"...faster burning powders require less powder for the same velocity, but you pay for that with higher pressures, and let me assure you - a higher pressure load - even at the same velocity and the same payload - recoils more than a lower pressure load."

Nick Sisley
Ruffed Grouse Society magazine
Spring 2010

Nick Sisley is full of crap! Less powder produces less recoil. Pressure is not in the equation, powder weight is. All this, assuming the same velocity and payload, they are also in the equation

One would think that this would be the case but it does not seem to uniformly so. Apparently the situation is a matter of perception, with some people perceiving "quick" recoil a bit less profoundly than the "slow" kind and others "preferring a push to a jab".

FWIW, I tend to agree with Sisley. Perhaps this might have to do with the fact that I am "generously proportioned" and may "soak up" recoil that thinner types might "get out of the way of". But, who knows?

As I understand it, there have been studies that indicate that there is little "objective" evidence that "fast" and "slow" versions of the same loads recoil significantly differently. The jury still seems to be out, however.

Slow day, huh Mike?

Please see my previous comment.

While powder is a part of the "ejecta" helps to produce recoil I doubt very much that a grain or two either way would make a significant difference. In terms of "equation", except for the above consideration of Newton's Second Law I doubt very much that enough is known about the relevant variables of perceived recoil to have valid "factors", much less an "equation"...""crapful" assertions notwithstanding.

I was of the opinion that ejecta weight and muzzle velocity are the only factors in total recoil force. Am I wrong? It is obvious to me that increasing a 500 to 600 grain ejecta by 2 grains of powder doesn't change much of anything. I don't know how much a wad weighs, but an ounce of shot weighs 437 grains.

Bill is correct that weight and velocity determine the energy which goes back against your shoulder, but that amount of energy delivered to your shoulder can be delivered as a "punch" (hot powders) or as a "Push" (slow powders). It has been my experience that for a given velocity, you need more of a slow burning powder than a fast powder. I suspect that promotional shells ("Wally World" as an example) have small amounts of very hot powders. Several implications - costs less to produce those shells, more of a "Punch", and for some people, the perception that those shells are hard hitting, and therefore "good" shells.

The British gun guru Gough Thomas ran a blind test of powders with different burn rates, all else remaining equal. I'm away from my copy of his book at the moment, but if I recall correctly, everyone involved in the test chose the slower burning powder as having greater recoil. Thomas theorized that this was due to the shorter time period one felt the recoil with the faster powders.

If you plot a recoil force/time curve, the total energy under the curve will be the same for fast vs. slow powder that produces the same velocity.

Since the peak pressures are different, acceleration of the projectile will differ if internal ballistics were measured. That's straight forward pressure acting on the base of the bullet to accelerate it. If you have pressure values and bullet base area and weight, you can calculate the force applied to the base of the bullet. If you believe Issac, there is a corresponding reaction of the gun, with equal force pushing the gun in the opposite direction.

The physics say that there will be a higher peak recoil force for a higher peak pressure, all other things being equal. Can someone feel it? I'm guessing yes, if there is enough pressure difference. There's a lot of anecdotal testimony to support that people can feel differences. The gas auto is an example of approximately the same total energy under the gun recoil force/time curve, but a lower peak force at the butt, while much of the higher force is spread over a longer time. People definitely feel a difference with autos, yet the payload travels at the same velocity, for all practical purposes.

The word "recoil" is not definitive enough to understand if someone using it is talking about total energy of the gun against the shoulder or peak force of the gun against the shoulder.

The peak felt recoil and the length of that recoil force may well be different depending on the burning rate of powders. However, I am guessing that the difference is very small. Another point to consider is that the burning rate difference in acceptable loads for a certain velocity and shot load is very narrow. A 1 ounce load at 1150 fps is a great load in all weather with Red Dot. With the next vintage Alliant powder up the rate chart, Green Dot, this load is a summer load at best. We don't have all that much choice in burning rates in the light loads we like so much. In heavier loads, we are already using very slow powders, so what is this discussion really about, real life or laboratory results?

Bill,
I think there are some extreme examples of pressure differences with same weight. The whole damascus reloading premise is based on low pressures and the flagship argument is that you can't pick a modern over the counter load that is acceptable based on velocity. So, some guys are claiming reloading can give them sub 6ksi pressures with velocities/payloads equivalent to modern loads constantly spouted/touted as max SAAMI pressures. If true, that's pretty real life.

Frankly, I don't believe for a minute that every factory load is max SAAMI, some not even close. I've measured a few and those were down a couple thousand psi. But that's still a substantial pressure difference for same/similar velocities/payloads.

You can "perceive" anything you want. The only test I remember reading was 20-30 years ago, in Guns and Ammo(I think). The results in a blind test, using fast burning powder vs slow burning powder to produce the same velocity with the same payload and shot by "experienced" shooters. They could not distinguish which shell was which. Gough Thomas has written a crapload of crap, in his lifetime, as well.

A very good friend of mine once let me read his copy of Gough Thomas. When you get back to your copy & do thorough checking you will find First; Thomas did not run the test, but reported on one done by a "Powder Manufacture" (un-named) who obviously had A DOG IN THE FIGHT ie powder to sell. ABSOLUTELY no details of the test as to how it was done, what types of powders were used etc were given. Reasons given were pure "Speculation" on Thomas' part. What was meant by "Blind Test"??? If it was absolutely "Blind" how did a group of shooters tell which loads recoiled the most??? Would they not have had to have known there was some difference as they fired them or they could not have stated which group recoiled the most. There are simply far too many unanswered questions in the Thomas report & the reasoning so absolutely ridiculus for this to even be considered as any kind of data at all. The fast powders recoiled so quickly the shooters didn't have time to feel it as much!!! If you believe that my friend please send me your mailing address, I've got a few items I'd like to ship to you COD PRONTO.
8-Bore has very aptly stated the facts concerning modern powders, the available ranges of either charge wt or burn rate for a suitable load are narrow at best. Many years ago as the change was made from black to bulk smopkeless the charge wt for equivelent loads was reduced by about half. When the change was further made from bulk to dense the charge wt was again dropped close to half again. Thus a 3 dram load of black weighed 82 grains, a 3 dram equivelent of many bulk powders as Shultz, DuPont etc weighed 42 grains while a 3 dram equivelent of many dense powders weighed around 22-24 grains. These were significant changes in actual charge wts & each change of powder type did result in lowereed recoil when given similar ballistics. There is little doubt in my mind the loadss the powder/ammo maker Co had tested which Thomas "Reported on" were loads containg a bulk powder versus a dense one & they in fact did recoil less. As Thomas gave us absolutely no details on that test though, actually I don't think he had any, my guess is worth exactly what his was, a Big Fat "0", but I am at least honest enough to state mine is nothing but a guess. My reasoning though is much more belivable than his if a little common sense is applied.

"Blind", in the test I mentioned, means the shooters were handed the shells with no idea which ones contained the fast burning powder and which ones contained the slow burning powder. They were unable to tell which was which, by the recoil they "perceived". It's also very popular to state that shells loaded with black powder give you a "push" rather than the "punch" deliver by smokeless powder, same velocity and payload. These folks obviously have never fired BP cartridges. They are just parroting the myth written by other parrots. If you don't believe me, shoot a round of skeet or trap with BP shells and follow that with a round of smokeless shells. The difference is significant. The BP shells recoil considerably more, because of the extra weight of the powder(70 to 80 grains). I have done this many, many times and am speaking from personal experience.

When a debate gets to the point that a reader can't tell what side a poster is on, it is time to give up and go back to the reloader. My questions are; "Why is powder considered an ejecta?" and "Why are we comparing black with smokeless, when powder weights of smokeless differ by only a very few grains?"

I read the G&A test. It involved about 5 shooters and, IIRC, only about 10 shots per shooter. Ie., it had zero statistical significance. The more subtle an anticipated difference, the greater is the required sample size. I like to read G&A sometimes, but........

The problem is even worse than that because experiments involving human subjects have hurdles not encountered in physics lab. One simple illustration: how would we rule out the possiblity of a bimodal distribution, ie., that some human subjects genuinely discriminate faster burn rate as "greater recoil", while other subjects genuinely draw the exact opposite conclusion.

On to formulas. The formula for recoil energy does not include terms for pressure. So, obviously, powder burn rate doesn't affect calculated recoil energy, except inasmuch as slower powders increase ejecta mass. The problem is the presumption that the perception of recoil by humans is best modeled as an energy. Does the area under the force/time curve come closest to telling 100% of the story, insofar as recoil perception is concerned? Oddly, nothing I have ever read has so much as addressed - let alone established - this. Invariably, this is just assumed.

We do not grant the energy equation exclusive validity when discussing terminal ballistics (the other "end" of recoil). We all remember reading about "killing power" as a moment (mv, Keith), as a velocity (Roy W), as a force, and even as power (KW - don't laugh, I've seen it). Maybe we've gotten smarter. Nowadays noone treats calculated energy as more than just a rough guesstimate in the realm of terminal ballistics. Maybe we should acknowledge the recoil equation as just one piece of the perceived recoil puzzle.

Sam

Everything that moves out of the shell is part of the ejecta. Powder, wad and shot. I didn't make up the formula. I brought up the black powder aspect because the amount(grains) of black needed to produce a given velocity is so much more than any typical smokeless load. 4 to 5 times as much. AND the noticeable extra recoil produced by the BP shells is undeniable, to anyone who has actually tried it. This proves to me that the amount of powder darn sure affects the amount of recoil, true recoil.

I'll definitely recheck the Thomas reference, which I think I'm remembering correctly--because I've cited it here before, and I've received the same replies. And I think I've made the same comments, which I'll repeat once again:

If a powder company is selling a variety of powders--which they all do--what "axe" are they grinding by promoting one as recoiling less than another? Like, Alliant is going to make more money getting folks to switch from GD to RD--or vice versa? Sorry, but that one does not pass the logic test.

In addition, there are some folks here who are nonbelievers in the existence of such a thing as "felt recoil", as distinguished from "measurable recoil"--even if a bunch of experienced shooters say "Hey, that load kicks more than this load", when doing the math would indicate that there should not be any difference. Felt recoil is a bit like the existence of God: it's something you have to accept on faith and the personal testimony of "believers", because it can't be proved scientifically.

As for defending Gough Thomas, I don't intend to go there. However, I will point out that he pretty much invented the MOI concept of gun handling dynamics, in which a lot of folks place great store. Jim and Miller, while I respect you both for your contributions here, can you claim any such ORIGINAL concepts you've come up with???

Well Larry perhaps I canot lay claim to any "Original Concepts". I have however been reading & studying any & all things concerning ballistics etc for the past approximately 55 years. Over those decades I have definitely learned a lot about seperating the "Wheat from the Chaff". I will have to say in all honesty that one particular article on recoil by Gough Thomas was the biggest load of "Chaff" I have encountered in all those years. I am not currently at home but if you would like I can post a section from an Alliant loading guide from a few years back where they spent an entire page of it showing "Less Felt Recoil" from a "New Powder" they had introduced which fell in burning rate "Between" Red Dot & Green Dot. You know Larry, there's just not much of a gap there to fill is there.


Quite obviously Larry you didn't research your answer any better than Thomas did his article for Alliant indeed did just exactly what you stated they would have "No Axe to Grind" by doing. They in fact promoted a new powder of theirs as producing less "Felt Recoil" than their very own old standby which had been a #1 seller for decades.

Incidently Larry if you believe Alliants "Proof" they prove Thomas Wrong, but if you beleive Thomas' "Proof" he proved Alliant wrong for their "Proofs" are diametrically opposed.

Jim;
I understood how the blind test you referred to was conducted, however I have no idea at all how the one referenced by Thomas was done as he gave no details at all on it other than the "Supposed" results, for which I have only his & Larry's word, neither to my knowledge has ever stated who actually made them, except Larry thinks Thomas did them himself, which I am certain is incorrect. I was offered the opportunity to buy his book but after reading it I just saved my money for something else.

I once believed that all there was to recoil was the physics absolutes of kinetic energy, i.e., the ejecta expelled from the barrel at a given velocity imparted a rearward velocity to a gun of a given weight. One half mass times velocity squared and you had the recoil energy. I still mostly believe that, but I really think there's got to be more to it.

I encourage all here to read the article "Something For Nothing" in the Jan. 2010 American Rifleman. It tells of a new powder used in Hornady Superformance ammo that give measurably greater velocity with less recoil. After you read the article it sounds plausible though I have not tried it, and anyway, I only have my unscientific shoulder to evaluate it.

I have burned a LOT of black powder, but very little in shotguns. For the most part, I would characterize the recoil as more of a shove than a sharp jab. A .69 cal Zoave replica I had, with 160 grs. of FFG and a 440 gr. ball would rear up and push me back a couple steps. But it never hurt a bit. I'm going to relate a story that I have been reluctant to tell when we've discussed this recoil thing in the past... partially because it is a bit long and mostly because I have no explanation for it. I'll try to keep it short.

