I shoot skeet with a guy who has been shooting for years and is quite proficient at it. Since he has shot so much, 100's of rounds per week when he was honing his skill, he developed a flinch. So he has done testing on various hulls--for recoil. He has found the Federals to be the lowest recoiling, not because of the paper base wad so much but because of the taper of the base leading up to the wall. At least I think I understood him correctly. If anyone is interested, I'll try to get more details. I have always preferred AA's because they hold up well and I think those are his second choice for recoil as well.

I presume when you are talking about paper-based Federals, you also mean paper hulls. If these produce less perceived recoil, then I would say it is more the paper hull and not the base. I still have a cache of the old Winchester/Western paper hulls. I load up a few boxes every summer for a trip back in time. They too shoot softer than any plastic hull and have a flat base. Smell great too, when heated with Red Dot.

Gough Thomas (GT Garwood) in one of his books makes a case for excess headspace increasing the felt recoil. Joe Wood maintains that the Winchester AAs kick him much more than the Federals. He is shooting them in old English and American SxSs. Both plastic hulls of course.

Perhaps some hulls have a thinner rim than others.

Best,

Mike

Interesting topic. I had a well respected professional gunsmith that you all know of tell me that Darnes have less perceived recoil due to the way they lock up with no headspace. I have a Darne but I have not had it out shooting since that discussion and I certainly have no idea if he is correct but it makes for an interesting topic.

Old Garwood, may he rest in peace, can make a convincing case for almost anything and he has graphs and charts but c'mon, garden variety target hull (122 gr.) setting back less than a 1/16" inch? That's got to hurt, right?

jack

Actually Jack, it does hurt. At least it hurts me. I know lots of people scoff at this and maybe it's because they are not recoil sensitive. I am and I can feel the difference between a gun with excessive headspace and one that holds the cartridge tight. Darnes with those obturater discs that are angled to the axis of the bore bother me less that a gun of similar or even heavier weight. As an example, I have four doubles each weighing five and three quarter lbs. Shooting an ounce at the same velocity in each I notice a difference in felt recoil with the Darne. Were I to shoot the same cartridge in a Browning Auto 5 or other long recoil auto I'll have a pounding headache after a box of shells even though the gun is way heavier. That drawn out double whump plays hell with my head. That long recoil effect was also noted by Gough Thomas. I expect some people thought that was a load of cod's wallop too. But for people like me who like light guns and are also wimps I can assure you, head space matters.
npm

Ralph Walker, in his gunsmithing book, tells of a S. American gun that was sent to him for evaluation. He said it kicked like a mule, so he called them about it. Come to find out, the S. American manufactured cartridges, have a thick rim. When he received a supply of them, he said recoil was drastically reduced. I have noticed that the rims on Federal paper looks to be much thicker than the customary plastic shells.

Lenard

This talk of lower recoil from a type of hull, leads me to believe that there is a difference in the peak pressures of the different cartridges. I'm not disputing any difference due to headspace, just that I am not a believer in the mystique of paper hulls producing lower recoil without producing lower pressure. I'm a follower of engineering data, not ja-ja beads or voodoo. If paper produces less recoil for the same powder pushing the same load out of the same gun the same velocity, it's because of a difference in the pressure curve being spread out and lower peak pressure.

With regard to head space and felt recoil I believe there is some value in this theory. In over and unders the guns with tumbler activated ejectors appear to suffer from this problem more than the spring activated type. Note all Browning/Miroku and Miroku Sterling Japanese guns are tumbler type ejectors as are the old Winchester 101, Franchi Alcione/Barrage/Dragon/2002/3003 to name a few and they all belt like a mule.

The problem lies in the fact that spring loaded ejectors hold the cartridge back against the standing breech and more so as the gun wears, this can be evidenced by the witness marks the ejectors leave on the standing breech. Hammer type ejectors are loose when closed allowing for cartridge backward movement on firing, you will also find on the Japanese guns that the cartridge rim reliefs in the chambers are a little bit deeper than european guns and is in part why Miroku/Browning are suspectable of missfires on the bottom barrell when the strikers get a little worn, notwithstanding all the other problems these guns have with weak tumbler springs and the offset arrangement of the strikers which seem to be more offset than the european guns.

