doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com I read it in a magazine...

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.