr. However, the performance gains
55
increase relatively slowly with increasing projectile mass, primarily because of the significant
decrease in muzzle velocity with increasing projectile mass. Projectile designs lighter than 62 gr
show improved performance for some metrics such as impact velocity at short range. However,
the light weight and higher retardation associated with these rounds results generally results in
poorer performance at ranges beyond 100–150 m.
The results documented here provide important design guidance for current efforts in 5.56-mm
ammunition development. The results address primarily interior and exterior ballistic
considerations, although some qualitative measures of terminal performance are predicted.
Further analysis is required to ensure that the projectile designs are aerodynamically stable and
have the required lethality. These considerations are being addressed in the next phase of the
design effort.
56
7. References
1. Weinacht, P.; Cooper, G. R.; Newill, J. F. Analytical Prediction of Trajectories for High-
Velocity Direct-Fire Munitions, ARL TR-3567; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD, August 2005.
2. McCoy, R. L. Modern Exterior Ballistics; Schiffer Military History: Atglen, PA, 1999.
3. Tilghman, B. A. Firing Tables Branch, U.S. Army Armament Research, Development, and
Engineering Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. Private communication, 8 December
2003.
4. McCoy, R. L. Aerodynamic and Flight Dynamic Characteristics of the New Family of
5.56-mm NATO Ammunition; BRL-MR-3476; U.S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratory:
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, October 1985.
5. Arrow Tech Associates. Prodas Users Manual; Arrow Tech Associates: Burlington, VT,
2002.
6. Fourth Edition Rifle Exterior Ballistics Tables. http://www.exteriorballistics.com
/ebexplained /4th-rifle_tables/index.cfm (accessed 28 February 2005).
7. Sierra Rifle Bullets Ballistic Coefficient Listing. http://www.exteriorballistics.com
/ebexplained/riflecoefficients.cfm (accessed 28 February 2005).
8. Bullets. http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=bullets&page=bullets
&bulletType=0 (accessed 28 February 2005).
9. Hoerner, S. F. Fluid-Dynamic Drag; Hoerner Fluid Dynamics: Brick Town, NJ, 1965.
10. Charters, A. C.; Stein, H. The Drag of Projectiles with Truncated Cone Headshapes; report
no. 624; U.S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratories: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD,
March 1952.
11. Firing Tables for Weapon, 5.56-mm, M16A1, Weapon, 5.56-mm, M16A2, Weapon, 5.56-mm,
M249, Weapon, 5.56-mm, M4, Firing Cartridge, Ball, M855, Cartridge, Tracer, M856,
Firing Cartridge, Ball, M193, Cartridge, Tracer, M196; U.S. Army ARDEC Firing Tables;
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, July 1996.
12. Department of the Army. Rifle Marksmanship M16A1, M16A2/2, M16A4, and M4 Carbine;
Field Manual No. 3-22.9 (FM 23-9); Headquarters, Department of the Army: Washington,
DC, 24 April 2003.
57
13. Anderson, R. D.; Fickie, K. D. IBHVG2 (Interior Ballistics of High Velocity Guns, Version
2)—A User’s Guide; BRL-TR-2829; U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory: Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD, July 1987.
14. Peterson, B. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. Private
communication, 11 January 2005.
15. Kokinakis, W.; Sperrazza, J. Criteria for Incapacitating Soldiers with Fragments and
Flechettes; BRL-1269; U.S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving
Ground, MD, January 1965.
16. Von Wahlde, R.; Metz, D. Sniper Weapon Fire Control Error Budget Analysis; ARL-TR-
2065; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, August 1999.
58
List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms
C Ballistic coefficient
CD Drag coefficient
CD V0
Drag coefficient evaluated at the muzzle velocity
CD VRe f
Drag coefficient evaluated at the reference velocity
C DG1 Drag coefficient from G1 drag function evaluated at the reference velocity
VRe f
D Reference diameter
g Gravitational acceleration
i Form Drag coefficient form factor
m Projectile mass
M Mach number
n Exponent defining shape of the drag vs. Mach number curve
s Nondimensional range coordinate
m
SD Sectional density, SD=
D2
s g −drop Gravity drop
sx ,sy Horizontal and vertical displacement along trajectory
∆s y Deviation from intended vertical impact location due to ranging error
sz Out-of-plane displacement along trajectory (normal to x-y plane)
π D2
S ref Reference area, S ref =
4
t Time of flight
V Total velocity
V0 Muzzle velocity
59
VRe f Reference velocity for comparison of form factor and retardation
⎛ dV ⎞
⎜ ⎟ Muzzle retardation
⎝ ds ⎠ 0
⎛ dV ⎞
⎜ ⎟ Retardation evaluated at reference velocity
⎝ ds ⎠ VRe f
wz Cross-wind velocity
Greek Symbols
εR Ranging error
θ0 Initial gun elevation angle
θI Trajectory impact angle
ρ Atmospheric density
60
NO. OF
COPIES ORGANIZATION
1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL
(PDF INFORMATION CTR
ONLY) DTIC OCA
8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD
STE 0944
FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218
1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV &

