I know that the higher the "grain" number of a bullet, the heavier it is. But I am curious about the history of the term, and just how heavy a "grain" is, as relating to ammunition. More importantly, why would what sounds like an outdated term be used? The military went to the metric system...shouldn't bullets be measured in grams, rather than grains?
Just how heavy is a "grain" and why is it used
- Thread starter Forseti
- Start date
In the metric system, there are 27.? grams to the ounce. In the system used for measuring powder, there are over 400 grains to the ounce. It's a much more precise scale, allowing for much smaller increments of measure. I'm not sure if it's related to the apothocary (pharmacy) measure of grains; I don't think it is.
------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
7000 grains to the pound. 437 grains to the ounce. 15.43 grains to the gram. The military will measure in both systems depending on how large a weapon, small arms normally are in grains, cannon are in lbs for America, KG for non-US units. Ammo data sheets normally have both grains and grams for small arms ammo. Lbs, ounces and KG for cannon projectiles.
So...as I thought...an outmoded measure of weight based on the unreliable size of grains of wheat! Why isn't this totally dumped in favor of milligrams?
Holding on to historical tradition is one thing...holding on to foolish old measures based on non-standard standards is stupid.
Holding on to historical tradition is one thing...holding on to foolish old measures based on non-standard standards is stupid.
forseti,
You wrote:
"foolish old measures based on non-standard standards is stupid"
Not to flame here, but c'mon guy, get off your high horse........
The measure for a "grain" was ORIGINALLY derived much the same way as the original inch (which was the measure of the first digit on the King's finger) and the original foot (the length of the King's foot). It would be obvious that these measurements might change as the king grew and as kings changed. However, in these modern times we DO have established standards. The currently established measurements of pounds, grains, inches, feet, etc. have been rock solid static for quite some generations, regardless of the shoe size of the reigning monarch. Once these standards were established, the accuracy with which any article can be measured, built, weighed, etc. is limited by the precision of the instruments being used to make the measurement. I have many such instruments myself that have dual inch-metric markings, and a digital scale that weighs in both ounces and grams. The results I get are not going to be any less accurate if I choose to use the inch-ounce markings as opposed to the metric ones.
As it applies here, the "grain" measurement we use in bullet & powder weights is a quite accurate and convenient system, assuming that you have a good, accurate scale. I'm sorry, but to say that measuring in grains is "non-standard" and "stupid" and that it would be "better" to do all our measurements in grams makes no more sense than to proclaim the entire Old English measurement system as obsolete and replaced by the metric. In the US, the "grain" system IS the standard for small arms measurement. There is nothing "non-standard" about it...........
Does the metric system work? Of course. But so does the Old English. Neither is any "better" than the instruments doing the measuring.......
My opinion guys,
Swampy
You wrote:
"foolish old measures based on non-standard standards is stupid"
Not to flame here, but c'mon guy, get off your high horse........
The measure for a "grain" was ORIGINALLY derived much the same way as the original inch (which was the measure of the first digit on the King's finger) and the original foot (the length of the King's foot). It would be obvious that these measurements might change as the king grew and as kings changed. However, in these modern times we DO have established standards. The currently established measurements of pounds, grains, inches, feet, etc. have been rock solid static for quite some generations, regardless of the shoe size of the reigning monarch. Once these standards were established, the accuracy with which any article can be measured, built, weighed, etc. is limited by the precision of the instruments being used to make the measurement. I have many such instruments myself that have dual inch-metric markings, and a digital scale that weighs in both ounces and grams. The results I get are not going to be any less accurate if I choose to use the inch-ounce markings as opposed to the metric ones.
As it applies here, the "grain" measurement we use in bullet & powder weights is a quite accurate and convenient system, assuming that you have a good, accurate scale. I'm sorry, but to say that measuring in grains is "non-standard" and "stupid" and that it would be "better" to do all our measurements in grams makes no more sense than to proclaim the entire Old English measurement system as obsolete and replaced by the metric. In the US, the "grain" system IS the standard for small arms measurement. There is nothing "non-standard" about it...........
Does the metric system work? Of course. But so does the Old English. Neither is any "better" than the instruments doing the measuring.......