About 5 yrs. ago, I decided to try a new bullet in my .50 cal Hawken flintlock. This was the T/C Maxi Hunter 325 gr., a pure lead hollow point. I had been using the 370 gr. Maxi Ball, and thought this new bullet might shoot a bit flatter being 45 grs. lighter, and hopefully it would expand better being a hollow point. I bought 2 boxes of 20 and hoped they would shoot near the same point of impact as the heavier Maxi Ball with the same charge of 90 gr. of GOEX FFG.

The first shot hit center and about an inch higher than the Maxi Balls. Second shot almost touched. "Cool," I thought, "one more like that and it's time to go hunting." I fired and that curved brass buttplate and thin comb smacked me like a sledgehammer. I thought maybe I screwed up and double charged or rammed down two bullets. A count of bullets and pre-measured powder vials proved I had not made a mistake, and no, I had not shot my ramrod. The shot went several inches high and wide.

I loaded another and put the bullet right in with the first two. With still no idea what happened on the hard recoiling shot, I decided to try one more. Again, it kicked like a mule and the shot went high and wide. Now, I'd been playing this flintlock game for over 25 years and never ever had anything like this happen.

I kept shooting and would get a normal recoiling shot or two that went where I expected it to go, then I'd get one that literally belted me and sent the bullet high and wide by 7 to 10 inches. The difference in recoil was huge. Instead of the normal hard shove that never bothered me, this was like shooting a 12 ga. magnum slug gun with a curved brass buttplate. It HURT, and I've never been particularly recoil sensitive. Then I noticed that the hard kickers were harder to ram down the barrel, so it became predictable that I was about to get walloped. Even so, I tried my best to avoid flinching, and with the set trigger and sandbag rests, I think I did. Still, those hard kickers flew wild on the target. I was losing daylight and decided to quit for the day, clean the gun, and try again the next day at a makeshift range near the hunting camp.

The next morning, I hunted grouse until noon and went back to the truck for lunch and to resume sighting in the flintlock for deer season which opened in 4 days. Well, it was the same as the previous day with those Maxi Hunter bullets. Roughly 1/2 of them kicked and shot normally while the other 1/2 felt like Mike Tyson was using brass knuckles on my poor shoulder. Part way into the second box of 325 gr. Maxi Hunters, I decided this was no fun any more. I shot several of the old 370 Maxi Balls I normally used to confirm that they and the gun were OK. No problem, except that my shoulder and cheek bone were already beaten to a pulp, so it was hard not to flinch.

I put the flintlock back in the truck and went back out grouse hunting for the rest of the day. I secretly hoped I would not flush any birds because I did not wish to fire my light 16 ga. DS Lefever double. (now we're on topic)

Now I'll concede that firing a 370 gr. conical with 90 gr. of FFG may give more than a little shove, but it isn't at all bad. So explain to me how the same 90 gr. charge with a 45 gr. lighter bullet, both pure lead, could kick dramatically more. But only sometimes.

Recalling that the hard kicking shots seemed harder to ram down the bore, I miked the remaining 10 or 12 Maxi Hunters. As I recall, some were around .495" like the Maxi Balls, and some ran as much as .003"-.004" larger. But still, were talking pure lead projectiles here so I would not think that could account for the vast difference in recoil. Same lube. Same loading technique that never gave me a problem over decades and thousands of shots. Same powder charge from the same can of FFG Goex. So how in hell do I account for the huge difference in recoil? If I had to quantify it, I would have to say the heavy kicks were at least twice as hard as the normal kicks. It was enough that I was concerned I might split the stock. Those of you who are rolling your eyes are justified. I have no explanation.

That was a really enlightening anecdote.

If you have access to a chrono I would suggest firing those loads across it. Those few thousandths difference must have been giving you a better seal, resulting in a higher velocity, which could also account for the different point of impact.
PS; I will go back & dig out my Jan AR & read that article. It is well noted though the AR is sorta like the "Ol Gray Mare, She Ain't What She Useter Be" (Todays AR has a lot less Wheat but a lot more Chaff).
Just this past issue in "I Have This Old Gun" I read that the L C Smith was the ""ONLY"" sidelock hammerless ever built in America. I e-mailed them & told them just off the top of my head without further research I could give them 3 more; Baker, A J Aubry & Crescent.
Will be interesting to see if they actually ""Confirmed"" those lesened recoil claims or just ""Repeated"" them.

Miller, I'm still without the Thomas book, but I believe you are correct in stating that Thomas did not actually conduct the tests himself. My error for saying he "ran" them. Simply reported on them in his book.

As to your Alliant quote . . . well, if you want to prove my point, please post the information! Once more . . . as you pointed out, Alliant was comparing the "new" powder to THEIR OWN long-time best seller. That's a bit like Ford saying "The Edsel is a better car than a Ford, so why not buy one?" Competing with THEIR OWN brand, which does not seem to gain them much in terms of economic advantage. Now if Ford touts the Edsel over the Pontiac and the Desoto, then you have a different story: competing companies. So unless Alliant is comparing to something offered by a competitor, like Hodgdon, I fail to see they have much of an axe to grind--at least not in terms of economic benefit--by getting shooters to switch from, say, Green Dot or Red Dot to the new, improved Purple Dot.

As for studying ballistics, I believe that Thomas--whose training was as an engineer--also did that for a very long time. The simple answer is that, when "proof" is not available in the form of mathematical formulae etc, some experts reach one conclusion; others, another. Some scientists believe in God; others don't.

"I encourage all here to read the article "Something For Nothing" in the Jan. 2010 American Rifleman. It tells of a new powder used in Hornady Superformance ammo that give measurably greater velocity with less recoil. After you read the article it sounds plausible though I have not tried it, and anyway, I only have my unscientific shoulder to evaluate it."


The only thing that proves to me, is that The American Rifleman has gone from a publication that once could be counted on to tell the truth, to just another rag more interested in promoting their sponsors, than the truth. There is no "something for nothing" and no free lunch. There is no magic powder. Every powder, every wad, every choke tube, every BS barrel modification claims to reduce recoil, shoot better(?) patterns, produce higher velocity, kill deader, burn cleaner and everything else that sounds good.

What you didn't do, Keith, is to chronograph those loads. And you also didn't compare those BP loads with much lighter loads of smokeless that produced the same velocity. My point being the loads containing much less weight of powder WILL recoil less.

i had some of Thomas' books and got rid of them because there was nothing in them i needed long term but my recollection parallels millers in that thomas didn't test anything, he reported something done by someone else.

as to the weight of the powder in the ejecta, in shotgun shells smokeless powder is of utterly no consequence. 30 grains of powder versus 437.5 grains of shot at least, that's not even 1%. you can calculate the effect but it would take something more precise than a human shoulder to ever detect so the difference in weights between fast and slow powders isn't even worth bringing up.

and finally, people need to learn the difference between energy and force. everything mentioned so far relates to kinetic energy which is a function of mass and velocity. unfortunately your shoulder doesn't feel energy; it feels force. force is a function of mass x acceleration. the faster you accelerate a shot charge down the bore the more force is generated.

you can shove 1oz of shot out a muzzle at 1100fps that was accelerated slowly up the bore and another oz at same velocity that was accelerated rapidly and you'll get the same kinetic energy of recoil but the FORCE of the latter will be greater. that's an immutable law of physics in the universe we live in and any test that shows results contrary are skewed, biased, jsut flat done wrong or misrepresented to prove a point.

annecdotally, i had a flat each of B&P anagrina's and high pheasants. same pressure, IIRC same velocity, and the high pheasants were a heavier payload. the anagrinas are loaded with lighter charge of faster burning powder and were vicious by comparison, so much so i quit shooting them in my A&N SLE because of concerns over what the recoil was doing to the skinny wrist on the gun. by all rights of gough thomas and the kinetic energy math, the field loads should have kicked harder. they didn't.

as an aside, anybody know where i can find reloading data on B&P 2.5" shells? i've got 500 of them i can't do anything with.

roger

fnb25 - better change the oil in your caclulator. 30 grains are 6.8% of 437, not "less than 1%"

I'm not physicist, so I guess it is not too strange that I am finding it hard to swallow the concept of burned powder as ejecta. I also find it a bit hard to follow the "Mah shayls are jest about thu same speed, I think, but the redd wuns hit me lak a hammer. Must be thu fast powdur."

The only thing, to my way of thinking, that can be considered "ejecta" are those components being forced out by the expansion of the burning propellant, e.g., the wads and shot. The propellant, regardless of what state it is in, unburned, burning or burned, is NOT being forced out but is or was in the process of propelling the ejecta.

Bill,
Your post about accepting burned powder as "ejecta" (as related to Uncle Issac's law: for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction) brings to mind the solid boosters on the Space Shuttle (or a jet engine burning kerosene). A bit of rubber with some mag and alum in it, burning makes some heat and pressure and has only one exit path thru nozzle at high velocity. It pushes pretty hard in the opposite direction.

I have no argument that the total weight of the "ejecta" and the velocity will get you to a total energy of opposite force (I think the word "recoil" is ambiguous in this discussion). What it won't do is give you peak force in the opposite direction. That requires knowing the peak force against the base of the projectile, which in turn requires knowing the area of the base of the projectile and the peak pressure.

What someone can feel can be debated until the world runs out of beer.

Your powder is changed by chemical action from a solid to a gas. The gas leaves the barrel at high speed, thus it's "ejecta" as much as the shot and wad. Guess what? The laws of chemistry tell us that the mass of that ejecta is exactly the same mass as the original mass of the powder.

If you doubt this effect, stop by the cape next time they launch a rocket. This is quite a convincing demonstration.

Fire a 300 Weatherby in a rifle with a removeable muzzle brake, with the brake on and with the brake off. In cartridges of that class the gas ejecta is 1/3 of the total ejecta and the brake redirects a significant portion of the gas sideways. The reduction in recoil is dramatic.

Three basic tenets of classical physics are the conservation of energy, the conservation of mass and the conservation of momentum. All of those principles play into the calculation of recoil energy.

The sum total of all the energy in the universe, kinetic and potential (stored) is constant. Energy can be converted from one form to another; in this case potential chemical energy becomes kinetic energy via heat and light (solid, liquid and gas) but it never ceases to exist.

Likewise, mass can neither be created nor detroyed.
In this case, the 20 or so grains of solid propellant (of a certain chemical composition including some liquid moisture) is converted to the products of combustion...a small amount of solids and liquids , but mostly gas. The sum of the masses of all those products is exactly the same as the mass of the powder charge, and most of it is ejected. So, yes, though a small contributor to the total, the mass of the solid powder was converted to a simialr mass of (mostly) gas and was ejected.

Dam16, thank you for the support. Shotgunjones seems to contradict his theory when he indicates that the force of the gas is the determining factor, not the initial weight of the powder. 30 grains of Unique produces more gas than 30 grains of sand. Weight of propellant seems to be out of the equation.

the delta not the total, comparing fast to slow powders. 20 grains of fast powder versus 30 of slow for e.g. the difference is 10 grains out of 437.5. that's 2.2%. a charge 97.8% of another squared in the equation is only a 4.45% reduction in calculated energy. in a 20ftlb recoil 12 ga load that's .87ftlbs. anybody that can feel .87ftlbs of recoil is spending way too much time thinking about it. even at that the weight of the total powder charge compared to the shot payload is still not of much consequence.

if anyone's interested enough to read the best thing ever written on recoil, he should get the a-squared manual and read that chapter. the different aspects of it are explained more thoroughly and - importantly - more correctly there than the over-simplified articles i've read anywhere else. i no longer have it but my recollection is one example used was a comparison of a 378 weatherby and a load in some big sharps round. both had the same kinetic energy of recoil. but due to ACCELERATION (back to force again here, not KE) the weatherby was far worse in FELT recoil because it occurred so much more rapidly.

Well Eightbore, I don't feel enlightened. Mystified might be a better term. Miller, I don't have a chronograph and even if I did, I'm not sure I'd want to replicate the beating I took. I suppose I could use a sissy bag between my shoulder and the butt.

Still, the Maxi Balls I had been using showed good contact and full engraving by the lands whenever I pulled a bullet with my ball puller. I did this often when I emptied my gun after a day of hunting in the rain or snow. And pure lead should have obturated upon ignition and gave me a perfect seal anyway. Also, I had in the past used a wad of hornets nest material under my bullets or balls because that was supposed to give a better seal and prevent blown patches.

Had I had an imperfect seal with the Maxi Balls, I would have expected fliers and poor groups. Instead, this gun and load typically would put five shots into amazingly small groups, often one ragged hole at 75 yds. from the bench, and this with open sights. It was the tighter fitting projectiles that flew high and wide, and the dispersion was like minute of basketball.

I don't really recall the gun sounding differently when firing the loads that hammered me. But you're right Miller; logically, it would take a very large increase in velocity to get the amount of recoil increase that I experienced. I can't imagine that a bit tighter seal with pure lead would give me several hundred fps greater velocity though. That load normally should have ran around 1650 fps. I have shot very warm 350 gr. loads at around 2100 fps from a .45-70 Siamese Mauser that were not nearly so uncomfortable. Of course, the Siamese Mauser did not have a thin comb and narrow curved brass buttplate, so this is somewhat subjective.