I have noted that when these guns are used with cartridges having a thigher rim and of same velocity tend to shoot softer.

To chech this out take a thin rimmed European cartridge and a set of Miroku barrells and with a good strait edge across the back of the chambers measure the clearance, then take a thick rimmed made in USA cartridge and repeat the process,there is a noticable difference, then go and shoot a few of each, I would suggest nothing over 1250fps as anything above this speed tends to belt anyway and the difference there is less dramatic as you are getting belted by both.

Just my thoughts

Hotrack

Isn't there some theory about the shape of the chamber in which the propellant combusts? Hemispherical "radiates" and dissipates the recoil where a flat base allows it all to be pushed straight back?
RG

I was examining some load date today supplied by Claybuster comparing Remington hulls with Federal hulls. Same wad, same payload and same powder charge.The Federals measure some 2000 PSI lower pressure. This would validate what Chuck has proposed.

I have the distinct confusion of having been on at least two sides of this argument as I had a gappy NID which kicked the snot out of me with standard 1 1/8oz target loads. Garwood's chart indicates that he thought depth of rim cut and thickness of base rim was the largest factor.

jack

I've tried to stay out of this thread, up until this one showed up. Chuck, Chuck, are you there? Pressure affects recoil??? I thought I knew you better and that you knew better. Pressure has nothing, zip, zero, nada, to do with recoil. How embarrassing that a good friend of mine would say that.

All ejectors are "spring fired". That's how they eject. Some guns have the first part of the extraction process driven by a camming action, others have nothing but the springs. Both are cocked and then fired after opening. The marks usually seen on the standing breech are caused by cocking the previously fired ejectors. The "spring loaded" ejectors do not "hold the shell tighter" to the breech than the other type.
Most of what's been stated in this thread is total nonsense, as was much of what Gough Thomas wrote about. However, this is all just my opinion and you are certainly free to believe any silly, illogical things you want to. If shell construction, internal shape, chamber dimensions, rim thickness, rim-cut depth, wad design, powder burn rate, color of printing on the box or any of this other crap had any effect on recoil wouldn't they all be made the same way????????????????

Somebody had to go and say the "R" word.

Jeeze Jim. Just when you thought you knew me.

Here's my thoughts.
The payload accelerates forward for only one reason...pressure across the base area of the wad. Pressure is a force seeking equilibrium. It seeks to push equally on all surfaces, front, back, sides, etc.. The force on the breachface will vary depending on pressure multiplied by the area of shell diameter. There is only one source of the force against the breachface...pressure.

Felt recoil is a more complex thing than simple math of the velocity and payload. It includes the weight of the gun and how fast it accelerates and for how long. Then one must figure in the velocity of the gun and its inertia in the total recoil felt. I figure all this is more than I can calculate. However, pressure, its peak and its total duration (aka the energy under the curve) make for a given acceleration of the payload. Peak pressures may vary and still produce the same velocity. Everyone has seen this in virtually every loading manual. So whats different? There is only variably in loads that produce the same velocity, but different percieved recoil. Pressure, how much, how fast, and how long. That's my story and I'm st-st-stickin tuit.

Sorry to disappoint, Jim.

There are more "Theories" of recoil than Carter had "Litle Liver Pills". I am simply ever so thankful I am totally "In-sensitive". Send the same wt of shot down the bbl at the same exit velocity from the same gun & I could care less whether it's put up in a plastic, paper, brass, cloth bag or what have you & whether it's sent on it's way by Pink Dot, Purple Dot, Plaid or Striped Powder. For every 100 folks who can "Feel" more recoil because of one circumstance, there's another 100 who can "Feel" more because of the exact opposite opposite circumstance. Muzzle velocity X Ejecta wt is good enough for me.