My opinion guys,
Swampy
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mykl:
Paul,
He probably didn't have a pager going off on his belt...[/quote]
LOL I can see it now, six thousand four hundred eleven, six thousand four hundred twelve--BEEP BEEP BEEP, SIX THOUSAND FOU *&&%#*^)^&%^%$##@#$^&)*%$%#@#&*@!)&^#@)*^&%%&!
Paul,
He probably didn't have a pager going off on his belt...[/quote]
LOL I can see it now, six thousand four hundred eleven, six thousand four hundred twelve--BEEP BEEP BEEP, SIX THOUSAND FOU *&&%#*^)^&%^%$##@#$^&)*%$%#@#&*@!)&^#@)*^&%%&!
'er ya go swampy. You said exactly what I was too lazy to write down. If the entire arms industry were to attempt to change the weight units, it would be extremely expensive, very confusing during the change, and indeed very dangerous. You will note that even for those calibers measured in metric units, the bullets are still weighed in grains. You can buy 160 gr. 7mm bullets, but see if you can find a box of 10.368 gram 7mm bullets.
To paraphrase Tevya, "there's a lot to be said for tradition."
To paraphrase Tevya, "there's a lot to be said for tradition."
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mykl:
Paul,
He probably didn't have a pager going off on his belt...[/quote]
And the TV sets in those days weren't as loud as today either....less distraction
------------------
Carlyle
Paul,
He probably didn't have a pager going off on his belt...[/quote]
And the TV sets in those days weren't as loud as today either....less distraction
------------------
Carlyle
Ruben Nasser
New member
I agree with most said above, the old english system is traditional and convenient to use if you are familiar with it. I'm from south america, and we (as ALL the rest of the world, and most major industrial U.S. manufacturers of everything but guns, U.S. millitary, etc...) was raised on the metric/international system, but notheless find it easy to use the US system (actually most everything made today with numeric tools can "tranlate" automatically any unit of measure). Mal H, with due respect, you are a bit too focussed on US cartridges, remember that many "traditional" loadings of continental cartridges were originally in grams (9mm Luger: 8 gr. = 124 grains, 8mm Mauser: 10 gr. = 154 grains, and so on...), what happened afterwards is that in recent times most of private firearms experimentation,ownership,tinkering, new shooting sports, etc. was carried out in USA, thus commercial suppliers, manufacturers, loading books, and most data available to the private shooter is according to the standards of this country. I´m sure that eventually the metric/international system will replace the english one in USA in everyday life (most people just don't realize that factories are changing now), but the question is when.
Cost now...savings later. Having a single, uniform world measurement standard saves money over time, especially in a world economy where goods and services cross borders all the time. Clearly, widespread use of a single standard is better than a dual standard, where we (the US) seem to be the only holdout just because we are such a huge marketplace we can be. Most companies have to publish and do everything for their products in both English and metric measuring systems anyway.
Saying its expensive doesn't cut it. Its more expensive OVER TIME to maintain two measurement standards instead of one. Swallow the medicine, and convert.
Why is it "good" for the military to have gone metric so long ago? Is it because integration with our allies in terms of weaponry, mapping, intelligence, communication, and strategy is better/easier/faster with a single system? How does that fail to apply to business?
Saying its expensive doesn't cut it. Its more expensive OVER TIME to maintain two measurement standards instead of one. Swallow the medicine, and convert.
Why is it "good" for the military to have gone metric so long ago? Is it because integration with our allies in terms of weaponry, mapping, intelligence, communication, and strategy is better/easier/faster with a single system? How does that fail to apply to business?
Only part of the military has converted to metric. As previously noted small arm data is in grains, weapons weights are in lbs., muzzle velocity is in FPS. As you get to larger weapon it is a mix, artillery and mortars use MPS for velocity, but projectile weight is in lbs. Tanks have both the MV and projo weight in the English system. The navy and aviation community uses the English system plus throw in nautical miles, etc. So there is yet to be 100 percent standardization in the military and talk about a pain in the ass to fill out a nine-line brief, have to convert from metric on your 1:50000 map to nautical to give data to the pilot. Than after the marking round goes off talk him on in metric and cardinal directions.