Jump to content

Ft per second - ft/lb


Recommended Posts

Is there a formula that I can convert ft per second to ft/lb? I want to check my FAC air rifle and a few others on my chronoraph.

 

Steve.

 

You need the bullet weight as well. Multiply the velovity by its self, divide that by 450400 then mulitply the result by the weight in grains. The result is the energy in foot pounds.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You need the bullet weight as well. Multiply the velovity by its self, divide that by 450400 then mulitply the result by the weight in grains. The result is the energy in foot pounds.

 

J.

Yep, that's a better way of doing it. PyramydAir is OK for air rifle but for rifle, if you try to multiply the whole top line before dividing by the 450436, you'll dump the calculator because of the higher velocities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its 450240; the constant of gravity. For example 8g x 8g x 600fps / 450240 will give u the foot pounds. I'm sire the odd slip on numbers won't make a huge difference but that is the fiqure so u may as well use it.

Not that it matters in the slightest, but just out of interest it is 450436. 7000 times 32.174 (international gravitational acceleration) divided by 0.5 equals. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea. However it serves exceptionally well for the purposes, I unddtstanu that the late and great author or airr rifles and pistols, that I read as a child, used this formula and having followed it, it is the same as any other in results that others have used. Hence I quote the fiqure

Edited by GingerCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its 450240; the constant of gravity. For example 8g x 8g x 600fps / 450240 will give u the foot pounds. I'm sire the odd slip on numbers won't make a huge difference but that is the fiqure so u may as well use it.

 

I always used to use 450240. However, I believe that 450400 is the more precise figure, for some reason. I'll dig out where I read that.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I always used to use 450240. However, I believe that 450400 is the more precise figure, for some reason. I'll dig out where I read that.

 

J.

Have a shufti at the internationally agreed SI units and you'll see that the equivalent figure you're looking for is 32.174 and then do the maths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...