And then there is the 'Gordon System' used in B&P cartridges .. the plastic equiv. of the rolled paper base wad?

Really think that perception doesn't matter? Just ask your bride, its all that does matter. Fizzix be darned;-)

W/O getting too technical, I can rememeber the first time I encountered a two triggered gun, a 16ga. Stevens 311 variant. Being uninitiated and a runt, using two fingers I perceived that the pressure generated near crossed my eyes;-)

And now Jim wants to confuse us w/facts!

I learnt a long time ago to never go print while in the grip of the brown bottle

Hotrack

The one point made by some posters that is being used as a "given" is the business about Brownings kick and Berettas don't. Why don't you set up a separate thread that debates that ridiculous assumption before you assume it as fact. I have only noticed one thing about shooters who subscribe to old wive's tales involving ballistics and recoil. They usually don't shoot very well and they are looking for excuses for this deficiency.

If the guys that sensitive maybe he should see a doctor about his nerves.

That theory would be pure green blony!! Sorry, cadet, no offense intended.

Commmon, guys. You all know enough phyziks by now to know that the gun's rearward movement is governed by the ejectas' forward movement. Pressure, payload weight, and barrel configuration govern acceleration of the ejecta and the acceleration governs the MV. Whether anyone is sensitive enough to accleration/force/velocity of the gun to be able to sort out in-the-barrel "felt recoil" is dependent on physiology that as yet is not explained. If one hull reduces peak pressure, then it must have a longer pressure curve to achieve the same MV. Does anyone have data for loads of identical MV (as measured on a chronograph, not from a loading manual) from differing pressure curves where anyone could pick out differing felt recoil in a blind test? If so, I'd surely like to see it.

There's a difference between causation and predictive mathmatical correlation. Pressure (the presence or absence thereof) certainly has everything to do with MV of the charge and RV of the gun--no expanding gas in the middle means ain't nuthin going either direction.

jack

Pressure is certainly necessary to produce movement of the payload. However the amount of it, at its peak, is definitely not directly related to the velocity achieved. If it was, high pressure loads would produce higher velocity than low pressure loads. We surely can agree that that is not necessarily the case(I hope!) Most of us load low pressure loads all the time. One powder may produce 10,000 psi and 1200 fps for 1 oz. of shot while a different powder can produce 1200 fps with 1 oz. of shot, even though its peak pressure may only reach 6000 psi. I have seen several formulas for calculating recoil that were slightly different. On common fact in all of them is that none contain pressure as a factor. For as long as there has been published loading data, there have been almost-smart people who believe they will get less recoil if they pick the load with the least pressure. Not so, whether they believe it or not.

""IF"" you were to fit a solid steel plug into the forcing cone which butted back to the crimp end of shell & ""IF"" the chamber could stand the strain, you would get the maximum closed cell pressure the powder charge was capable of producing, what? something on the order of 100K psi??, but absolutely ""NO"" recoil because nothing would move. So much for pressure producing recoil.
Not sure what would happen after that. As it cooled down would it "Freeze" back into Powder, :/, so you could then open the gun.
Cure-alls which, by reducing friction, give "Increased velocities with lower recoil", because of lowered pressures are total Hogwash. (read that long cones, overbored bls etc.) "IF" they reduce the recoil it's because they reduce the velocity of the ejecta.

I use 17 grains of red dot, SO wad and 1 oz of shot in a paper federal and the results are very mild.
bill

Pressure, the selfless prime mover which can take no credit for what it does. What a life! As for the hypothetical special case, the container that entirely restricts its contents is, as some will notice, not a gun. So much for extreme examples. The TIME ELAPSED in successfully overcoming INERTIA "governs" ballistic and recoil effects (greater or lesser V at M,lighter or heavier shot charges, lighter or heavier guns) but it doesn't create the conditions in the pressurized cylinder that spits out the piston one end and hammers the dummy on the other. Heavy and damn skippy hurts of course, but perhaps there are more annoying things than getting whacked once fast.

jack

I'll give pressure all the credit it wants, for what it does, I just won't give it credit for doing something it doesn't do, create or more accurately, determine recoil. Take 2-p's example to the other extreme and forget to load the shot, as can often happen in a muzzle loader. When you fire the gun, at least some pressure still occurs but guess what? NO Recoil! Guess why? No ejecta and no ejecta velocity!