I have analyzed this experience in my mind a thousand times since it happened and have no rational explanation. I feel kinda like those guys who claim they were abducted by space aliens and forced to sleep with an alien chick to propagate their species. You kind of wish you just kept the story to yourself because no one's going to believe you anyway. No, I did NOT say I have green kids.

Your 30 grains of 'whatever' was ejected at 1200 FPS, the total kenetic energy of which is calculated by 1/2 MV2. There is an equal and opposite force. How the velocity was obtained is not relevant.

Even an airgun has propellant ejecta, since a large mass of air exits the muzzle. Nothing changed state in that case, but the expanding air has mass just like powder gasses.

Consider this: Newton's law of physics; equal and opposite reaction; ejecta goes out the end of a 30-inch (2.5-foot) barrel @ 1,100 fps means it accelerated from zero at a rate to achieve 1,100 fps muzzle velocity at some rate of acceleration--but of necessity averaging 550 fps in the barrel.

Query: Does rate of burn really matter?

Assuming 1,100 fps at point of exit, 1,100 fps versus 2.5-foot barrel length means that the ejecta is going the barrel length to point of exit in 1/220th of a second (twice the 1/440th of a second of the ejecta going at 1,100 fps x 2.5 feet after exit at full speed). The average person's reaction time is about 3/10ths of a second or 66/220ths of a second. The travel time of the ejecta is about 66 times faster than the average person's mind works.

Methinks that this all can be reduced down to a simple equation:

The value of BBS-BS is directly proportional the amount of T (time) times N (number of posters) who would otherwise debate the number of angles who could dance on a double-gun hinge pin. But there is some precedent for this endless spawning of red herrings:

Going back to the advent of wood-nitro powders in the 1870s and 1880s, where shooters could directly compare the old black powder of the day to the new "smokeless" powders, there was a consensus that the wood powders had less perceived recoil and were quieter. This is mulched-over in my Parker Guns: Shooting Flying... (Collector Books 2008) @ Ch. 16 "Villainous Saltpeter" where the subject is documented by period correct anecdotes published in the sporting press of the 19th Century:

November 1876, Ira Paine wrote to The American Sportsman, citing his use of Dittmar's Wood Powder: "I use Dittmar's for my exhibition shooting on the stage on account of its lack of noise and smoke..."

May 1875 in Forest & Stream a subscriber wrote: "The results of our experiments will show how Dittmar's wood powder really worked.... With four drams of black powder, the recoil was unpleasant; but with the same load of wood powder the recoil was very light..."

In other words, the issue of felt recoil with differing burning-rate loads is as old as the inception of powders that differed from black. In February I attended a Cowboy Action shoot in Texas and the "whump" of black powder was easily distinguished from the "crack" of modern loads, given the differing nature of combustion; black powder simply burns charcoal releasing the oxygen in the saltpeter while being accelerated and bound together by sulfur; Wood powders and modern chemical substitutes have a chemical reaction beyond simple burning. Consequently, burn rates of modern powders are a function of, and controlled by chemistry, whereas black powder-burn rate is controlled by quality and relative measures of the ingredients. But does all this really matter?

My point being is that felt recoil may be subjective in the shoulder of the beholder. But there can be so many other variables:

Quoting the original post: "...a higher pressure load, even at the same velocity and same payload, recoils more than a lower pressure load.

Isn't the real question: How do you achieve the same velocity of an equal payload with less pressure (pressure being the measure of total energy exerted); it takes energy (pressure) to move the ejecta the distance from breech to muzzle at a given exit fps speed (where the ejecta at once stops accelerating and begins slowing down).

Query: Doesn't the concept of fast burn/slow burn at the same exit velocity (1,100 fps) seem to defy the laws of physics?

In the final analysis, the equal and opposite reaction (recoil of an 8-pound gun)is a function of the 1 1/4-ounce ejecta weight accelerated from zero to 1,100 fps in 1/220th of a second--and thus magnified in an instant--1/220th of a second--or about 66 times faster than an average person can react to Newton's equal and opposite law of physics.

Still confused? Then let me posit the next Red Herring: How many angles can dance on a hinge pin? EDM

Would those be acute angles, obtuse angles,right angles, or spherical?

just curious if it makes a difference.

I am puzzled about all the recoil flap. This seems a simple case of acceleration rates. Faster powders have a steeper pressure curve and accelerate the charge at a higher rate. That means the gun accelerates at a higher rate too. Thump instead of relative push. So where is the mystery?
I only have to keep two powders on hand - RedDot and Unique. RedDot for everything but pigeon loads and Unique for the flyers. Thump is not an issue for me.

Works for me but YMMV of course

WtS
PS - Shotgunners are such a bunch of wimps. If they really knew anything about gunfit then recoil would be a non-issue. But OOOOH NOOOOOOO. Where is my hydraulic buffered air shock sliding comb that I would die without?

Keith, you have to be quicker on the sarcasm monitor. I didn't understand a word I read on the post in question. I think EDM has come upon something. PSI is only breech pressure. The total pressure exerted breech to muzzle, assuming identical MV and projectile mass, would be identical.

Bill: Whatever was in the barrel before you pulled the trigger and is not there about 1/220th of a second after you pulled the trigger is ejecta. Look at the illustration on p.121 of Parker Guns: Shooting Flying and notice the differing volumes of black powder, bulk wood powder, and dense nitro powder. To the extent that these powders vaporize and leave the barrel they are ejecta as much as the wads and shot, but in proportion to relative powder weight not volume. EDM

I think the bo-whoop trohpy should include a test...entry fee includes firing 5 each of unmarked shells (tested with identical velocity of course, but with markedly different burn-rate powders) and rating for recoil as part of the experiement to prove once and for all who's right.

What?! And spoil all this fun?!

They're allowing 1 & 1/4 ounce loads this year. If I win it with a higher pressure 1 ounce load, will Anna Nicole claim domestic abuse?

Good post. But human reaction time is not a measure of neurophysiological capacity to discriminate rates of acceleration. If I send identical letters to England - one by steamship, one by supersonic transport - both will be able to convey my meaning. The contents of the letter sent by steamship will not be degraded by virtue of having spent an extra week or so aboard ship.

Of course, communication can be degraded if the letterwriter and/or recipient are dunces.

Sam

Y'all need to try one of them Aubrey guns!

FROM THE 1908 SEARS CATALOG: "Shooting qualities- As before explained, the shooting qualities of these guns are unequaled for long distance killing, long range shooting, for penetration, pattern or target. Both barrels are full choke bore, so firmly constructed that unlike other guns, there is no recoil or kicking. That which in other guns goes into recoil in the A J Aubrey gun goes to give greater force to the shot."

As lawyers like to say, the fact is: The ejecta all goes out the barrel in such a short time, different rates of acceleration are not detectable by the shooter. Therefore, the burning rate of the powder used is not a factor, only the weight of the powder charge. (maybe that's why burning rate of powder is not in the recoil formulas, nor is pressure, ya think?)

As always, nothing ever changes, neither minds nor more importantly, physics.
Good post, EDM.
Always fun

something just ain't sinking in here. different rates of acceleration may not be detectable to the shooter. but the GREATER FORCE GENERATED BY THE GREATER RATE OF ACCELERATION IS!

go back to physics 101.

You are referring to something like a "peak force", right? Two different energy curves produced by the two powders, each with the same total energy...yet the one that acts on the ejecta for a shorter duration requires a higher peak force in order to attain the same velocity?

YES! thanks heavens somebody gets it. if something is accelerated 20% faster it will generate 20% more force. if the terminal velocity is the same as whatever you're comparing it to, the kinetic energy will be the same and even the momentum will be the same. but the FORCE will be 20% greater. how fast it occurs hasn't got a bloody thing to do with whether or not someone can feel it.

forget physics 101. 3rd grade math will do. all anybody has to be able to do is multiply 2 numbers together and tell that the result is a larger number than the comparison.

OK, I agree with all of the peak pressure causes more felt recoil business. However, it doesn't apply to me because I use the slowest burning powder that will perform well in the weather in which I plan to use it. Don't we all?

Seems like I've been reading Nick Sisley since I was in my teens, and got to go shooting with him to Argentina a few years ago.
Stand-up guy, I'd believe him.
I always felt AA'a had too much recoil.

Compared to what? Remingtons? Maybe it's the letters, two A's might just naturally produce more recoil than 1 R, or maybe an STS. Of course, that's only by the more perceptive, among us.

How do you assume different accelerations? Different peak pressures aren't an assurance of that.

The discussion is predicated on identical kinetic energies...same mass, same terminal (muzzle) velocity, say 1200 fps. For one mass to accelerate 20% faster than the other, yet exit at the same 1200 fps suggests one load either 1)reaches 1200 fps somewhat sooner in the barrel, then remains essentially constant until exit or 2) the two loads reach different max velocities (>1200 fps) at different points within the barrel then slow down to exit coincidentally at the same 1200 fps. That's an interesting concept that actually could explain one recoiling "harder" than the other....if the two 1 ounce loads accelerated to different velocities within the barrel.

But.....that being the case, a simple ballistic pendulum that responded to the peak momentum and not necessarily the muzzle velocity would demonstrate that, i.e., 2 loads with same measured muzzle velocity would move the gun by different amounts, thus having demonstrably different free recoil energies.

Mike is illustrating exactly what happens in a barrel when an identical payload is propelled up a barrel in front of two powder charges of two different burning rates. One shell reaches 1200 at the 16 inch mark, the other reaches 1200 at the 20 inch mark. At either mark, the powder is exhausted. Yup, I guess the 16 inch shell will give us more felt recoil. However, not all of us will feel it, and if the powder were any slower in the 20 inch example, it wouldn't work as well in winter. As I said in an earlier post, we will use a powder as slow as it can be and still work in cold weather. What could be simpler?

Sorry. Next time, I'll try using English.

Bill,
It's more force, not "more felt recoil".

"More force" results in "more felt recoil". Being on the receiving end of the additional force generated by the faster burning powder I'm going with "more felt recoil".

This could go on forever, since some people are talking about what a person feels and others are talking about quantifyable characteristics. The former being subjective and latter objective.

Me? I've never really been bothered by recoil on any load I've used for game or target. So, all this is academic to me.

Back at home, and found the reference to powder burn rate and recoil in Thomas' book. From the chapter entitled "Searchlight on Recoil" in "Gough Thomas' Gun Book":

"On the other hand, we have I.M.I.'s prolonged researches which I have described in "Shotguns and Cartridges", in the course of which it was found that a team of shooters, firing many thousands of cartridges loaded to give the same velocity to the same shot charge, and therefore developing the same DYNAMIC recoil, unanimously voted that the variety giving the least SENSIBLE recoil were those that, unknown to them, had been loaded with the fastest-burning powder." (Emphasis the author's.)

Thomas gives a fairly long "personal explanation"--his own theory as to why this is. In a nutshell, he feels that with fast-burning powders, "the pressure on the shoulder is becoming too fleeting for the nervous system fully to record it."

Interestingly enough, at least based on the Alliant catalog I have, it would appear that Alliant Powder pretty much agrees with Thomas. They list their powders by burn rate, from fastest to slowest. Bullseye and Red Dot are #1 and 2, respectively. #3 is American Select, #4 is Green Dot. Alliant refers to the "less felt recoil" with American Select, and "lower felt recoil" with Green Dot. Since the only really commonly-used shotgun powder that's faster is Red Dot, and since several Alliant products are slower (Unique, Herco, Blue Dot), and since they don't tout ANY of those slower powders for recoil reduction, they seem to be telling us that relatively fast-burning powders are the ones to go to, if you're looking for less recoil.

FWIW, When I first got into shooting these old, wonderful doubles, I used the highly recommended 7625 powder, because of the lower pressures available. However, I found that I could get similar low pressures with Nitro 100, one of the fastes buring powders available. The difference being: about 15 grains of Nitro 100 produced the same velocity as 24-25 grains of 7625. I was convinced I could feel more recoil with the 7625 loads. As a result of this, I've been using Nitro 100 ever since. No problems with cold weather. it doesn't get extremely cold in Southern Utah and I don't go shooting, if it does. The obvious reason, to me, for Thomas's "personal explanation" is once again, the different weights of powder charges involved. Faster burning powder requiring lighter charges. That's why it's in the recoil formulas.
Good post, Larry

In a one ounce load, the difference in the weight of the powder charge between those two loads is a tad under two percent, and you can feel the difference? I don't think it's the weight, others' opinions may vary.

Jim,
I can't believe a tough old bird like you could be bothered with the difference in recoil of those two loads. But I would chose the faster powder as well. Just for cleaner burning and more consistant pressures at low temps. My damascus load uses Hogden Clays. Clays is slower than Nitro 100 but still in the same range. My loads are consistant in velocity and report, but I don't know if they have consistant recoil, cause I don't think about it much.