ENGRG CMD
SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS
INTEGRATION
AMSRD SS T
6000 6TH ST STE 100
FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5608
1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY

THE UNIV OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN
3925 W BRAKER LN
AUSTIN TX 78759-5316
1 DIRECTOR
US ARMY RESEARCH LAB
IMNE ALC IMS
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI MD 20783-1197
3 DIRECTOR
AMSRD ARL CI OK TL
2800 POWDER MILL RD
3 DIRECTOR
AMSRD ARL CS IS T
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
1 DIR USARL
AMSRD ARL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600)
61
NO. OF NO. OF
COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION
1 ARROW TECH ASSOC 1 ALLIANT TECHSYS INC

1233 SHELBURNE RD D8 MN07 LW54
W HATHAWAY D KAMDAR
SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 4700 NATHAN LANE N
PLYMOUTH MN 55442-2512
1 OREGON STATE UNIV
DEPT OF MECHANICAL ENGR 1 ATK ORDNANCE SYS
M COSTELLO MN07 MW44
CORVALLIS OR 97331 B BECKER
4700 NATHAN LANE N
1 PRODUCT MGR SMALL AND MED PLYMOUTH MN 55442-2512
CALIBER AMMO
SFAE AMO MAS SMC 1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC
M BULTER CCAC AMSTA AR CCL C
BLDG 354 G FLEMING
PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 BLDG 65N
PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000
1 PROJECT MGR MANEUVER AMMO
SYS 1 US ARMY TACOM-ARDEC
SFAE AMO MAS SMC CCAC AMSTA AR CCL B
R KOWALSKI J MIDDLETON
BLDG 354 BLDG 65N
PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000
3 ATK 1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC

MN07 LW54 ASIC PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFC
C AAKHUS J A RESCH
R DOHRN BLDG 1
M JANTSCHER PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07801
4700 NATHAN LANE N
PLYMOUTH MN 55442 3 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC
M D MINISI
1 ATK LAKE CITY S SPICKERT-FULTON
K ENLOW M NICOLICH
PO BOX 1000 BLDG 65
INDEPENDENCE MO 64051-1000 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000
5 ATK LAKE CITY SMALL CALIBER 1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC

AMMO AMSTA AR CCH A
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMO PLANT S J MUSALLI
MANSFIELD BLDG 65S
BOX 1000 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000
DEPENDENCE MO 64051-1000
1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC
1 ATK LAKE CITY SMALL CALIBER AMSRD AAR AEM I
AMMO R MAZESKI
MO10 003 BLDG 65N
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMO PLANT PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000
J WESTBROOK
PO BOX 1000
INDEPENDENCE MO 64051-1000
62
NO. OF NO. OF
COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION
1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC 1 US ARMY AMRDEC