Well now to use a less extreme example, think carefully, "If" you took a normal 3DE-1 1/8oz load which from a normal bbl should give an instrumental reading of 1200 fps, & by some form of increased friction you reduced it to only 1000 fps. Overall avg pressure would be increased due to the slower movement of the payload. Recoil would also be "Decreased". Why??? That friction which is slowing the charge is likeways "Pushing" the gun Forward in exactly the same proportion. Likewise if you decrease friction in a bore & gain a higher velocity, the gun "Slips Easier" to the rear (higher recoil). To these "Snake Oil" salesmen who claim they can modify a bbl & gain an increase in MV while decreasing recoil, the best I can do is quote General Julian S Hatcher; ""It sounds real good if you say it very fast; but it won't stand up to serious investigation"".

I have to go to work; you all have fun with this. Gas pressure is interdependent with some other physical activities and attributes, that's for sure! I like the distinction between creation, correlation, determination, governance.

jack

Again, for total recoil, one needs to know only weight and velocity of the ejecta and weight of the gun. For "felt" recoil, if there is really such a thing, you need something different. Force to the shooter and acceleration of the gun are not constant over the firing cycle. I can see how it is possible to be sensitive to either, but do not know if it really is so. Pressure, in and of itself, doesn't cause recoil. However, pressure curves will influence force, acceleration, velocity and displacement curves of the gun. Is "felt" recoil somewhere in among that group? I don't know, --- yet.

Not exactly, JL. One will experience the recoil due to the weight and muzzle velocity of the powder gas. Not a lot, but some.

Most of the fired powder would remain pressurized gas. It would be at less pressure after cooling, but you definitely would not want to be the one opening the gun.

Rocketman; I really enjoy reading knowledgable discussions such as yours. A few points I think in my limited knowledge worthy of consideration. The pressure in the shell rises to some point prior to the shot even beginning to move. As the shot starts the pressure will continue to rise until the increasing space volume excedes the increasing gas volume, where it will then peak & start to fall. A fast powder will of course have a steeper rise & peak slightly closer to the breech than will a slow one. The distance between the peaks though is very small & entire time out the bbl is on the order of .003 of a sec. Total movement of the gun even in free recoil assuming a 90:1 ratio will be less than 3/8" prior to the charge clearing the muzzle, the rest of it's movement being from the inertia imparted to it. At this point in time I am simply unconvinced the change in acceleration is sufficient enough, with any powder suitable for loading in a shotshell, for any human's perception. I could of course be prooved wrong. I think that most of these things which so many are convinced have changed the "Felt" recoil are simply the result of a change in actual MV, thus actual recoil was changed. If for instance the same load is dropped into a Fed paper as in a AA/STS lower ballistics will result. Recoil will thus be actually reduced. IF however the powder charge is increased sufficently to bring the ballistics back the same, the same recoil will return, notwithstabding the paper case.

I'm not qualified to teach anyone the physics involved here and I'm absolutely certain I don't understand all the nuances in the all the physics affecting the whole of the activities. But, to Miller's question about plugging a gun, it would simply become a pressure vessel... not unlike a common cylinder of pressurized gas. If you could somehow magically, instantly, cut a pressurized gas cylinder in exactly half (by weight), each half would accelerate in opposite directions equally. If you could somehow magically, instantly, cut only the end off, the end piece would accelerate faster than the larger piece as a function of its mass as compared to the forces (pressure/area).

So, who here believes that the basic physics involved in accelerating the gun are somehow significantly different than the physics that accelerate the payload?

BTW Miller and Jim,
I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve those that say they can feel recoil differences of loads of same velocities/payloads but different pressure curves. I'm just acknowledging there are different acceleration curves of both the gun and the payload when there are different pressure curves. What someone can feel or not feel is argumentative and could never be resolved. Acceleration curves of a mass is quantifyable.