Your math is as faulty as your logic. The difference between 15 grains and 25 grains is 40%.
And to my good friend, Chuck: I'm just an old bird, not a tough one. I'm very sensitive to recoil. I'm also allergic to bull-sh.. and theories that try to escape the physics involved. I know quite well the difference between true recoil and "felt" recoil. Some obvious examples being: an 8 lb. gas auto will deliver less felt recoil than an 8 lb. double, because the cycling of the moving parts spreads out the total true recoil. Same is true with two identical doubles, one with a good recoil pad, the other with a hard buttplate. The true recoil amount is the same, but the felt recoil will be less for the gun with the good pad, because the total recoil is spread out by the time it takes for the pad to compress against the shoulder. There are others but many situations explained illogicaly as "felt" recoil are pure bullsh.., used to sell a product or some barrel jockey's services that can not be proven or based on logic or physics. Also used to justify faulty opinions that have no basis in logic, or actual head to head testing.

Jim, back to math class, as well as physics class. We are talking the difference in the total ejecta weight. I will stick with my "under two percent" figure. You might want to delete the DUH! This is a discussion, not a fistfight.

Maybe what Eightbore meant was that the difference in total payload, due to a 10-grain increase in the powder, is 2%....because it is.

Assuming 438 grains of shot and 15 grains of powder, an additional 10 grains of powder increases the total mass by 2.2%.

I, too, questioned how, all else remaining constant, 25 grains of powder could make recoil more noticeable than 15 grains of powder. Expecting to find an increase in free recoil energy of only about 2%, I plugged the numbers into 2 online recoil calculators and got the same result....a 14% increase! how could this be? adding 2% more mass gave a 14% increase?

So then I kept the powder charge constant at 15 grains and upped the shot by 10 grains to arrive at the same total 2% mass increase....and the calclators showed a 4.2% increase in FRE. That's more like it. But why would 10 grains of powder count more than triple the 10 grains of lead?

Turns out the answer has to due with the ejecting powder gases that some doubt are real.
If you dig into the formulas used by people who programmed the recoil calculators, you'll find that powder charge is not trivial. I guess sometimes it really is rocket science.

Three elements enter in producing recoil. The first is the reaction to the acceleration of the bullet as it moves down the barrel until it leaves the barrel at it’s maximum velocity = muzzle velocity. The second element is the reaction to the acceleration of the expanding gas generated by the burning powder. The third element is the reaction of muzzle blast when the bullet leaves the barrel and the escaping gas gives a reactive push to the muzzle. As pointed out earlier, anybody who's ever used a muzzle brake knows this is real and significant....a .300 Win Mag is made to feel like a .243 with no loss of bullet velocity. As a general rule of thumb, the escaping gas velocity is about one and a half times the bullet velocity. A value of 4,000 is sufficiently accurate for practical purposes with small arms having muzzle velocities between 1,000 and 4,200 fps.

In general terms, this means that the Momentum of the gun (recoil) = momentum of the shot + momentum of the powder gases.
For a 1 ounce load at 1200 fps, the shot contributes 438 x 1200 and the powder 15 x 4,000 to the total FRE. You can see that adding 10 grains of shot isn't nearly as significant as adding 10 grains more powder, due to the big difference in velocity.

To test my understanding, I used a muzzle velocity of 4,000 fps so the projectile and gases had the same velocity. When I did that, increasing the shot or the powder by the same amount gave the same recoil increase.

Welcome to academia! A few of us shoot from the hip and a few of us are duds, but no live ammo was fired in the course of this discussion.

While you are apparently assumin' that your 2% increase in total ejecta weight will only increase the recoil by 2%, that is also wrong! Go here: http://www.10xshooters.com/calculators/Shotgun_Recoil_Calculator.htm and plug in some real figures. Try 15 for powder weight, 40 grains for wad weight, 382.8 grains of shot(7/8 oz.), gun weight of 8 lbs. and 1150 fps for velocity. That calculates to 10.56 ft. lbs of recoil energy. Then change only the powder weight to 25 and the recoil energy goes up to 11.4 ft. lbs. That's an increase in true recoil of 9%, not 2%. DUH removed for courtesy, not because you were correct. It surely is not a fistfight. On that, we agree.
I have a very good article about recoil, by Ed Matunas, that appeared in Sporting Clays magazine, in 2001. Ed Matunas is a real ballistician, not just another "gun" writer filling up monthly columns with thinly disguised factory release letters, and calling them personal reviews. It's too long to clutter up this forum with, but I'd be happy to email it to anyone interested enough to email me directly. My e-address is in my profile.
Thank you,

That's interesting Mike.

So that's the assumption the calculator programs use. I wonder if it's a valid one, and if so what experimental evidence it was based on. The dymanics seem problematical.

Upon shot charge exit, the barrel pressure of a shotgun approximates 500 PSI. Being pressure, it is of course acting in all directions until being released. After the wad clears the muzzle, at which time the leading edge of the pressure wave HAS to be moving at the exact same speed as the wad, the velocity of the expanding gas apparently is assumed to increase to 4,000 FPS as the pressure bleeds to zero from about 500 PSI.

I'm reminded of the stop action photos of the shot mass and wads immediatley after muzzle exit. Do we see any effects from the pressure wave acting on the payload after muzzle exit? I'd expect some scattering or at least random wad interference as the gasses out run the payload in the few inches ahead of the muzzle.

If anyone has any photos of such effects, or information on the actual dynamics of muzzle exit and pressure equalization I'd be interested in reading the info and seeing the pictures.

Interesting stuff, thanks for the discussion.

What I want to know is if Mike and Jim's recoil calculators give the same results. If not, then of course I want to see everyone fight--sorry "discuss" which one is correct.

You make a great straightman, McT.

Actually, I've already compared them and 1)no, they don't agree because 2)I suspect the one I've used (from 2 sources) is geared to rifles, but don't say so. The one Legg linked to has separate calculators for shotguns and rifles. Those two give different answers for the same values.

I suspect the reason the shotgun calculator gives a smaller answer is that it assumes an escaping gas velocity of ~2,000 fps as opposed to ~4,000 fps for a rifle (4-5x the peak pressure).

But, directionally, they are the same, though the magnitude is different. Whereas the rifle calculators suggest ~14% FRE increase with 10 grains more powder, the shotgun calculator suggests ~9%....still greater than the 4% increase you'd see from 10 grains more lead.

Jim and Mike have emphasized an important point. I used to think the same thing: how can a grain or two difference in powder make much difference in recoil, assuming velocity and payload are constant? It's because the powder carries more "weight" in the formula.

The felt recoil thing is tricky, to say the least. The late Bob Brister--another guy I think most of us would say was more than just a "gun writer" too--believed that backboring and lengthening forcing cones reduced recoil. He also refers to ear protection as being one of the most effective ways to reduce felt recoil--or, perhaps in this case, we ought to call it "perceived recoil". The louder it sounds, the harder you expect it to kick. We probably don't want to sidetrack into a discussion of those points, but they--and a number of other factors, like gun fit--impact "perceived recoil".

Just read all recent posts. Yes, as Mike suggests, I meant that the total payload would only differ by 2% and I defy anyone to tell the difference in anything, recoil or otherwise, with a 2% change in total ejecta.

I think there is something in the equation that assumes that the increase in powder is an increase of the same type of powder that was in the baseline load. Are you guys implying that the "equation" knows whether the added percentage of powder is actually ten more grains of powder or ten grains of filler? Some powder has a big percentage of coating to slow the burn rate, and some powder probably has filler in the mix that is not even attached to the powder grains in the form of a coating. How does the "equation" know? If you added ten grains of sand to your 15 grains of powder, would it increase the recoil as much as your equation suggests? I don't think I am the only reader who is doubting the the correctless of the equation.

No, just as 10 grains more lead shot has less effect. The key is the assumption that X grains of powder, any powder, is converted to X grains of gas. And that gas, unlike the lead shot or sand, accelerates to 2-3 times the speed of the shot the instant the blockage (projectile) clears the muzzle. That sudden back thrust of gas adds more to the recoil than an equal mass of sand would. A muzzle brake redirects that gas thrust to pull the gun off your shoulder, thus reducing recoil.....as I understand it.

If it was the same "type" of powder, whatever that means, it would give more velocity.

I've seen the same difference that Mike mentioned between recoil formulas for rifles and formulas for shotgun. They do not come up with the same answers. I don't remember shy, but that's probably why they have two different formulas.

Well, that's enough for me... I'm going to have all my barrels ported.

The one factor the formula does not address is the burn rate of the powder. Which takes us back to the example referred to by Thomas, in which supposedly the only difference in loads was a faster-burning vs a slower-burning powder. All else being equal, including total weight of ejecta and velocity, does one produce more "felt recoil" than the other? This is probably where we need another of those "finding out for myself" tests. Except in this case, because we're talking about "felt recoil", we're pretty much stuck with relying on the opinion of the individuals selected as test shooters. Thus subjective, and always open to questioning and debate.

A gun could be mounted in a rest with the butt against a stationary stop with a sensor between the butt and the stop to measure and record the force of recoil between different loads.

Mike, what would be the difference between ten grains of sand and ten grains of inert coating on the grains of a slow burning powder? I think we all know that not every grain of weight in gunpowder is gas producing, or at least I thought that everyone knew that. How does the equation know the difference between actual gunpowder and inert filler or coating? Jim, no, I'm not neccesarily hardheaded, I just don't believe it is a legitimate equation when used to compute recoil. Jim Legg, I guess I am offending your idea of "discussion", so I will write less and read more.

Murphy: The computer program doesn't care if the powder burns 100% or not. The key is that 100% of the weight of the original powder charge is ejected from the bore at whatever velocity the equation uses.

The 'mass' of the ejected material is what counts along with the velocity. As long as the stuff is flying out the bore at gas speed, it matters not what the stuff is or how it got accelerated.

The equation is valid with black powder also, and we know that much of black powder generated 'gasses' are actually solids. These particles are carried at gas velocity, at least until the pressure is relieved and they hit still air.

In a kenetic energy calculation the velocity is given a squared value, thus the dramatic increase in energy when the speed goes up.

Dean,
Send me all your Parkers and I'll port them for you. I've ported some trap guns for customers when I was gunsmithing. I may have to think about how to do it with your Parkers. That may take quite a while. I'll have to shoot the guns to get the actual "felt recoil" baseline, probably over a long period of time and variety of shooting situations. This could take a bit of time as well.

More to this thread's topic. The device at this web link is shows a force/time curve that cuts thru most of the questions, positions, suppositions, and head scratching. Recoil is broken down into to characteristics, force and time. Be-all-end-all? Nah. But it's a lot better'n that test I saw a couple decades ago in a magazine where they measured how far the gun moved with some weight attached to it. That simply measured energy under the time/force curve...total energy.
http://www.shootingsoftware.com/recoil.htm

This is always an interesting topic. But it sometimes gets unruly(usually by me) and seldom changes anyone's mind.
Here are my final comments on recoil. If you want to reduce recoil, start with the basics that cause it(true recoil). (1)Reduce the shot payload. Dropping from 1-1/8 oz. to 1 oz., better yet, to 7/8 oz. will reduce recoil dramatically. The birds will never know the difference but your shoulder sure will. (2) reduce the velocity by using less powder. 1150 fps will break clay targets and kill birds just as dead as 1300 fps. There is no magic powder. If one powder produced less recoil while giving the same velocity, that would have been the only powder anyone on the market, for 100 years. (3)Increase the weight of the gun. (4) Install a good recoil pad(for reduced felt recoil).

Back in the early years of back-boring and forcing cone lengthening, when the truth was important to the American Rifleman, a reader asked if these (then) new modifications could reduce recoil. The AR answered that "nothing you can do to the inside of the barrel CAN reduce recoil, unless it also reduces velocity". That was true then and it is true now. The only thing that has changed is that now the AR is more concerned with pleasing sponsors and less concerned with printing the truth, for its readers.
Thanks to all,

Jim, you left out one thing. Stock design makes a huge difference in felt recoil.

How true; How appropriate; how brilliant.

I have ben away from home the past week & while I did get a little computer time it was limited, so just had about 6 pages of this thread to catch up.

