doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com 2.75" shells in 2.5" chambers

It amazes me that this discussion continues to come up. I did a test of "perceieved" recoil a couple of years ago by doing a blind test with short and lengthened forcing cones. I had over 300 people shoot my Test gun with identical shells and fill out the questionaire.

I can assure you that you cannot feel minor difference in recoil. You can however, apply your own personal beliefs conciously or unconciously.

I also have a test cradle from my days of testing M14 rifles for accuracy that could be used to test actual recoil I suppose, but any arguments about this subject are of no consequence since no ones mind is going to be changed.

Best, Dick

Larry;
Alliant reloading manual:
Load 1; 12ga 2 3/4" Win AA case, Win 209 primer, Win WAASL Wad, 19gr Red Dot, 1 oz shot, Vel 1255 fps, pressure 10,500 psi.
Load 2; 12ga 2 3/4" Win AA case, Win 209 primer, Win WWAA12F114 wad, 34.5grs Blue dot, 1¼oz shot, Vel 1275 fps, Pressure 9,900 psi.
Now if I am following what you just told me while trying your best to make me look like a total ignorant Fool, load #1 should "Kick Harder" because it has 600 psi more pressure.
Now one more time, Burrard "Did Not Relate" recoil to pressure, he related it to the weight & velocity of the ejecta. "YOU" took what he said out of context & "YOU" said he stated that recoil was increased by that increase in pressure.
Yes the Parker bbl did burst at the weakest popint of the chamber, But the point I was making, As You Well Know, was that it did in fact burst in the chamber & not some distance down the bbl where it was thinner & weaker still. It still showed that the max pressure was located in the chamber area & not 14-16" down the bbl.
As to the test Thomas reported on there is simply not enough detail given to draw a meaningful conclusion, "Period".
Burrard was much more prone to "Over-Detail" than under, to the extent many have stated it is simply too boringly time consuming to read his works. He gave ample evidence that with proper 2½ loads the firing of these loads put up in the 2 3/4" fold crimped case was totally safe & in fact had become the standard practise of the British ammunition makers. What more was needed. Thomas did not recognise this, but rather cited "Other" statements he had made, out of context. Bell stated Burrard totally condemned the use of a 2 3/4" shell in a 2½" chambered gun & that Thomas left much doubt. This can be absolutely verified by reading his article on "Finding out for Myself" whether you want to admit it or not.
I have no idea as to why you have taken it upon yourself to try & disparage everything I say, but there are many others who have expressed appreciation of my posts both publically & by PM. If they are a thorn in your side well so be-it, you best get used to a little prickling, for I intend to stick around.

Just to attest to British ammo makers standard practice here is a page from an Eley catalogue:

2.5"/65mm chambers and 67.5mm cases, oops!

JC

Whatever happened to Dick_dup1 ?

JC

What were the results of your blind test, please? (long vs. short cones)
Thank you,

Miller . . . First of all, paranoia is OK if someone is really "out to get you". I'm not out to get you, and certainly hope you stick around.

Your problem, however, is equivalent to a syndrome well-known in the intelligence business, called "falling in love with your agent". You have this guy who produces wonderful intelligence, you believe everything he says, to the point that you become blind to his shortcomings. Sorry, but comparing Thomas to Burrard on the "long shells in short chambers" issue . . . ALL BURRARD STATED WAS A CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS OK TO USE THEM (if properly loaded). With which I agree. However, Thomas did Burrard one better there, by providing an actual chart of a comparison test--which Burrard never did. That's one case where Burrard most certainly did not provide an excess of detail.

Both Burrard and Thomas needed better editors. What sometimes happens, with individuals recognized as "experts in their field", is that the people doing the editing feel unqualified to make any changes whatsoever. Both Burrard and Thomas, if taken out of context, can be interpreted as saying that you should not use long shells in short chambers, even though both of them reached exactly the opposite conclusion. I do agree with you that Bell is guilty of quoting both of them out of context. I have absolutely no problem "admitting" that. Unlike you and Burrard, I have not fallen in love with either Bell or Thomas to the degree that I cannot see shortcomings in their writing.

If you want to quote me, Miller, you might want to use the quote function--because your "recollections" are often erroneous. I did not say that Burrard related pressure to recoil. What I said was that his statement about an extreme constriction of a case mouth causing a significant increase in pressure can be read as an indirect indication that recoil will increase. I think you'll find that if there is sufficient constriction that you're blowing the mouths off the ends of hulls, that will indeed result in an increase in recoil. Or at least that's what both Thomas and Fergus say. Were Burrard around to comment, I doubt he'd question it either, because he was certainly aware of the problems due to excessive constriction of the case mouth by the forcing cone, since he made those comments in writing.

Sometimes foot in mouth gets the better of me. I have had this for several years and should have known better....



Pete

Well Larry We have beaten this around about enough with nothing accomplished. For the most part on this last post I will simply say "Take a good Long Look in a Mirror"
But let's just get right down to the very Gist of the matter. You have as of yet failed to state even one reason, obivious or otherwise, "WHY" a gun using fast powder would recoil less than one using a slow powder, given equal ballistics "Other Than" a
I do quote Burrard from time to time, because as you have so well pointed out I am not an "Engineer" I am not an "Authority Figure". I have never though, to the best of my recollection asked anyone to buy anything, "JUST" because Burrard said it. I have to the best of my ability tried to include a "Reason" as to "Why" he said it.
I am still begging for one single reason "Why" I should acept the cited "Test" re Fast powder other than "Thomas Said It".

Pete, do not punish yourself.

"Errare humanum est", said the duck getting off the hen.

JC

What amazes me that folks still think 65mm means low pressure or low recoil. It's not always true.