I remember reading a test in possibly Guns & Ammo, where a double blind test was done to see if shooters could pick the "slow" burning powders from the "fast" ones, shooting shells loaded to the same velocity and shot payloads. The panel was made up of several experienced shooters and the shells were given to them unmarked. Bottom line is they could not feel or tell which shell was which. I have not heard of a similar test being done with opposite results. People can believe anything if they want to, bad enough. Even believe they've been "cured" of a disease. Does "felt recoil" exist? Sure! Adding a good recoil pad, using a gas operated auto, where parts are shucking all around in the gun, adding a shock absorbing device to the stock, etc. Things that slow down or divide the recoil into multiple smaller pulses. Using the term as a smoke screen to explain magic modifications that otherwise make no sense physically(and, of course, can not be measured) is the language of the charlatan.

This is great fun! And actually, the overall tone might be more enlightened that some of the stuff by people who get paid for it.

Okay, so there's recoil and felt recoil, and as Chuck points out, felt recoil is kind of subjective, unless it is tied into acceleration rates (powder burn rates) and that should be something that could be quantified. Anyone got a lab?

Be that as it may, I will go on record as saying that I can discern the difference between a fast and slow powder, and between a plastic and paper hull. This assumes that the loads being compared are delivering the same payload/velocity (I go by the book or label - don't have a chronograph). I cannot make this distinction from shell to shell, but I can if I shoot a box of one and then back to back a box of the other. The slow powder thing makes sense - just a slightly slower push, but over an extra millisecond or two. I might be hard pressed to tell you that, say, PB is softer than 700X, but there's no doubt that 7625 is softer than 700X.

Paper hulls? I just attribute the lesser percieved recoil to the efficiency of the hull. Paper's gotta' leak a bit. Those pinpoint burn-throughs aren't mere decoration.

I think all of us will admit that there is some difference in the curve and the peak of recoil, between slow and fast powders and between solid breech and gas operated guns and such differences change the characteristics of that curve and height of that peak. However, I feel that the difference in fast and slow powder creates a much more minute change in curve and peak than does the difference between a solid breech and a gas operated shotgun. If someone says he can feel the difference in two otherwise identical loads with different burning rates of powder, then I believe him. I don't know whether I want that guy driving my grandkids to school or training my dogs, but I believe him, sort of.

Little care with the solid breech vs gas gun. Note that the gas port is quite a ways down the barrel and, that until the wad clears the gas port, the gas gun is a solid breech. I will agree that gas guns have different "feel" to their recoil, so do long recoil guns. They have the same total recoil per shot, though, MV and ejecta weight being equal. Is a gas gun shooter less tired after firing X hundred rounds than is the O/U shooter?

Remember that in all cases the MV and ejecta weight must be identical or you mix differing total recoil with felt recoil.

Don, my point is that the gas gun shooter may be less tired and the slow/fast powder shooter may also be less tired but the slow/fast guy is going to have a hard time noticing. The "slow/fast difference can be felt" guys are wearing us down, however. I can load my shells with slow powder if I really think there is a noticeable difference in recoil, but I have tried that before and even one step in powder burning rate has caused cold weather bloopers in light loads. Not only was my attempt to use Green Dot versus Red Dot in 1175 FPS loads(one ounce as I recall) unsuccessful because of these cold weather bloopers, the load I used came right out of the Hercules/Alliant manual. I just don't think you can take a light load and try to make it even more comfortable to shoot by changing the burning rate of your powder. However, as I said, "They" are wearing us down.

Eightbore - you cracked me up with that line about driving the grandkids.

Efficiency of paper vs plastic hulls. One thing I neglected to mention is that if one cruises through the reloading manuals it quickly becomes apparent that for whatever primer/powder/wad combination you want to use, the paper hull is going to require a pinch more powder to get the same performance. There's some blowby or hull leakage going on in the paper hull.