Larry you best go back & study that Alliant manual "MUCH, MUCH More Carefully". You will find they were in fact not comparing American Select with such powders as Unique, Herco, Blue Dot etc at all but in fact with to quote them "A Typical ""FAST" Powder". They used 2 entire pages in this old guide I have (copyright 1996) showing "Typical" pressure curves of two powders & stating the lessened "Felt" recoil from American Select was due to its ""Slower"" burn than a typical Fast Burn powder. This was not even dealing with hunting, magnum etc loads which push heavier shot charges to higher velocities & produce heavier recoil for rather obvious reasons. NO INDEED, it was dealing strictly with target loads, & I ask What poweder is more typical of a fast burn powder for target loads than ""RED DOT"". The whole discussion centered around the fact it burned ""Slower"". In fact the only other powder mentioned on those two pages is Red Dot, & though they did not "Directly State" this was the comparsion powder it was rather obvious. This guide also give a "Relative Quickness" figure based on Bullseye as 100%. ReDot is 94.1%, American Select 81% & Green dot 77.9% with Unique @ 61.6% so American Select & Green Dot are so close together one wonders why they chose to make both.
If you cannot understand that is diametrically opposed to Thomas' theory then you best go back to "Understanding Reading 101".
I will see if I can figure out how to post a scan for all to see, I don't want anyone taking this just on my word, but let the facts speak for themselves. If not I will be hollering for someone to post it for me from an E-Mail once I get it scanned in.
Further for all there is a very good discussion on recoil contained in Hatcher's Notebook. He there assigns a value to the velocity of the escaping gasses as 4700 fps. Since this is an extremely hard item to measure he further states that for most shotgun, pistols & ordinary rifles a very good approximation of the total recoil element can be obtained by multiplying the powder wt times 1.5. Thus if you were calculating the recoil for say 1oz (437.5grs) shot 30 grs of wadding with a 20 grain powder charge you would use 30 for the powder rather than 20.
Note also that when we speak of slow & fast powders tihis is a relative term, in the total powder spectrum ""ALL"" shotgun powders are Fast.
The reasoning Alliant used is theoreticly true & corresponds exactly with that laid out by FNB25 several posts back. With all due respect to both, I am at this point in time throughly convinced that within the realm of powders suitable for a given load the various factors more or less cancel one another & that differences are of too mimnute a nature to be determined by human feel, unless there is some vast differences in the basic make up of the load.
Based upon IMI's statements, which I have no reason to dispute, I can only surmise they were in fact & indeed testing one of the dense powders against one of the older bulk powders which greatly different wt of the powder charge would account for an ""ACTUAL"" increase in the recoil. If I am not badly mistaken bulk powders had a far longer common usage in the UK than in the US. DuPont bulk shotgun powder was available even here until around the 1960's though by then was not too often used, & was predominately sold to re-loaders.
The fact that Thomas gave us ""NO"" particulars of the test as to what in fact was used, makes it worthless for determing much of anything & his reasoning is simply Ludicrous, certainly not worthy of anyone Claiming to be an Engineer. I am not an engineer but in 35 years of machine shop experience with most of it related to the aero-space industry I certainl hob-nobbed with a lot of good ones & can simpl;y not imagine a single one of them coming up with the conclusion that the recoil was simply "Too Quick" to feel from the fast powder.

Hi Daryl,
I left it out deliberately because I was mainly talking about true recoil. Regarding stock fit, I believe the cut of the butt, commonly referred to as pitch, is important, when correct, as it will give maximum contact between the butt and the shoulder pocket, spreading the recoil impact out over the most meat. I know lots of people like to say things like proper stock fit will "eliminate" the effects of recoil. If that were true, millions of people are wasting billions of dollars, every year, on various gadjets and internal barrel magic, some that work and many that are mainly BS.
In any case, I would call the effect of stock fit important, but not "huge". And it has no effect on true recoil, which is the best place to start, IMO.
Thank you,

Miller, comparing fast to slow . . . doesn't that depend on what you're comparing something to?? Take a baseball pitcher who's a junkman, lots of slow curves and changeups. His fastball, even if only mid-80's, is going to look fast in comparison. Bring in Nolan Ryan, however, and 85 will look very slow.

Just like you, my information comes straight from an Alliant reloader's guide--but about 10 years newer than yours. (Don't know if that necessarily makes any difference.) I quoted straight off a list in which Alliant says: "These are listed in the order of decreasing burn rates." Same order as yours: Bullseye 1, Red Dot 2, then American Select and Green Dot. But addressing the issue of frequently-used shotgun powders, and recognizing that Bullseye's "principal use" is in handgun loads, the only faster common Alliant shotgun powder is Red Dot . . . while there are 3 Alliant shotgun powders that are slower. So they are faster burning, compared to Unique, Blue Dot, and Herco. And depending on what one considers a "target" load, there are plenty of relatively mild 1 1/8 oz 12ga offerings using either Unique or Herco. And when you drop down to 20ga, you get pretty much nothing but GD, Unique and Herco in 7/8 oz target loads (although I shoot a really nice 3/4 oz 20ga load with American Select). And it's not like recoil disappears when you're shooting a 20ga--especially if you're shooting 7/8 oz target loads in both the 12 and the 20, and the 20 is likely to be a lighter gun.

Jim, when you brought up recoil pads, I thought you were soliciting comments on felt recoil, too. Can we say that stock design , then, is sort of huge ?

When the weather is nice on Sunday afternoons, a group will wander over to a friend's ranch and shoot some clay birds. We usually bring two or three guns each and do a bit of shooting and some show and tell. I try to bring the same gauge each time to be able to use a box or two of the same shells. When a gun is interesting, others shoot it , too. What we have noticed is that some guns "kick" more than others, using the same ammo. Sure, weight could have something to do with it, but not always. Some guns slap your cheek, and sometimes the lightest gun feels like it kicks less. This happened a few weeks ago with a 5 1/4# Manufrance Ideal. I fully expected, as did a couple of other shooters, for it to kick more, but not so. We kind of laughed about it and might give it some "carrying" time this fall.

Hi Daryl,
I would surely expect that 5-1/2 lb gun to kick the snot out of anyone. It IS a 12 gauge, yes? My 5-1/2 lb AYA 28 ga. kicks me as hard with normal 3/4 oz. loads as my 8 lb. 12, with 7/8 oz. loads(in the 12). i'm getting excited about the Nimrod Classic. We're starting to check out lodging in the area. If you have any recommendations, I would appreciate an email about some.

I'll go along with "sort of huge".
Thank you,

Oh Larry, Larry;
Yes yes, I see where your info is coming from. My old manual here has the exact same wording under "Remarks" for the powders.
Red Dot = More "100 Straights" have been shot with Red Dot than all other powders combined'
American Select = Our newest premium target powder, Ultra clean burning, Slow pressure rise for less shot deformation, tighter patterns, less felt recoil.
Green Dot = Produces tight, uniform patterns and soft felt recoil in 1 and 1 1/8 oz 12ga shotshell loads.
Unique = A versatile all-around powder for over 100 years, handgun to shotgun.
Herco = A proven powder since 1920 for the ultimate in 12ga, 1¼ oz upland game loads.
Blue Dot = The powder of choice for 1¼ to 2 oz Magnum shotshell Hunting loads.

So Larry answer your own Question, to what indeed, are they comparing the less/soft felt recoil of American Select & Green Dot. You say they did not make such statements about the slower powders, I say they "Also did Not " say it about the faster burning Red Dot or Bullseye.. Secondary use for Bullseye is listed as light 12ga target loads.
In this older manual which was in fact introducing the new American Select, as I pointed out they devoted two pages to showing exactly what the comparsion was to, "A Typical Fast Burning Target Powder" That Larry was "Red Dot".

I quote directly from this guide;
""Alliant Powder's ballistics research has demonstrated if it has a FAST burn rate and QUICK pressure rise, it can give you flattened and deformed pellets"" After some discussion of the effect on patterns this follows; ""There's another side benefit of American Select's burn rate, too-less felt recoil. It's more like a PUSH than a PUNCH, so at the end of a long day, you'll be ready for those late shoot-offs.

A "Push" is slow in comparsion to a "PUNCH" Larry. This is the ""EXACT OPPOSITE"" of Thomas' reasoning.
If you still can't understand that, then I have made a Terrible Mistake, I had credited you with having at least some intelligence.
At this point I am not even trying to determine whether Thomas or Alliant is right , but to simply get you to see they are opposite in their conclusions. Personally, you see, I think they are both wrong. I think "BOTH" IMI & Alliant were/are puttting out Propaganda for the purpose of an attempt to increase sales of a particular line of powder. It matters not they were already selling the powder they were supposed to be improving upon, this is done everyday in advertizing. Just look at all the products which are "Perfect" today & tomorrow they'll introduce the "New & Improved" version.
Remember the old Burma Shave roadside signs in which they so ran down a mug/soap/brush method of shaving. Do an E-Bay search on Burma Shave & see just how many Mug/Soap/Brush combos come up bearing a Burma Shave logo. Wonder where they all came from, surely Burma Shave would not have bad-mouthed a combo they were in fact selling ""WOULD THEY"".
There is an old saying that about 98% of advertizing is not to help you solve a problem, but to convince you that you actually have a problem.Once convinced you have the problem then you will likely look to the one who convinced you for the solution. Most people would have never felt they had a problem with recoil while shooting mild target loads from a heavy gun had they never been so inundated with "Snake Oil" cures for it.

2-piper:(quote) Most people would have never felt they had a problem with recoil while shooting mild target loads from a heavy gun had they never been so inundated with "Snake Oil" cures for it.(quote) Amen.

I, for one, am still not convinced I have a problem with recoil from shotgun loads. This whole thread just amazes me, that so many people actually think the difference in recoil from one 1 1/8 oz. load to another 1 1/8 oz. load at anything within 200 fps of each other is even worth mentioning. Regardless of the differences in powder charge weight, NONE of them kick enough to be even worthy of mention.

Much ado about nothing.

Yeah right, much ado about nothing. Ten thousand trap shooters with flinches and release triggers is nothing.

That ninth 1/8 ounce is Kryptonite...every Superman succumbs eventually.

Not all trap shooters flinches are caused by recoil. I shoot sporting, not trap, but I know a little something about flinches. I have suffered from a flinch, that recurs from time to time, for several years. All flinches are not caused by recoil sensitivity. I do not argue that some are, but a great many are caused by something far more complex and difficult to diagnose than merely reducing the shell payload. I was flinching up to seven or eight times in a round of 100 targets, and was convinced it had nothing to do with recoil. So, on a lark, I went from 1 oz. loads to 1 1/8 oz., at the same velocity, around 1250 fps. The flinch almost went away. My shooting improved to the point that I moved up three classes, after going to a heavier load. I'm not claiming that the extra 1/8 oz. caused the improvement, just that it certainly has not hurt anything. I now sometimes shoot several hundred consecutively without a flinch. Then, I may flinch twice in a round. Nothing to do with recoil.

I shot the Palmetto Cup last weekend and during the Prelim I was squadded with gentleman who was shooting a release trigger. We discussed flinches a great deal and he agreed with me that not all flinches are caused by recoil. Even if they were, the few extra grains of powder in a load with a different burn rate powder would not cause a flinch, nor would eliminating the extra powder eliminate the flinch.

To assume that all flinches are caused by recoil is akin to saying that all car wrecks are caused by drunk drivers.

That's amazing. I wonder how much your shooting would improve if you upped that 1 1/8 ounce load to 1450 fps? Surely the recoil wouldn't be worth mentioning.

mike,

Do you personally find the difference in the recoil of a 1150 fps load that much different than that of a 1250 load, or a 1350 fps load (200 fps maximum difference there)?

And did you not read where I said "I'm not claiming that the extra 1/8 oz. caused the improvement, just that it certainly has not hurt anything"? You seem to be reading into my post(s) a claim that upping the load helped, when I was simply stating that the increased load (and it's supposed greatly noticeable increase in recoil) did not hurt or hinder anything.

I just find it incredulous that there are that many shooters out there that worry over the difference in recoil of a load with maybe 10 more grains of propellant, or 1/8 oz. of shot. You stated that "every Superman succumbs eventually". I disagree with that blanket statement. I know sporting shooters that put 40,000 - 50,000 rounds of 1 1/8 oz. loads through their guns a year, and have for years, with no flinch problem or other associated problems. According to your statement, they all have their day coming I guess, eh? Flinches are in the books for Digweed, McGuire, Vine, etc., if they don't reduce those loads, and quickly, I guess? Kruger is very recoil sensitive, and shoots loads as light as he can get by with, and is now shooting a release trigger, but Krugers' problem is not everybody's.

Yes, Stan, I do personally feel that their is much greater potential harm than good in the loads you describe. And, frankly, I'm amazed that you or anyone would take such a position...

"Regardless of the differences in powder charge weight, NONE of them kick enough to be even worthy of mention."

...when referring to 1 1/8 ounce @1150 versus same @ 1350 fps.

In your opinion, it's negligible. In my opinion it's severe and foolish. I'd bet cash there are more clays shooters in my camp than yours.

I prefer to use the same load that George Digweed uses to win the FITASC World Championship every now and then. Apparently, 1 ounce is sufficient to break 95+% of any target that can be reasonably attempted with a shotgun....provided the operator is capable.

I've seen what a flinch does to a good shooter and I stepped off the 1 1/8 ounce path 15 years ago. Maybe you will survive, but I'm betting against you. You say you've flinched before. You remind me of a guy playing Russian roulette when the hammer falls on the loaded round but it's a dud. Oh, well....load a fresh round and keep playing. Good luck and best regards.

Thanks, Mike. I DO need the luck. Especially in early June, when I will be shooting in the U.S. Open at Tunica. There may come a time when I feel the need to go back to 1 oz. loads, but right now I'm going to stick with what is working for me. I've made several changes over the last couple years, and everything seems to be "coming together" well.

In the larger tournaments I typically shoot each year in Georgia and South Carolina the top shooters use 1 1/8 oz. loads over 1 oz. probably two to one. Maybe they're the ones that aren't as recoil sensitive, I don't know. I have a habit of picking up empties laying around the shooting box and looking at them.