A P FARINA AMSAM RD SS AT
BLDG 95 R W KRETZSCHMAR
PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 BLDG 5400
REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-5000
1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC
CCAC 3 ST MARKS POWDER
AMSTA AR CCL B GENERAL DYNAMICS
D J CONWAY J DRUMMOND
BLDG 65N J HOWARD
PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 R PULVER
7121 COASTAL HWY
1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC CRAWFORDVILLE FL 32327
AMSTA AR FSF T
H HUDGINS 3 RADFORD ARMY AMMO PLANT
BLDG 382 K BROWN
PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 W J WERRRELL
H ZIEGLER
1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC PO BOX 1 ROUTE 114
CCAC AMSTA AR CCL D RADFORD VA 24143
F HANZL
BLDG 354 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000
2 COMMANDER
1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC US ARMY ARDEC
P RIGGS FIRING TABLES AND
BLDG 65N BALLISTICS DIV
PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 AMSRD AAR AEF T
B TILGHMAN
1 OPM MAS F MIRABELLE
SFAE AMO MAS MC 2201 ABERDEEN BLVD
G DEROSA APG MD 21005-5001
BLDG 354
PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 28 DIR USARL
AMSRD ARL WM
1 SIERRA BULLETS J SMITH
P DALY AMSRD ARL WM B
1400 W HENRY ST T ROSENBERGER
SEDALIA MO 65302-0818 AMSRD ARL WM BA
D LYON
1 COMMANDER AMSRD ARL WM BC
US ARMY TACOM ARDEC M BUNDY
AMSTR AR FSF X J DESPIRITO
W TOLEDO J GARNER
BUILDING 95 S B GUIDOS
PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 K HEAVEY
J NEWILL
1 AEROPREDICTION INC P PLOSTINS
F MOORE J SAHU
9449 GROVER DR STE 201 S SILTON
KING GEORGE VA 22485 D WEBB
P WEINACHT (3 CPS)
63
NO. OF
COPIES ORGANIZATION
AMSRD ARL WM BD
A BRANT
P CONROY
B FORCH
M NUSCA
T WILLIAMS
AMSRD ARL WM BF
R PEARSON
W OBERLE
S WILKERSON
E RIGAS
AMSRD ARL WM TA
M BURKINS
AMSRD ARL WM TC
B PETERSON
L MAGNESS
64
View publication stats

Conceptual Design Approach For Small-Caliber Aerob

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conceptual Design Approach For Small-Caliber Aerob

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conceptual Design Approach For Small-Caliber Aerob

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Conceptual Design Approach for Small-Caliber Aeroballistics With Application

Article · September 2005

James Newill Paul J. Conroy

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

by Paul Weinacht, James F. Newill, and Paul J. Conroy

ARL-TR-3620 September 2005

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

ARL-TR-3620 September 2005

Conceptual Design Approach for Small-Caliber

Paul Weinacht, James F. Newill, and Paul J. Conroy

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

List of Tables vii

3. Drag Characteristics of Small-Caliber Ammunition 11

5. Combined Exterior and Interior Ballistics Results 39

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms 59

Figure 1. Fit of drag coefficient for the M855. ...............................................................................3

Table 1. Results from curve-fitting velocity data, 0.224-caliber projectiles. ...............................14

The flat fire trajectory of a projectile can be characterized as follows (2):

Figure 1. Fit of drag coefficient for the M855.

Figure 2. Fractional remaining velocity as a function of range, M855.

Figure 3. Time of flight vs. range, M855.

Figure 4. Gravity drop vs. range, M855.

Height - Meters 0.5

Figure 5. Trajectories to hit 300- and 600-m targets, M855.

Figure 6. Cross-wind drift due to 10-m/s cross wind, M855.

0.1 Aerodynamic Jump

Cross Wind Drift - Meters -1

3. Drag Characteristics of Small-Caliber Ammunition

Table 1. Results from curve-fitting velocity data, 0.224-caliber projectiles.

Results Normalized to VRef

Results Normalized to VRef

Results Normalized to VRef

Table 4. Results from curve-fitting velocity data, 0.311-caliber projectiles.

Results Normalized to VRef

Table 6. Results from curve-fitting velocity data, 0.338-caliber projectiles.

Results Normalized to VRef

Table 7. Results from curve-fitting velocity data, 0.375-caliber projectiles.

Results Normalized to VRef

Table 8. Results from curve-fitting velocity data, 0.458-caliber projectiles.

Results Normalized to VRef

n Iform n Iform n Iform

Table 9. Sensitivity of muzzle velocity on results from trajectory fitting, 0.308

Results Normalized to VRef

Table 10. Sensitivity of muzzle velocity on results from trajectory fitting,

Results Normalized to VRef

Results Normalized to VRef

Results Normalized to VRef

Figure 13. Scaled impact velocity as a function of scaled range.

Figure 14. Scaled impact velocity as a function of scaled range (close-in).