This is about the 10,000th time this recoil discussion has droned to a polite agreement to disagree. Why don't those interested commission a blind test with properly prepared ammo certified by Tom Armbrust to be of equal velocity and ejecta but different powders,hulls etc. This is only a debatable issue if you assume the physical laws of the universe are invalid with respect to shotguns so it will be the felt recoil guys funding the test in penitence for educational deficiencies in physics, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. Of course when finished the same persons likely neglected studying statistics sufficiently to grasp the findings.

I5E,
There is a an instrumemt available from these guys http://shootingsoftware.com/recoil.htm that would likely capture the data of interest here. $500 and it's yours.

If you look at the example force/time plot on that page, you can see the force has a curve not unlike a pressure curve (see other pages with this maker on their PressureTrace). Peak force will follow along with peak pressures. Can someone feel the differences in loads of different pressure loads? Maybe if the force difference is significant enough ...I dunno and I don't have any kids or grandkids, so I don't care what school bus someone drives who says they can feel the differences. But, like Bill, it someone says they can, I believe 'em.

Now about them long forcin' cones....

And to Jerry's comment, I'm glad it has been polite. With all the not so polite stuff tossed around lately, it's a credit to all that it still is polite.

Nothing at all personal & to say it as polite as possible, but without that Chrono such a finding is essentially worthless. You simply must know the velocities are equal, before it can be assumed a difference was due to something else. You will note in the manuals velocities are pigeon-holed in nice increments. Velocity varies from shot to shot with identical loads & certainly every load listed in a manual as a 1200 fps load does not average "Exactly" 1200 fps. One simply wonders how many here can fire every shell from a box & seperate the hulls into two piles, one being those which were higher than the average, the other those which were lower. When one shows me they can do this repeatedly & consistently by standing up & firing across a chronograph screen conveniently located & monitored & recorded by a trustworthy independant "I will Believe". I will even allow you three piles, those in the middle & the extreme highs & lows.

To Miller's point, I have observed variations in velocity thru my trustworthy chronograph as much as plus or minus 30 fps with one load which I measured the powder on each shell. I haven't calculated the energy differences in a 60 fps variation, but I'll bet they are enough to change peak force measureably.

I will donate ammunition and a gun for this experiment if the "I can feel the difference" group will volunteer to do the shooting. The ammunition is my lifetime supply of WW 3 1/2" ten gauge, 1 3/4 ounce steel loads for the slow powder ammunition. For the fast powder ammunition, I will have Tom Armbrust load equivalent ammunition to the identical velocity and shot weight, but loaded with a faster powder like Red Dot. The gun will be my 6 1/4 pound J.P.Sauer ten gauge bird gun with 2 5/8" chambers. We won't bother to cut the chambers out to 3 1/2" since "recoil" is the phenomenon being compared. We will plan to conduct the experiment as soon as some T-shirt weather looms on the horizon. Don't want to mask the recoil sensation now do we? I hope these guys are ready for the big day.

8-b, I usually prefer scientific experments not involve bloodshed. I'm begining to think you may have some deep seated feelings on this subject.

If pressure has nothing to do with it,then take an oxygen cylinder at 500 psi and knock the valve off with a sledge hammer and then do the same with one at 2200 psi. One does not need a shot charge.Watch the next Shuttle. The ejecta does the launch (big time recoil).As far as time, 0 to 60 in a drag racer and the same in a VW Beetle.Feel the difference.Or, a really fast powder that produces 9000 psi in one billionth of a second and a slow one that does the same in one second.Some of the time, people do not take all into account: m1 x v1 = m2 x v2; KE= 1/2 mv(squared);F=ma.And work =force over a period of time.As far as the case, the 16" 50 caliber that I know of, does not have a case and does recoil a bit. For an experiment that I think all can do, drive your car at 10 MPH and stop at a stop sign. Then do the same, but stop by ramming a concrete wall.Same KE. Somewhat different felt reverse recoil.