As I said before, my flinch is not at all recoil related. I NEVER pull the trigger when I flinch. It manifests itself in an inability to pull the trigger when my mind says NOW! Over half the time I can recover quickly and break the bird, many times the pair. If it had been recoil related it would not have gotten way, way better when switching to a heavier payload, but would have only gotten worse.

Thanks for the conversation, always interesting.

A 1 oz. load, going 1250 fps produces 15.9 ft.lbs. of true recoil. Factors used, besides the shot weight and velocity were 17 grains of powder, 40 grains for the wad and an 8 lb. gun. upping the shot load to 1-1/8 oz. and the powder to 19 grains takes the true recoil up to 19.8 ft.lbs., That's an increase of almost 20%.
A load of 1-1/8 oz. of shot at 1150 fps, using 18 grains of powder and the same factors above, produces 16.6 ft.lbs of true recoil. Upping the velocity to 1350 and the powder charge to 20 grains, produces 23.2 ft. lbs. of true recoil. That's an increase of 28%. I can surely feel those increases.
Hard to imagine that anyone would not. However, I'm happy that your flinch was cured by going to a heavier recoiling load. This might be a first, in shotgunning history. Wait 'til the trapshooters find out, they'll all be doing it.

Not cured, Jim, but certainly got a whole lot better. I've talked with several shooters who have the same type flinch that surprises me from time to time, the inability to pull the trigger. None, to a man, believe theirs is recoil related. We all have a somewhat similar theory that it has something to do with being afraid to miss, maybe because the mind thinks the lead is not right or something, thus not letting the trigger be pulled. Funny thing is, I have shot some very good scores on days that I have flinched a time or two in a round. I have noticed that I never have flinched when I make a conscious effort to "slap" the trigger when firing, leading me to believe that many years of pistol and rifle competition where a slow squeeze is required may also have something to do with it.

Oh well, I just hope it doesn't show up in June at the Open.

All my best, Stan

I had an old friend, Joe DiShanni, the Godfather of the San Gabriel Valley Gun Club, in S. California. Joe was a top skeet shooter, in his day and was a trigger slapper. He claimed he was never bothered by different trigger pulls or flinching and I believe he was right. I'd like to learn to slap 'em but haven't been able to master it. I do believe it's a good technique. Maybe in my next 74 years.

Miller, you know of many folks shaving with mug/soap/brush these days? We're talking a product that REPLACED another. Darned if I don't still find Red Dot for sale . . . a whole bunch of it. If you're suggesting that Alliant was trying to phase out Red Dot and replace it with American Select, because the latter has less recoil . . . or Green Dot, for that matter, which has been around far longer than AS . . . well then, apparently their effort was a dismal flop. And I expect you know that Alliant has even gone to the trouble of making "new" Red Dot cleaner burning than their previous formula. So, I repeat: what advantage in trying to promote one powder over another of THEIR OWN powders--especially since it's clear they never had any intention of getting rid of Red Dot?

As for your earlier reference to Thomas and the IMI test on which he reported: Personally, I don't like to make assumptions. You know, the old thing about what happens when you ASS-U-ME. However, given Thomas' experience with guns AND his training as an engineer, I find it hard to accept that he would not have asked about powder weight. Especially so if one of the powders were of the old bulk variety, in which case there would have been a significant weight difference, thus making it very clear why one load would recoil less than the other. But I'll admit we don't know that for sure.

So according to all you train drivers, there's no possibility that duration of a traumatic event could put it below the threshold of neural response? And old Garwood is full of it because he didn't check whether there were both apples and oranges (differing charge wgts) in the ol scientific barrel? So be it. But if I'm to have my head off I'd rather have it off by guillotine than by hacksaw!

jack

Doesn't surprise me at all. His idea that a few thousands of extra headspace, because the rim cut was too deep for the rim thickness of the shells being used, caused significant extra recoil is about as silly as anything I've ever read, here, or elsewhere. The only gun I've ever had that had excessive rim cut depth was a Crescent .410. The result was primer setback, not increased recoil. The shells stayed forward, as they gripped the chamber wall. This is what shells normally do! They didn't come slamming back against the standing breech, as Guffie implied in his ridiculous theory. He probably didn't even know there was a recoil formula, or what the factors involved were.

I had an early 12 ga. NID which was off the face enuf to give a light transmitting breech. Shells rattled when closed. Kicked hard with 1 oz target loads--to the shoulder not the face. Another fellow who shot it commented the same without prompting. Didn't notice protruding primers in the empties; maybe I didn't look. I should have put those little foil washers on the breech wall and run a (subjective) comparison but I didn't so I can't claim that the "cure" proves the existence of the "disease". Maybe there will be an occasion in my first 74 (Coming soon!) to find out for myself in conditions of reasonable scientific rigor.

jack

Well Jim . . . while headspace may not be the problem in all cases, apparently it is in at least SOME cases, and Thomas even provides a "finding out for myself" example:

"In the first case, the cause of the violent recoil was diagnosed as excessive headspace by a gunsmith. I confirmed the reasonableness of this diagnosis and suggested that the shooter should test it by preparing some cartridges with metal-foil discs stuck on their heads so as to fill the headspace. He did this and duly reported, 'I stuck two discs of foil on the ends of ten cartridges with a standard load. The gun shut comfortably. I shot off all these cartridges in five minutes. I did not notice the recoil at all, and shot without any discomfort. Your prescription was perfect.'" Of course we're talking the "sensation" of felt recoil, so I suppose it could have all been in the shooter's head, but there it is. Sometimes a "tinfoil hat" really works.

I have read this before and am immediately struck by the "I did not notice the recoil at all". Went from "violent" to unnoticeable. WOW! That's scientific proof enough for me. I do agree that a tinfoil hat is appropriate.

Using a weight ratio of 100oz gun and 1oz load, the shotgun has moved about one-quarter inch in recoil as the load exits the muzzle (28" barrel). After that the recoil velocity of the gun is what is left for the shooter to deal with. For a given recoil speed, any differences in recoil perception would have to occur within that initial quarter inch of movement.

Never having used a muzzle brake, I take on faith that they work. Savage has a switchable brake on the Long Range Hunter, so it could be tried both ways. The effect of the brake depends on the gun having just got up to full recoil speed as the bullet exits, but not having moved very far.

A gas auto gets a few ounces of internal parts moving backward faster than the overall gun is moving, which exaggerates their momentum compared with the rigid part of the gun. This allows the total momentum of the gun to be the same with the rigid parts moving slower than a fixed breech gun. This apparently happens soon enough during recoil that it is perceived by many shooters of gas guns as easing the bite.

The effect of a muzzle brake is caused by allowing some of the jet gasses to expand angled away from the bore axis. This is a true reduction in recoil. Shotgun porting has the same effect, but to a very small percentage compared to a rifle.

A gas automatic spreads the recoil force out along the time axis. The action does not come unlocked until the shot charge has left the muzzle and pressure is bled off to zero or near zero. The action is then 'floated' momentarily, spreading the recoil out in time. There is also some gas venting which has the same effect as a muzzle brake, and an unavoidable slight loss of muzzle velocity due to the energy tapped off to work the action. Nice explanation with graphs in Butler 'The American Shotgun' Winchester Press.

Larry;
When it comes to advertizing its not for me to determine "WHY" but to simply state the facts. I quoted to you Verbatim from Alliant's own publication where the promoted AS as giving better patterns & reduced recoil than a "Typical Fast Burning Powder", which Larry was Red Dot. In fact I quoted to you from the same publication where they stated RD had produced more 100 straights than all other powders combined. As to why they felt they needed another powder sandwiched in between RD & GD I have no idea not having ESP. The fact is they indeed introduced one. Undoubtably they had invested considerable time & $$$ in that development & wanted to re-coup that investment. What better way to insure acceptable sales than a ""REDUCED RECOIL"" promotion. Further "I DID NOT SAY" that Aliant had any notion of discontinuing sales of RD. I have no idea if they even considered it or not, but they ABSOLUTELY DID ADVERTISE AMERICAN SELECT AS GIVING LESS ""FELT"" RECOIL. The Burma Shave reference was just a non-shooting reference. From 1929-1963 American roadsides were dotted with there catchy litte signs, many of which promoted, their Cream as being "VASTLY SUPERIOR" to the old traditional soap & brush method. Yet during that same exact time frame they also sold sets consisting of a mug, brush & cake of soap, items they vigorously promoted as being totally obsoleted by their Superior product. You have made a large number of very good an educated posts on this forum Larry, but none of them I can think of were related to things of a mechanical nature, but history, models etc such as the one just recently on the French Guild gun.
As to Thomas if he had no more details on the IMI test than he gave to his readers, the best he could have done would have been to kept his mouth shut about it. "IF" on the otherhand he knew them but didn't reveal them that is total "DISHONESTY".
There was a reduction in recoil when going first from BP to bulk smokeless which equiv charge weighed about half as much & again when switching from the bilk to dense smokeless which again cut powder wt by approx half. The were reductions which couold be both "Felt" & "Measured" but the reduction was not so much speed of burn related as it was wt of charge. Over those 50+ years of reading ballistic related items the method of reducing "Felt Recoil" has always been stated to go to a "Slower" burm rate ""ALWAYS"" except for "You & Your Idol". Can you quote any other source which agrees with that stance, & don't try Alliant again, I have already shown their stance takes the opposite tack. Your remarks on their advertizing shows you either have no understanding of ad techniques either or are just too stubborn & hard headed to admit them.

Well Miller, you always quote your machine shop background. Me, I spent a few years in the propaganda business, which is a whole lot like advertising. You don't target YOUR OWN products with an ad; you target the other guy's. If IMI were testing two of its own powders, no reason--from a "bottom line" advantage standpoint--to "prove" that powder A recoils less than powder B, unless they're trying to REPLACE powder B with powder A. I look at it as providing valuable information to the shooter. Do you want to go with the old standby, more 100 straights (was that as a percentage, or was that because so many more shooters reloaded with Red Dot?), or with the new kid on the block that gives less recoil? As for Burma Shave, maybe more profit margin in the canned stuff than the brush etc? Or maybe they wanted to play CYA, providing something for both markets--until the brush etc became obsolete? But I think that's a harder case to make for powder . . . especially in the case of Alliant, since it's clear they had absolutely no intention to dump Red Dot in favor of powders producing less recoil. (So demonstrated, most recently, by the new and cleaner burning Red Dot.)

As for the burn rate of powders . . . you being one of the guys who believes pretty much strictly in what can be MEASURED, not what one "feels" (which, admittedly, is quite subjective) . . . explain this, if you can: If you look at any Alliant book, you will often find a choice of the 3 powders we've been discussing--RD, AS, GD--with all other components exactly the same: hull, primer, wad, listed velocity. So why is it, then, that Alliant lists loads exactly the same, the only difference being the type and amount of powder, that the supposed "reduced recoil" AS and GD loads ALWAYS require more powder? 2 grains more of either AS or GD is quite typical; I can find one GD load requiring 3.5 grains more than the same load using RD. So . . . that much difference should surely show itself in MEASURABLE recoil, should it not? So why does Alliant promote powders requiring a heavier charge as having less felt recoil? Does not compute, if you're working strictly from the math in the formula.

[quote=that much difference should surely show itself in MEASURABLE recoil, should it not?[/quote]

no larry it won't necessarly show itself in measurable recoil for a couple of reasons. first, 3.5 grains out of the total mass of ejecta (say one ounce of shot plus the powder which is miniscule in comparison) would run the calucalable recoil ENERGY up by something less than one foot lb. and that's using a velocity for the powder of 4700 fps which is typical but if anyone referred to the a-squared manual as i suggested about 11 pages back they'd find that value can be anywhere from 2k fps for low velocity/low pressure loads to 7k fps or more for large belted magnum rifles. if you back off that assumed 4700 fps to something more realistic for a shotgun that less than 1ftlb drops to way less than one foot pound.

and second, if the powder has a different and more progressive burn curve and accelerates the shot charge more slowly down the length of the barrel the FORCE generated is much less. that was also pointed out 11 pages back but for some reason third grade math requiring the multiplication of 2 numbers to come up with a third number seems beyond the grasp of many. everyone resorts to comparing recoil by kinetic energy which is no more valid for recoil than it is for killing effectiveness of projectiles. until everyone can get "kinetic energy of recoil" out of their heads, they're never going to get what's going on when a gun recoils.

and if you don't believe acceleration matters, next time you need to stop your car, drive it into a brick wall instead of using your brakes. same amount of energy is expended but one is going to feel a lot worse (and yes i know that's decelleration but the math is the same, just the sign is reversed).

using kinetic energy for comparing recoil is simplistic, rudimentary, and an inaccurate indicator of what's happening but since that's what everybody has read somewhere in a magazine that seems to be all that sticks.

Actually, fnb, I've never seen a formula for recoil that takes acceleration into account. The guys that go by "you have to be able to measure it" haven't plugged that factor into any formula I'm aware of. Now I'm willing to accept that acceleration may indeed matter. And in fact, if the "less felt recoil" stuff is true, it's got to be as a result of something other than just ejecta weight, because there's always more of the slower burning stuff (assuming it really does recoil less) than there is of the faster burning stuff. But assuming said difference is MEASURABLE rather than just FELT (which is subjective), then there's got to be a formula to calculate it . . . right? Do you have one?

Whoa . . . I just had an epiphany in the shower. No, I didn't shout "Eureka!", and I'm not Archimedes. But here goes:

The powders Alliant says will produce less felt recoil (than Red Dot)--Green Dot and American Select--both require a heavier powder charge. On average, around 10% heavier, for a given load. You burn more powder, you buy more powder. Alliant sells more powder, Alliant makes more money. And making more money is a good reason to tout one of their powders over another.

Of course that does leave us with one question: Faster powder=lighter charge=less powder sold=less money for IMI? What are those crazy Brits up to?

Watch their lips: if they move, they're lying. More powder-same payload and velocity = more recoil, both true and perceived.

Well now this has been more "Fun Than a Barrel of Monkeys", more than I've had in a "Coon's Age". It has been absolutely amazing to see just how far Larry will jump around rather than admit "HIS SHINING STAR" just may have had a Tarnished Point. Now indeed ""If the less felt recoil stuff is true"" then ""EVERYONE"", including Alliant' as has been aptly shown, "EXCEPT YOU & THOMAS" agree the push is easier than the punch.
To have spent some time in the propangda field you certainly seem to have a total lack of understanding of advertizing
"You don't target YOUR OWN products with an ad; you target the other guy's."
I just pointed out to you Larry via a direct word for word quote how Alliant promoted American Select on its introduction. There had indeed been a time frame where RD was about the only game in town for 12ga target loads & certainly this accounted for its wide spread use & many of its 100 straights. Times though were a'changing. New powders were being &/or had been introduced with burn rates very close to Red Dot, many of which had been receiving rave reviews in the gun rags. When GD had been introduced this big thing about "Felt Recoil" had not really received a lot of attention & it had not really been pushed as a reason for switching from RD to GD. GD had been brought out to give more or less identical performance at an acceptable pressure level using the newer compression formed hull in conjunction with one piece plastic wadding as RD had enjoyed throughout the paper hull with card & filler wad days. Certainly there was incentive for Alliant to promote it against a whole class of powders of similar chracteristics which even included their own Red Dot. With your background in "Propangda" though Larry you should be the one "Explaining This to Me" rather than the one catagorically denying it. I do realize of course to do so "Knocks your Idol off his Pedastal" as it directly opposes his view.

This is of course not an absolute given. Back when I began reloading in the late 50's a 3DE- 1 1/8oz load with "Both" Red Dot & Unique was listed as a charge wt of 23gr's. The oldest manual I have with any pressure data (LUP) is dated 1963 & still using paper hulls & card & fiber wads shows these exact charges. The Red Dot load had a MV over the first 15 Ft of travel 27 fps faster than the Unique load, but at a cost of 1450 more PSI. The RD load already exceed 10K & this measured in LUP's. The big switch in more efficient components during the 60's had actually moved the best range of RD from 1-1 1/8oz to the position of 7/8-1oz with GD taking its place for the 1 1/8oz load. But guess What, This bit of ""Felt Recoil"" had not yet reard its Ugly Head & caught widespread atention. An Alliant manual of Just 1 yr earlier than the one introducing AS did not even mention recoil at all in relation to any powder. It was apparently just assumed (Yeah that word again) that folks would relate recoil to the wt of the gun versus the delivered balistics, not how fast the powder did or didn't burn. As by the mid 90's this term of Felt Recoil was gaing acceptance the time was certainly ripe for for the introduction of a new powder (Listed & priced as a premium one) designed for "Less Felt Recoil" & also Better Patterns due to its ""SLOWER"" burn rate, thus they devoted two pages of this '96 manual to it. Burn rate is nearly identical to Green Dot so obiviously was not in comparsion to it. They merely aded the word "Soft Recoil" to the remarks section of that powder. As it had a "Faster" burn rate than Unique, Herco or Blue Dot, that couldn't be the comparsion as they emphatically stated it was due to its ""Slower"" burn. That leaves only Red Dot & Bullseye. In the realm of shotgun propellants Bullseye had just barely begun to be listed & only in loads of 1oz @ 1200fps or lighter, so could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered a "Typical Fast Burning Powder" for use in target loaded shotshells in 1996. No Larry, Red Dot & those powders of a like burn rate by competitors were what the comparison was to, there is simply too much evidence here to deny what Alliant was referring to. If you would just forget everything Thomas said on this subject & carefully analyse this from a viewpoit relating to your "Expertise" in Propangda you will I believe have to agree that virtually every thing I have said is totally true. I have in fact given direct quotes for the meat of it, with little left to opinion.
""IF"" you want to simply refuse to accept facts because they differ from Thomas there is simply nothing left to say.
All of this doesn't even address whether or not a difference is in reality feelable, but simply to point out the obvious that Thoms & Alliant took an opposite viewpoint on what they stated to be the cause.

http://kwk.us/recoil.html has a calculator that outputs recoil momentum, velocity, and energy. It give a discourse on the formulas used, including the effect of the escaping gas velocity, and how to estimate gas velocity. You can choose which gas velocity to input either directly or as a factor that multiplies the charge weight.

Peak recoil acceleration is discussed and dismissed as happening within a few hundredths of an inch movement. Example, a .308 Win and .300 Wby have about the same peak acceleration, but much different recoil overall.

Recoil sharpness due to the gun reaching full speed in less time is considered, but does not seem to be the answer.

A method developed by John Barsness is also considered.

Rifle recoil is the main subject at this site.

A shotgun site with formulas is http://zknives.com/bali/brcstgn.shtml . Takes a little work to understand the math. I see this site uses 1.5 times the muzzle velocity for charge velocity.

What crap! What is there to not understand about impulse and momentum? ACCELERATION RATES PEOPLE!!

Faster burn = Steeper pressure curve = Higher rate of acceleration

Just like I mentioned before, a quick thump vs a not so quick thump.

Seems like everything besides the phase of the moon has been added to this and the simple fact is the only aspect that has any bearing is the rate of acceleration.

I guess the problem with grammar and spelling here is really of minor consequence considering the general denial of usually accepted laws of physics.

WtS

PS - you all left out paper base wads vs plastic base wads vs paper hulls vs one piece plastic hulls. Not to mention primer brand and rolled or 5 or 6 fold crimps. And I thot you were serious about resolving this.

BTW - Win AA handicaps kick like a MF'er compared to Gold Medals and the AA has this teeny tiny little charge of ball powder. OH WAIT!! - a low mass powder charge kicks less. I better get this off to Win so they can use it in their adverts.

"BTW - Win AA handicaps kick like a MF'er compared to Gold Medals and the AA has this teeny tiny little charge of ball powder. OH WAIT!! - a low mass powder charge kicks less. I better get this off to Win so they can use it in their adverts."

And what are the velocities of the Gold Medals, compared to the Win AA handicap MF'ers?

They are both ATA 3dr max handicap loads.

I still have nine boxes of the AA's left in a flat that I won at a shoot in Fresno about 15 yrs ago. Maybe someday I'll use them for pigeons since I will most certainly never use them for ATA.

Even the GM 3 1/4 - 1 1/4 factory pigeon loads are easier than the AA's.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with burn rates tho.

over and out

WtS

Seems we've come full circle....recent comments are now as silly as the original quote.

"They are both ATA 3dr max handicap loads."

And the velocities are?????

Our members seem to have access to vast libraries of literature concerning the shooting sports. Has anyone researched the origin of the term 'felt recoil'?

Do we know when this first appeared and whom to credit (blame)?

That person was the culprit.

This thread has reminded me of Abbott's 'Flatland'.

To be fair, most everyone here appears to have some math/physics coursework. Neurophysiology? Uh, no. So it's not surprising folks are apt to view shotgun recoil as though shotguns were rail-mounted artillery pieces - forgetting that people fire shotguns. What we really care about isn't a calculation of energy, force, moment, power, eieio. We care about what we feel. And every single recoil impulse we feel throughout our lives is conducted to, and processed by, our brains.

Nor am I surprised by some pretty silly ideas (preconceptions, really) about what humans can or cannot discriminate. If I can't consciously detect different rates of payload acceleration......in 5 shots or less......well, that proves that noone can. Not even over a lifetime, right?

But then......there's something called a flinch. A flinch is of interest because it is caused by the cumulative, non-conscious effects of recoil over time.

Gosh, it's as if the brain is able to perceive something that.......

Nah, can't be.

Sam

I didn't have the gumption to read 13 pages of opinion, but here is a bit of info from an aero engineer specializing in propulsion. Yes, burnt powder and gas IS an ejecta. You figure the powder weight and use 50% more velocity than the bullet/shot velocity up to a maximum of 4000 Ft/sec. Why? Because some fine soul measured it empirically and back calculated how to do it analytically. It was long before Sherman Bell, so it wasn't him. Lots of things enter into related calculations. For example, an increase in temperatures will increase pressure but decrease burn time so that the total impulse will remain the same.

Now felt recoil is a great opinion subject. There was the guy in Texas who fired his Weatherby rifle from a tree blind. The Italian maker of the stock forgot to put a pin through the wrist and the poorly grained wood in the wrist broke in two and the front part of the gun came back and cold cocked the shooter in the eye and nose. Hmmm, what was the FELT recoil? Next to nothing. There was less recoil on the rifle butt, and the rendering unconscious for 5 hours sort of dissipated the felt recoil, at least for 5 hours.

Now a great topic would be the design modifications to gunstocks to lessen felt recoil. Let's see, some variables would be area of butt, type of recoil pad, LOP, cast, drop, pitch, whatever you call the changing of the angle of butt relative to longitudinal axis, straightness of stock, weight, counter weights,.. who can add another dozen or so things?

Another interesting subject might be listing the things that effect felt recoil like...type and amount of adult beverage consumed the night before, amount of time spent teaching your son how to throw a fast ball and curve the day before, amount of aspirin consumed following the aforementioned sports, etc. How about a couple hundred suggestions on this topic?

Miller, apparently--in spite of going WAY over your bandwidth allotment in your last post--you neglected to read the nice, concise one just above it. Which I have included here. Jim's post seems to put him into agreement with Thomas as well, because there's always less of the faster powder . . . or rather, always less of Red Dot than either GD or AS. Which were the 3 powders we were discussing, until you decided to launch another diversionary smokescreen.

Larry; I can't really answer for Jim, but I have been reading his posts here long enough I can "POSITIVELY" tell you HE Don't Agree with Thomas. You obviously haven't read his other posts. NoBody Larry Agrees with that Ludicrous statement "NOBODY" but You. Not Wonko, read his post, Not FNB25, red his, Definitely not Alliant, I quoted them. NoBody Larry, believes a gun can accelerate so fast you won't feel it as much; ""NOBODY"" But You.

No-o-o--body but no-o-o--body? You sound like the car dealer in Indianapolis who sponsored the late nite movie, Pipes. I'm not particularly "allergic" to Garwood's speculation of an insult to the shoulder that sneaks under the neural threshold. I don't know that it's more than speculation but I don't break out in hives when I read it.

jack

Miller, for everything you read, you certainly do a great job of misquoting me. Where did I say that I BELIEVE that? I posted a THOMAS quote as HIS theory, not mine. But Jim's quote above is crystal clear: faster burning powder is going to recoil less if there's less of it . . . and, in the case of RD vs GD or AS, there's always less RD. And I don't believe Alliant made any statement as to WHY one feels more or less recoil with this or that powder. All they said is that their slower-burning powders recoil less . . . which contradicts the formula, if you go strictly by how much RD you use, vs GD or AS. And which contradicts what Jim posted. So you can hang with Alliant if you want, but in doing so, you seem to be contradicting . . . yourself.

Alliant uses the term 'felt recoil'. They don't state their slower powders produce less recoil... less 'felt recoil'. It's advertising license, where lying is allowed. Like poker and politics.

That's why they use the term. There are lots of very real and logical reasons for "felt recoil" being less than true or free recoil. Recoil pads, built-in shock absorbers, the cycling of a gas auto vs. a fixed breech gun, etc. However, many times the term is wrongly used to justify the unjustifiable nonsense put out by the seller of the latest snake-oil idea.

Yup. Felt recoil is indeed subjective . . . but at the same time, it means more to the guy on the receiving end than what the "book" tells him. In addition to the points Jim made, factors like hearing protection also play a role: it sounds louder, you think it kicks more.