I went to the trouble to reread all the posts on this thread. Only one poster says he can feel a difference between fast v slow powder. Yet from the tone of some other posters one would think that a cabal of wrong thinking nutcases were trying to overturn the laws of Newton. If someone tells me that he can feel a difference in recoil between fast and show powder I have absolutely no standing to dispute his statement. I certainly can feel a difference between fixed breach, gas guns, long recoil, short recoil or fixed breech guns with excessive head space. Consequently, why should there not be individuals who can feel a difference between fast and slow powder?
npm

Bill,
You have a great sense of humor and way of teaching.

This thread reminds me of the "torque vs. horsepower" debates I've had around a campfire with other slightly intoxicated friends. The question went something like; 'which truck would make it up a given hill fastest pulling a stock trailer full of horses (total weight of the vehicle and trailer being the same): a 300 hp small V-8 Toyota or a F350 SuperDuty 300 hp diesel? The debate invariably gets torque tossed into the evaluation by those that don't understand the difference between static force and work. It makes for a great debate with a bunch of slightly intoxicated friends.

I was just having some fun with the ‘P’ word in my earlier response. Something many folks tend to do is to equate the word pressure as in 'the ‘pressure’ generated against one’s shoulder' to be the same as recoil, which in that context it IS, at least connotatively. And therein lies the problem, because from a Newtonian physical perspective pressure most certainly is NOT a part of any recoil definition or equation.

The Gordon system plastic base wads used in B&P cartridges and the rolled paper base wads like those used in the Federal paper cases both compress some on ignition, expanding the volume of the hull's combustion chamber, presumably prior to shot movement, and thus lowering pressures from what they would have been otherwise. I look at it as perhaps deforming the shot less from abrupt ignition set-back, but I don’t know that as a fact. Muzzle velocities are what they are and so is recoil. I do know both makes in some iterations pattern well in a number of different guns & I know that the B&P ‘Star Rosa’ flyer loads recoil more than the old Federal paper Flyer loads from times long past; there is a slight dif between 36grams & 1& 1/4oz., they [B&P Star Rosa] also are going faster.

‘Soft shooting’ rounds fired from the same gun are slower for the same ejecta weight, period. There is simply no other possible physical explanation.

FWIW, 900 fps muzzle velocities will break clay targets just fine at skeet and 16yd. trap ranges, 1050 may be arguably better from the ballistician’s or ammo maker’s perspective for consistency just as they have some lower acceptable pressure limits they claim are necessary for reliable ignition. Remember, 900fps is still faster than a lot of factory loaded pistol and revolver rounds and all of the older air gun velocities. A 7/8 or 1oz load at subsonic velocities is generally a ‘soft shooter’. What’s a AA Featherlite?

Shooting a few rounds at game is not the same as day in day out target shooting and practice. Lightweight guns are generally not fun for that kind of use. The old 96 to one rule was speaking about staying on the acceptable side of ‘the threshold of pain’ for average [less than a box of cartridges] field use, IMHO. If you are going to shoot a lot of rounds, either use lighter shot payloads, lower velocity rounds, recoil attenuating devices or a heavier gun. A lot of dedicated clay target shooters do all of that. Still, perception matters, particularly in the absence of absolute data. People have emotions and opinions .. wanna help me push some of those ‘round earthers’ off the edge?

I have read of 100 fps difs in chronographed speeds of shotshells from the same box of cartridges. When I was chronographing shotgun ammunition a long time ago [Ohler w/aluminum screens for shotshell rounds] my observed velocities, inclusive of reloads, were never anything that extreme, but 75fps dif was observed more than once. 25/30fps difs are indicative of high quality ammunition, based on those same trials & observations. I mostly learned that was not the best use of my time, but I was younger then and had more, time. Can one tell which cartridges in a box are faster? How about slower then? Also, one may recall a really good article years back in Handloader showing the deteriation of velocity in reloads as hull mouth integrity decreased.