Go back to the 2002 Alliant Guide. At that date, perceived recoil was treated as a fun conundrum: paraphrastically the upshot was that "some reloaders" found RD kinder to the shoulder and "others" perceived less recoil with GD. Guess they wanted us to buy a lb. of ea. and conduct a powder "tasting". Now they're TELLING us which one kicketh more gently? I'd say they've joined Garwood in the looney bin. I still look on Garwood's scribbling with affection. Beats counting sheep.

jack

Well Larry, DO YOU Believe That???? You're an Idiot if you do, but not near as big a one as you would be if you have been going through 13 pages here, spouting his theory, twisting everything anyone says to try & make it fit to Thomas's theory. Shotgun Jones just confirmed that Alliant did in fact use the term "Felt" & talk about misquoting Larry I quoted you from their guide their exact words that the American Select gave ""Less Felt Recoil" because it burned slower. There is absolutely no way you can read into any of Jim's posts that he ascribed to Thomas's theory of less felt recoil because it was "So Fast" you didn't have the time to feel it.
So now after 13 pages of this you're going to be like a gutless rat on a sinking ship & desert Thomas are you & say you never believed him anyway, You Larry are the Scum of the Earth!!!!. Your colors have come through LOUD & CLEAR. From this moment forward I will never again post a reply to anything you say. GoodBy.

C'mon guys what are we talking about here? Popgun loads. You can't put RD behind anything heavier than 1.125 oz. anyway. So one gun gives some long-necked type faceslap and a mouse under the eye and a guy with a bad shoulder needs a Reactor falsie to precent volume target loads making it act up and your 12 yr old thinks it sort of hurts the first time because she expects it will and maybe there's not enuf flab to soak it up. It takes approximately 160-200 of those Remington Goldies going 1330 to give even a little feller like me a nitro headache and my shoulder's hardly sore the next day. Have I ever had a "sticky" trigger and staggered forward from the line? You bet? So the neural system is making decisions to avoid an accumulation of minor traumas. Seems like some shooting Doc should have hooked himself and some buddies onto an EEG looking for evidence of varying neurological response to a given, calculated recoil force created by whatever propellant and payload might be revealing. A cf. of slow powders might be in order and maybe payloads 1.25oz or heavier so we're certain we're not just complaining about raising the gun to the shoulder a few hundred times and squinting into the sun.

jack

Wow. Miller, I guess you woke up on the wrong side of the bed. If you can't quote someone correctly and try to put words in their mouth, that's YOUR problem, not the person you're misquoting. Don't blame me when you get caught . . . sort of like a rat in a corner, going back to your rat reference.

Here's my view: Frankly, I don't know how many people can tell the difference in recoil between 18 grains of RD, 19 of AS, and 20 of GD--all other components the same, and all pushing the same 1 oz payload at the same 1200 fps velocity (straight out of the Alliant book). I'm not sure I can tell the difference reliably enough to say "That one had to have been the RD load, but this one was the GD load." It would be interesting to do a blind test. But I'd bet you would not get a unanimous vote. That being said, I do believe that people "feel" recoil differently. Why shouldn't people sense recoil differently, since we all accept the fact (or at least I think we do) that different people have different thresholds of pain, which is also a sensation?

As for Thomas, to me his explanation of WHY one feels less recoil with a fast-burning powder is a THEORY . . . and nothing more. However, those who believe that what one feels (all other factors being equal) is based only on what can be MEASURED, end up AGREEING with Thomas' CONCLUSION--that the faster burning powder recoils less--if not with his THEORY. Because as one can easily conclude, simply by looking at Alliant reloading data, there is always LESS Red Dot in a comparable load than there is either American Select or Green Dot. And when you plug the numbers into the formula, less powder = less recoil. If in fact a blind test were to establish that all shooters (or a significant majority) feel less recoil with an AS or GD load vs RD, then there must be something about the burn rates of the powders (acceleration???) that isn't factored into the formula for computing recoil--but should be.

So . . . Alliant says reduced recoil with either American Select or Green Dot. The formula tells us Red Dot should produce less measurable recoil. Poor old, dead Gough Thomas agrees with the measurable recoil formula, whether you like his "sensation" explanation or not. Me . . . I don't know, and I don't really care. The only thing I care about is that since Red Dot, Green Dot, and American Select all cost the same at my club, and since the recipes call for less Red Dot, unless I get more "felt recoil" from Red Dot, that's what it makes bottom line sense for me to buy and use.

"unless I get more "felt recoil" from Red Dot, that's what it makes bottom line sense for me to buy and use."

Oh, Larry, you should know that Red Dot SMELLS so much better than Green Dot. THAT fine latikia is why we prefer it!

Well Lary I will go slightly back on my word & reply just once more. My memory Larry is perhaps a little better than yours. The first mention I ever heard of Thomas "Recoil Theory" (I had heard of Thomas, but not read him) came from you. You in fact made a post here some good time back in which you stated "HE" had done a blind test & found that faster powders gave less "Felt" recoil than slower ones & as this seemed to cantradict what others were stating what would account for that. At the time I responded & stated that most likely there was enough difference in tt of the powder charges that the slower powder loads did in fact give an "Actual" heavier recoil. You then stated this could not account for it as the small change of charge wts would certainly not give enough difference for a unaimous decision. Later I did have opportunity to read Thomas for myself & learned He didn't actually perform the test but reported on one done by a Commercial ammunition maker of unstated date & no particulars of the actual loads used etc, etc quoted. When the subject camde up at a later date I "Opined" that no doubt this "Test" was staged by IMI as "Propaganda to enhance sales of a particular line for them & that most likely it compared a load containing a dense powder against one of the older bulk type. You again flatly denied this could have even been a possibility & further stated they would have had no reason to do so as they made "Both Types" of powder. You then flatly denied that Alliant would have cited one of their powders as giving less Felt recoil than another powder they themselves produced, until faced with irrefutable facts to the contra, then you tried to twist it to make it conform with Thomas' "Theory". Finally upon being proved wrong about that you have now decided that was "Your" stand all along. My stand has been totally consistent IE that IMI "Staged" a test guaranteed to put a line of sheels they were making in good light, & that further Alliant jumped on the bandwagon of increasing "Propangada" on this "Felt Recoil" bit to introduce & promote a "New Powder" @ a "Premium" price. As one claiming to be conversant with "Propangda" this should be readily understandable, even I can grasp it with no difficulty.
If we take a 1oz shot wt, an estimated wad wt of 35grs & a powder charge wt of 18 vs 20 grs (RD vs GD) the total ejecta wt varies by .4% rather insignificant. I have no way of citing an actual diference in rate of acceleration, but in this case would also be very slight & in an offsetting direction to the charge wts. My stance Larry has been, is & will continue to be, unless shown by provable facts that recoil with any powder suitable fo a given load is primarily dependant upon total wt of ejecta & actual velocity of the load. All other factors make up only a very minor & virtually insignificant portion of it. These factors are both measurable & calculatable. So-called evidence I have seen opposing this has been for the most part simply lacking in significant data to support the claims. No Larry my stance has been totally consistent & has not been "Proven Wrong". I am not the one resembling a "Cornered RAT". To see that you need only take a gander in a mirror.

"All other factors make up only a very minor & virtually insignificant portion of it."

See what I mean? Oblivious to the complexities of modern life and physics. Must be nice to live in such a simple world.

And BTW, 3dr in modern definitions is 1.125oz at 1200FS. ATA mandated and factory certified for both AA's and GM's.

no JMO's on this one

WtS

Miller, once more a whole bunch of bandwidth . . . and while you criticize Thomas for making assumptions about the IMI test (which I admitted, on rereading, that he did not conduct himself), you end up making even more assumptions than he did. Like it's a bulk powder vs a more modern, denser type. Well . . . if we assume (please note: here I admit that I'm making an assumption) that whatever the two types of powder IMI tested cost the same based on weight--and I would note, at least where I buy my powder, that RD/GD/AS all cost the same (thus punching a large hole in your "premium price" argument)--then it would be bass ackwards for IMI to promote the faster burning powder, because that's bad for their bottom line. (Remember my "eureka" post, when I pointed out that from a "bottom line" standpoint, Alliant has a very good reason to promote GD or AS over RD? You use more GD or AS; Alliant sells more powder; Alliant makes more money. Simple as that . . . and certainly makes sense from a propaganda/advertising point of view, at least.) Of course I suppose those crazy Brits could be bass ackwards. Just nice guys, doing the shooters a favor by saving them money on powder, assuming the fast burning stuff sells for the same price as the slow burning stuff--which it does, on this side of the pond.

And Miller, once you untwist yourself, you'll find that in fact you AGREE with Thomas' conclusion, because he also concludes that the faster powder recoils less. It's just that you don't happen to agree with his "sensation" theory, but that's pretty much immaterial, since you haven't been able to disprove it either. But you both end up in the same place, albeit having taken different roads to get there.

According to the experts, the ATA only mandated 3 DE; they've never specified velocity.
The factory (SAAMI) definition of 3 DE is 1200 +/- 90 fps.

Not JMO.

A drams is a weight which equals 1/7000lb, 1/16 oz or 27.34375 grains. Always has been & still is. 3 drams then = to 82.03125 grains. This was a common load in black Powder days.
In "Modern Definitions" the correct term is "Drams Equivelent". This term was set up to convey to a shooter the power level of what he was shooting when he was still familar with black powder. It has stayed with us for years. Nominal velocity for a 3 DE charge behind 1 1/8oz of shot has been set as 1200 fps as stated. However a 3 DE charge can be used behind other shot weights than 1 1/8oz. The velocity will then vary according to wt of the shot. As I recall 3 DE with 1oz of shot goes to about 1255 fps, while with 1¼oz it drops to around 1135 or so, don't have a chart of these in front of me currently. Thus a 3 DE listing means that the powder charge regardless of its actual type, wt or whatever will produce a velocity level nominally equal to that of 3 drams of black by weight for the amount of shot used. Nothing more, nothing less. In years past I bought a large number of factory loaded 12ga shells on which was marked 3Drams Equiv-1oz #8, #6 etc according to shot size. These were the "Economy" shells in those days, now-a-days these loads all contain 3¼ DE which gives a nominal 1290fps to the 1oz of shot to insure working a gas gun adequatly.

Better now, IMO, that ammo makers are putting velocity on shotshell boxes rather than the old DE. Too many numbers to remember under the old system, especially if you happen to shoot different gauge guns. A Winchester chart I have lists the 3 1/4-1 1/8 load at 1255 fps in 12ga but 1295 fps in 16ga. 3DE/1 oz 12ga is 1290 fps, per the same chart.

Larry;
I took my figures from the Alliant manual. They agree with your numbers with the exception of the 3-1 12ga. The higher velocity given for 16ga over 12ga would be accounted for by the fact if you put the same powder charge under the same shot wt in a smaller bore higher pressure will be generated so a higher velocity obtained.
Alliant lists for the 16ga as follows;
2½-1 = 1165
2 3/4-1 =1220
3-1 = 1275
2 3/4-1 1/8 = 1185
3-1 1/8 = 1240
3¼-1 1/8 = 1295
3¼-1¼ = 1185
These have all been industry standards for as long as I can remember, including the 3-1 in 12ga @ 1255. I am thinking Win may have made a misprint on that one & meant it to be for the 3¼ de load. I cannot recall having even seen a 3de-1oz factory load for many a year now, they seem to have been totally replaced by the 3¼de load in deference to the autos.
I agree, the marking system has been long overdue for an overhaul. The BP equivelents have little meaning except to a handful of us old timers anymore. "US" refering to me & any others which still enjoy burning a little charcoal along.

Miller, it's the AAHLA12 AA target load, per the Winchester book. Same load is listed in John Taylor's "Shotshells and Ballistics" at 1300 fps. I think it is the same load as Remington's STS Premier Nitro 27 Handicap load, which is also listed at 1290 fps with an ounce of shot. However, under the DE line, Remington did not list a number (as they do on most of the rest of their loads)--rather, just "HNDCP". Taylor lists that Remington load at 1300 fps, which is consistent with his listing for the Winchester load.

Larry;
Hmm, does seem to be some inconsistences here in the designations. I don't have copies of those books, but understand I am in no way doubting your word on this. Everything however I can come up with which gives a DE vs velocity gives the 3-1 load at a nominal 1255 with a 1290 vel for the 3¼-1 load. This had seemingly been very consistent over the last 50+ years with the exceptions you mention.
My personal favorite for a 12ga 1oz load is to not exceed 1200fps which can be loaded to both a pressure level consistent to older doubles & a mild recoil in even light wt guns. My first experience with loading shells of this level came many years ago when I purchased a lot of the then new Hy-Score powder (pre 700X) & loaded 1oz loads to a nominal 1150fps @ about 8K psi. I fired a large number of these loads afield through a pre 1900 J P Clabrough damascus, which I shot extremely well.
I had no qualms then,nor do I now, about using loads with a relatively quick powder @ pressures up to 8K in a damascus gun with good condition bbls having a good wall thickness in the chamber area.

I don't do Damascus (yet!), but agree with you on the lower velocity 1 oz loads, Miller. Reduced recoil, and you can work up some pretty low pressure stuff for older guns. I've been playing around with an American Select recipe in an STS/Gun Club hull, under 1200 fps and about 7,000 psi. Great load in my century-old Lefever 12.

That should be a great load indeed Larry for any sound Lefever. I have essentially settled on Green Dot for loads of this type but the difference between it an AS is virtually nil as regards charge, pressure & vel. I much prefer a load of this general type than one taking a powder out of its originally intended range of use in order to obtain those extremely low pressures down in the 5k range.