I shot the better part of a round of skeet with a 10 pound plus 10ga. using 3.5” loads of a shot weight that is no longer remembered, once. Poe’s raven came to mind as wonderfully astute, immediately. Similar rounds left an indellible imprint of me in the soggy rice fields when lying in a shallow dug flat ground blind for geese.

Chuck, do your horsepower & torque calculations at 5252 RPM and see what effect that has on the campfire group! That should call for at least another round .. of discussion;-)

Since I started this, I think I'll chime in. I shot two shells, identical loads except for the hull. I'm not sure of all the ingredients but it included Rex Powder and 1 1/8 oz lead shot. One hull was a AA, the other the venerated Federal. I shot the the AA first and the Federal immediately afterward, from the same barrel. There was a noticeable difference in recoil, the federal being much less. The gentleman who gave me the two reloads is the same person who used to shoot 100's of rounds per week and is senstive to recoil (who wouldn't be shooting that kind of volume?)

"Identical" loads will almost surely produce higher velocity from a AA than from a Federal shell. Once again, the missing information is the velocity. Very likely not identical, possibly not even close.

Sir,Poe's Raven room is eight miles from my home,and that room would be on the West Range of the University.However, if the Chuckster will come to Charlottesville,I will,with him do the proper tests at the local range.That will not settle this discussion.

Tw,
My recollection is that our old friend Bob Young was in the campfire crowd snickering in the background when this discussion occurred.

Prof Bill,
I'd be honored to be hosted in Charlottesville by you. I'm just a little apprehensive about these tests...I'm not the guinea pig am I????

TW;
A very good posting. I miught take exception to only one thing you said. I believe the 96:1 ratio was originaly worked out for the benefit of the British Driven Game shooters. In comparsion with most US hunting situations this would be considered fairly high volume shooting. I also note from Burrard, who did not give a shot:gun ration but gave recoil in fps the following statement; after much observation "It was found that a velocity ofrecoil of about 16 FPS was just about the limit the ordinary man would stand when firing many shots in a day". He also noted that some could take a heavier recoil than this while others would find it excessive. I have run a number of loads through the "Recoil Formula" & the 96:1 ratio come very close to this 16 fps recoil "If" velocities are fairly high, IE 1250+, not pip-squeak. 1oz of shot @ 1100-1150 fps is a very mild load in any gun of over 6lbs weight. This is a very pleasant load from my 16 ga Halifax (Darne) which is about 5lb 14oz. It is also noted this gun along with the R model Darnes does not have obturator discs so head space is totally dependant upon rim seat depth, as it is of course on any shotgun.

Miller, I know you're a good guy because you shoot a Darne. However, I need to point out that R model Darnes can and do have obturator discs. Some do not but the only Rs I've actually handled all had 'em. I've seen photos of Rs without them. BTW I've handled a lot of Darnes. I've never seen a Halifax with them but in the world of Darnes I'm always ready to be surprised.
npm

The Federal hull has a larger internal capacity.
This would make the load have a slower velocity and a lower PSI, than the Win. AA of the same load. Thus, it would have less recoil.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/wingshooting_recoil.htm discusses how the recoil is staged in an 1100 from info from the designer. Says the action starts to move before the load is out. The load is probably just about out of the gun. Suggests that most of the recoil 'experience' happens after the load is gone, and gun has moved that approximately 3/8" mentioned in an earlier post.

We read that changing from Cyl to Full can make 100 fps increase over a chronograph, which can add a fps or so to recoil speed.

Recall trying some Federal 3-3/4 DE 1-1/4 oz lead loads in an Xtrema original model. Everyone who tried them remarked that the gun just seemed to push instead of kick. However, we ended up with the barrel pretty high, so a follow up shot would call for getting back down into position. The Xtrema was somehow tuned to that load so that its action smoothed the recoil better even than for some lighter loads in that gun. Apparently, the lighter loads get the action up to speed later, and more of the kick has happened by then. Lighter is 3-1/2 1-1/8 oz or 3-1/4 1-1/8 oz from Sellier & Bellot - not all that light. All factory loads, and I did not chrongraph them.